Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments
"Janet Baraclough .." wrote in message ... The message from "Anthony" contains these words: 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. Yes I realise it was your post Janet, and your answer was in reply to my reply to Franz, if you see what I mean But what I was saying was that to cut the sentence before the full stop did, in my opinion, alter the meaning. SNIP 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. 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. (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. In that case Franz should have said PAST threads, but as usual he was having trouble making sense! 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. Thank You. At last a proper answer. 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 Thank you Janet for your post, I now have a better grasp of your argument against the proposal. I don't agree with it however I don't claim to have time to have read every post on this subject, but some people seem to be making up non existant problems with which to try and put people off the proposal for no other reason than their own selfish goals. Regards Anthony |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
2nd CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments | United Kingdom | |||
2nd CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments | United Kingdom | |||
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments | United Kingdom | |||
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments | United Kingdom | |||
1st CFV : Create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments | United Kingdom |