The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning.

It's my post which you accuse of misquoting, Anthony. If you read it
again, you'll see that I quoted Gary's point in full in my previous
paragraph. So it's clear there was no intention to conceal its context
or alter intended meaning.

Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion
of allotments.
If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. **

**That is untrue, the urg charter says the opposite. Here it is;

charter of uk.rec.gardening.

To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK.
//\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
These will include flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables,
lawns,houseplants, beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting,
design, location, situation, seasons/times, hard structures
(paths,greenhouses, cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds
and pests & diseases.
** This is not meant to be an exhaustive list.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

In the absence of more appropriate, geographically specific newsgroups,
discussion of gardening in Eire, the Channel Islands
and the Isle of Man will also be welcome. Because there are climatic,
legal, cultural and other differences, discussion of
gardening in other parts of the world is OFF TOPIC (there are other
regional gardening newsgroups, and the global
rec.gardens, one of which may be more appropriate). Please note that
this exclusion relates to subject matter, not people, and
posters from around the globe will be welcome to participate in or
initiate discussion of UK-relevant topics.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Specifically, please remember that there is no direct correlation
between US climate zones and the climate of the UK.

(end quote of urg
charter).......................................... ........................

Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which
Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have
long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules,
management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens,
botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings,
etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening.

(Franz said)
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's
nothing unusual.

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just
because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has
chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Look up the requirements for the formation of a new group within the
Big 8 hierarchy on usenet. A new-group proposal is supposed to fill an
empty niche, to provide a discussion opportunity that isn't available
elsewhere. Urg is an active rec.group where discussion of allotments is
on topic, frequent,welcomed, and has covered all the issues Gary claims
to need a new group for.So the fact that what Gary proposes has been
long-established within the same usenet hierarchy, and he doesn't make
use of it, is a relevant issue to informed voters.

I suspect that his earlier claim to be an urg lurker was as inaccurate
as his "summary of the RFD discussion" in the CFV, his claim that the
new group will benefit urg, and your claim about this group's charter.

If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group
within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an
alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of
that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons.

Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-)

Janet

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning.

It's my post which you accuse of misquoting, Anthony. If you read it
again, you'll see that I quoted Gary's point in full in my previous
paragraph. So it's clear there was no intention to conceal its context
or alter intended meaning.

Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion
of allotments.
If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. **

**That is untrue, the urg charter says the opposite. Here it is;

charter of uk.rec.gardening.

To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK.
//\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
These will include flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables,
lawns,houseplants, beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting,
design, location, situation, seasons/times, hard structures
(paths,greenhouses, cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds
and pests & diseases.
** This is not meant to be an exhaustive list.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

In the absence of more appropriate, geographically specific newsgroups,
discussion of gardening in Eire, the Channel Islands
and the Isle of Man will also be welcome. Because there are climatic,
legal, cultural and other differences, discussion of
gardening in other parts of the world is OFF TOPIC (there are other
regional gardening newsgroups, and the global
rec.gardens, one of which may be more appropriate). Please note that
this exclusion relates to subject matter, not people, and
posters from around the globe will be welcome to participate in or
initiate discussion of UK-relevant topics.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Specifically, please remember that there is no direct correlation
between US climate zones and the climate of the UK.

(end quote of urg
charter).......................................... ........................

Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which
Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have
long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules,
management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens,
botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings,
etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening.

(Franz said)
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's
nothing unusual.

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just
because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has
chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Look up the requirements for the formation of a new group within the
Big 8 hierarchy on usenet. A new-group proposal is supposed to fill an
empty niche, to provide a discussion opportunity that isn't available
elsewhere. Urg is an active rec.group where discussion of allotments is
on topic, frequent,welcomed, and has covered all the issues Gary claims
to need a new group for.So the fact that what Gary proposes has been
long-established within the same usenet hierarchy, and he doesn't make
use of it, is a relevant issue to informed voters.

I suspect that his earlier claim to be an urg lurker was as inaccurate
as his "summary of the RFD discussion" in the CFV, his claim that the
new group will benefit urg, and your claim about this group's charter.

If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group
within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an
alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of
that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons.

Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-)

Janet

It must be me, I read that as "Create unmolested newsgroup"

John
--
John Rouse

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning.

It's my post which you accuse of misquoting, Anthony. If you read it
again, you'll see that I quoted Gary's point in full in my previous
paragraph. So it's clear there was no intention to conceal its context
or alter intended meaning.

Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the discussion
of allotments.
If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic. **

**That is untrue, the urg charter says the opposite. Here it is;

charter of uk.rec.gardening.

To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK.
//\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
These will include flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables,
lawns,houseplants, beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting,
design, location, situation, seasons/times, hard structures
(paths,greenhouses, cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds
and pests & diseases.
** This is not meant to be an exhaustive list.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

In the absence of more appropriate, geographically specific newsgroups,
discussion of gardening in Eire, the Channel Islands
and the Isle of Man will also be welcome. Because there are climatic,
legal, cultural and other differences, discussion of
gardening in other parts of the world is OFF TOPIC (there are other
regional gardening newsgroups, and the global
rec.gardens, one of which may be more appropriate). Please note that
this exclusion relates to subject matter, not people, and
posters from around the globe will be welcome to participate in or
initiate discussion of UK-relevant topics.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Specifically, please remember that there is no direct correlation
between US climate zones and the climate of the UK.

(end quote of urg
charter).......................................... ........................

Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which
Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have
long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules,
management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens,
botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings,
etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening.

(Franz said)
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

Not the ones I saw. Allotment posts occur frequently on urg, it's
nothing unusual.

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose just
because the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has
chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Look up the requirements for the formation of a new group within the
Big 8 hierarchy on usenet. A new-group proposal is supposed to fill an
empty niche, to provide a discussion opportunity that isn't available
elsewhere. Urg is an active rec.group where discussion of allotments is
on topic, frequent,welcomed, and has covered all the issues Gary claims
to need a new group for.So the fact that what Gary proposes has been
long-established within the same usenet hierarchy, and he doesn't make
use of it, is a relevant issue to informed voters.

I suspect that his earlier claim to be an urg lurker was as inaccurate
as his "summary of the RFD discussion" in the CFV, his claim that the
new group will benefit urg, and your claim about this group's charter.

If Gary's proposal doesn't meet the required standard to form a group
within the Big 8 hierarchies, he could always go downmarket and start an
alt.group about allotments. Oops, I'm forgetting..he already thought of
that, and got blown out of the water then too, for equally good reasons.

Google/groups search facility is such a mixed blessing, isn't it? :-)

Janet

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are
a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning.

Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the
original
and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original.

Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of
"good
for URG"

Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please.
What realistically do you think the harm would be?

Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg?
I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a
new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to
urg?
The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to
allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in
urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in
fact
discussed there.

That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter
and
understand it before talking such nonsense.

Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the
discussion
of allotments.

Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say
anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are
suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to
avert
our eyes when those topics crop up?

If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic.
I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it?

on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and
planning to their
hearts content.

Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning
to
their hearts content."
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past
and
now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting
up
of a breakaway group.

I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last
paragraph
spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy
the
whim
of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to
participate
in
the existing group.

Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new
group.

Why have you then written this particular note?

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose
just
because
the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should
lie.

The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to
prove
that more space
would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have
stated
that all posts to the
proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence
being cited.

You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence
have
accrued for an event in the future?
But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio
when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned.

Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of
evidence.

You are being needlessly repetitive.

The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think
that
some people are
frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some
way.
Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll
vote
mine.

Of course. Why did you bother to post?

Franz

Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem
to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually
distasteful and inappropriate.
Anne

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are
a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning.

Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the
original
and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original.

Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of
"good
for URG"

Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please.
What realistically do you think the harm would be?

Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg?
I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a
new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to
urg?
The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to
allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in
urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in
fact
discussed there.

That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter
and
understand it before talking such nonsense.

Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the
discussion
of allotments.

Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say
anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are
suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to
avert
our eyes when those topics crop up?

If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic.
I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it?

on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and
planning to their
hearts content.

Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning
to
their hearts content."
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past
and
now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting
up
of a breakaway group.

I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last
paragraph
spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy
the
whim
of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to
participate
in
the existing group.

Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new
group.

Why have you then written this particular note?

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose
just
because
the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should
lie.

The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to
prove
that more space
would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have
stated
that all posts to the
proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence
being cited.

You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence
have
accrued for an event in the future?
But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio
when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned.

Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of
evidence.

You are being needlessly repetitive.

The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think
that
some people are
frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some
way.
Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll
vote
mine.

Of course. Why did you bother to post?

Franz

Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem
to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually
distasteful and inappropriate.
Anne

In message , Gary Poston
writes
Hi urg

Hi Gary, glad to see you deigned to join us.

What will I gain with reference to a proposed newsgroup urga?

My interest is more what would I other posters and urg gain TBH.

Well, What I will gain (and others) is bringing people together that rent or
even own Allotments This might include, crop rotation, raised bed issues,
local meetings, Club AGM's ECT, ECT... Will we discuss Fruit trees? or when
to plant tomato plants? Well, Yes, Sometimes, but isn't that what urg
newsgroup is for? I don't want to take that away from an excellent
gardening newsgroup such as urg, but there are other discussions and issues
that can be held in urga.

All of the above, plus any other discussions you want are welcome in urg
anyway. I remain unconvinced (not that you have done much to try and
convince anyone) that there is a real demand for this group. Urg is not
swamped by allotment specific questions, most of the discussion would be
about the growing of plants etc, or other items of a general 'kitchen
garden' nature anyway - which are not really in anyway specific to
allotments - effectively splitting the place to discuss veg questions
over two groups.

While lack of contribution in the past to urg should not in itself be a
reason to object necessarily, this along with the failure to raise the
issue first in urg for 'informal' discussion probably does not dispose
some people towards you and your proposition

If it encourages new Allotment holders, SO BE IT!.

I doubt it would make any difference.


Who gives someone the right to object to such a group when it can benefit
all of us?

We all have the right to vote as we see fit, for whatever reasons we
wish. however, I would dispute the claim that it would benefit all of us
anyway.

I've yet to vote (I've just picked up on the CFV) but I'm minded to vote
no.

--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

In message , Gary Poston
writes
Hi urg

Hi Gary, glad to see you deigned to join us.

What will I gain with reference to a proposed newsgroup urga?

My interest is more what would I other posters and urg gain TBH.

Well, What I will gain (and others) is bringing people together that rent or
even own Allotments This might include, crop rotation, raised bed issues,
local meetings, Club AGM's ECT, ECT... Will we discuss Fruit trees? or when
to plant tomato plants? Well, Yes, Sometimes, but isn't that what urg
newsgroup is for? I don't want to take that away from an excellent
gardening newsgroup such as urg, but there are other discussions and issues
that can be held in urga.

All of the above, plus any other discussions you want are welcome in urg
anyway. I remain unconvinced (not that you have done much to try and
convince anyone) that there is a real demand for this group. Urg is not
swamped by allotment specific questions, most of the discussion would be
about the growing of plants etc, or other items of a general 'kitchen
garden' nature anyway - which are not really in anyway specific to
allotments - effectively splitting the place to discuss veg questions
over two groups.

While lack of contribution in the past to urg should not in itself be a
reason to object necessarily, this along with the failure to raise the
issue first in urg for 'informal' discussion probably does not dispose
some people towards you and your proposition

If it encourages new Allotment holders, SO BE IT!.

I doubt it would make any difference.


Who gives someone the right to object to such a group when it can benefit
all of us?

We all have the right to vote as we see fit, for whatever reasons we
wish. however, I would dispute the claim that it would benefit all of us
anyway.

I've yet to vote (I've just picked up on the CFV) but I'm minded to vote
no.

--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

I see nothing relating to the allotments issue in uk.net.news.config.
What date and what title should I see?

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments

Ah. Too late, I see.

What does this last sentence mean?
Who is too late for what?

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in
message ...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains
these
words:

I see nothing relating to the allotments issue in
uk.net.news.config.
What date and what title should I see?

1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments

Ah. Too late, I see.


Too late? The voting has only just started...

How can it have started if I have not yet seen any reference
whatsoever to
this in ok.net.news.config?

Franz

I don't know precisely why you haven't seen it but the call for votes
was cross posted to the various groups rather than (as is implied in the
message) being posted to each group individually. Maybe you filter
crossposts?

Neil

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:12:13 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:00:27 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"

It is in uk.net.news.announce and it should have been posted here too

I don't see it in uk.net.news.announce and I don't see it in urg either.
What is going on?

I saw it. Switch to Berlin for your news it's much faster and more
reliable. News.Individual.NET you have to e-mail them for a password.
--

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:58:11 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:10:24 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:
To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. These will include
flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns, houseplants,
beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location,
situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths, greenhouses,
cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests &
diseases. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list."

Which part of "This is not meant to be an exhaustive list." do you
find difficult to understand? Are you sure your read the charter?

So the word allotment is NOT specified!
Have you read what you cut and pasted?
It seems to be hiden in a secret paragraph.

What seems to be hidden in a secret paragraph?

You see I could talk about telegraph poles, cars and cess pits, because each
of my neighbours has one or more in their garden, and still be on topic by
your argument.

It's not an argument, it's the urg charter.

It will always be OK because somebody says it is 'not an
exhaustive list'.

It's not someone. It's the charter, that you claimed to have read.
--

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:21:42 -0000, "Anthony"
wrote:


You are making it up as you go along! How on earth can you know that someone
has not 'lurked' in a group?

Because the person said so. Subtle eh?

--

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:36:15 -0000, "Anne Wheeldon"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
So he did in fact say that QUOTE "Most" believe that "Allotments" are
a
total different issue to "Gardening" UNQUOTE.

Yes but it WASN'T the FULL QUOTE, which affected its meaning.

Who do you think you are bluffing? I have just looked again at the
original
and it is clear that my quotation conveys the sense of the original.

Ah, so is his intent just to split urg, thereby being the opposite of
"good
for URG"

Where does he say he wants to split urg? The actual quote please.
What realistically do you think the harm would be?

Where did I say that he *said* he wants to split urg?
I *deduced* that he wants to split urg. Why else would he be proposing a
new group when in fact there are allotmenteers happily contributing to
urg?
The proposer has not once tried to raise matters of interest to
allotmenteers in urg. Indeed, it seems that he has never even lurked in
urg, otherwise he would have been aware that allotment issues *are* in
fact
discussed there.

That is total rubbish. Please familiarise yourself with urg's charter
and
understand it before talking such nonsense.

Again, Quote to me where in the charter of urg. it specifies the
discussion
of allotments.

Are you really as silly as you come across? The charter does not say
anywhere that growing lavender bushes or raising half hardy seedlings are
suitable topics for discussion in urg either. So, are we supposed to
avert
our eyes when those topics crop up?

If it not specified it is strictly speaking OFF topic.
I have read the charter, have you? Can you find it?

on another group, where people can talk vegetables, sheds and
planning to their
hearts content.

Urglers are in fact this very minute discussing "sheds and planning
to
their hearts content."
Please look at the list of current threads.

What? Just started one have you?

You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the contents of urg in the past
and
now. That does not put you in a good position for defending the setting
up
of a breakaway group.

I leave it for others to decide for themselves whether that last
paragraph
spells out a case for splitting a very active group just to satisfy
the
whim
of a person, or small coterie of folk who have never tried to
participate
in
the existing group.

Its not for me to spell out the case for the formation for the new
group.

Why have you then written this particular note?

But I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to oppose
just
because
the proposer hasn't posted enough to urg in the past, or has chosen to
remain on the sidelines.

Far be it from me to specify where the bounds of your understanding should
lie.

The bandwidth issue has been spouted but no evidence has been given to
prove
that more space
would be taken up by the new group. Time and again, you Franz, have
stated
that all posts to the
proposed group would be crossposted, again without a shread of evidence
being cited.

You are being even more silly than you are. How on earth can evidence
have
accrued for an event in the future?
But for a somewhat analogous case, look at what happened in uk.rec.audio
when uk.rec.audio.vinyl and uk.rec.audio.car were spawned.

Many reasons therefore against the motion with a distinct lack of
evidence.

You are being needlessly repetitive.

The proposer has been accused of 'Empire Building', I personally think
that
some people are
frightened that their own 'little empire' may be under threat in some
way.
Still we can agree to differ can't we Franz. You vote your way, I'll
vote
mine.

Of course. Why did you bother to post?

Franz

Talking of trolls .... what are you doing in this newsgroup? You never seem
to have anything to say about gardening and your comments are usually
distasteful and inappropriate.

I totally disagree. Franz has had lots to say about gardening.
It's also clear you don't understand the meaning of troll. A troll is
not somebody, who doesn't agree with the clique all the time.
--

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit;
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

The message
from "Anthony" contains
these words:

Time and again, urg posters have repeated that all the topics which
Gary wishes to discuss in a separate group, are on topic on urg and have
long been discussed; including allotment availability, rules,
management, prices, open days etc.(Just as we discuss public gardens,
botanical gardens, their management, prices, open days, meetings,
etc..they are all relevant to UK gardening.

It is on topic due to historical reasons, but I was under the impression
that if a subject was not included it was off topic.

How? Have you been on Usenet long?

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/