On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:57:27 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

Quite, which is why some urglers may not recognise the name I voted
under. (My own!)

Not Jim Worzelmacher shirley? :-)

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:22:04 -0000, "David W.E. Roberts"
wrote:

Strangely, I just looked through the YES votes and couldn't find the
proposer.

Does the proposer automatically count as a YES, is (s)he disbarred from
voting, or did
"Proponent : Gary Poston gary (at) torbay.eclipse.co.uk"
not even bother to vote?

not even bother to vote


If so, why waste everyone elses time?

It was a troll.

The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words:


"jane" wrote in message
...
This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)

My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.

jane


SNIP
I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.

Pedt has posted it in urg, it arrived with Jane's copy on my news server.

I also notice that several voters on both sides are not names I would call
regular or even casual posters here,

Quite.

although I have neither the know-how or
the inclination to search posting history to confirm or deny this.
We must have a lot of lurkers.

Maybe. Sometimes trolls here pretend to have support from silent
lurkers.Urg certainly has trolls who use multiple ID's to attack
gardening posters, undermine the group, mislead newbies, and create a
false impression of support for themselves.

If you look in unnc, there's evidence in uk.legal that the rejected
"voter" is another false ID/sock puppet.

Janet

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:46:25 GMT, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words:


"jane" wrote in message
...
This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)

My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.

jane


SNIP
I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.

Pedt has posted it in urg, it arrived with Jane's copy on my news
server.

I also notice that several voters on both sides are not names I would
call
regular or even casual posters here,

That is because many use spam proof names, when posting to news
groups.
To vote one must provide a verifiable e-mail address.

So do I, but my normal handle, my spamtrapped address and my proper address
went into the boxes on the voting paper which was obviously catering for
such things, and I notice that my proper email address has been spamtrapped
in the results, but my normal posting handle appears as is.

Steve

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:46:25 GMT, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words:


"jane" wrote in message
...
This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)

My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.

jane


SNIP
I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.

Pedt has posted it in urg, it arrived with Jane's copy on my news
server.

I also notice that several voters on both sides are not names I would
call
regular or even casual posters here,

That is because many use spam proof names, when posting to news
groups.
To vote one must provide a verifiable e-mail address.

So do I, but my normal handle, my spamtrapped address and my proper address
went into the boxes on the voting paper which was obviously catering for
such things, and I notice that my proper email address has been spamtrapped
in the results, but my normal posting handle appears as is.

Steve

The message
from "David W.E. Roberts" contains these words:

I am not sure the proposer has posted here yet on allotments (or anything
else) but can't be bothered to Google at the moment. :-)

Yes, quite recently. Started the thread 'strawberry question' and
contributed to 'Cucumber seed'.

A resounding vote for "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

Strangely, I just looked through the YES votes and couldn't find the
proposer.

Does the proposer automatically count as a YES, is (s)he disbarred from
voting, or did
"Proponent : Gary Poston gary (at) torbay.eclipse.co.uk"
not even bother to vote?

Search me. I guess he should have voted.

If so, why waste everyone elses time?

Ah. You'd better ask him that.

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

Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:192950

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:46:25 GMT, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

~The message
~from "shazzbat" contains these words:
~
~
~ "jane" wrote in message
~ ...
~ This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)
~
~ My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.
~
~ jane
~
~
~ SNIP
~ I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.
~
~ Pedt has posted it in urg, it arrived with Jane's copy on my news server.

I think I got btinternetted again. I received it in unnc but not urg,
so duly forwarded it, then an hour or so later, it appeared properly
on urg.
*sigh*


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words:


"jane" wrote in message
...
This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)

My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.

jane


SNIP
I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.

Pedt has posted it in urg, it arrived with Jane's copy on my news server.

I also notice that several voters on both sides are not names I would call
regular or even casual posters here,

Quite.

although I have neither the know-how or
the inclination to search posting history to confirm or deny this.
We must have a lot of lurkers.

Maybe. Sometimes trolls here pretend to have support from silent
lurkers.Urg certainly has trolls who use multiple ID's to attack
gardening posters, undermine the group, mislead newbies, and create a
false impression of support for themselves.

If you look in unnc, there's evidence in uk.legal that the rejected
"voter" is another false ID/sock puppet.

Janet

shazzbat wrote:
"jane" wrote in message
...

This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)

My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.

jane



SNIP
I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.
I also notice that several voters on both sides are not names I would call
regular or even casual posters here, although I have neither the know-how or
the inclination to search posting history to confirm or deny this.
We must have a lot of lurkers.

I voted using a different email address to the one that appears in my
Usenet postings. That address is just a spam hole. I voted 'NO' if
anyone would like to know!

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:46:25 GMT, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words:


"jane" wrote in message
...
This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)

My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.

jane


SNIP
I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.

Pedt has posted it in urg, it arrived with Jane's copy on my news server.

I also notice that several voters on both sides are not names I would call
regular or even casual posters here,

That is because many use spam proof names, when posting to news
groups.
To vote one must provide a verifiable e-mail address.


Quite.

although I have neither the know-how or
the inclination to search posting history to confirm or deny this.
We must have a lot of lurkers.

Maybe. Sometimes trolls here pretend to have support from silent
lurkers.Urg certainly has trolls who use multiple ID's to attack
gardening posters, undermine the group, mislead newbies, and create a
false impression of support for themselves.

:-)

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:43:06 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

I voted using a different email address to the one that appears in my
Usenet postings. That address is just a spam hole. I voted 'NO' if
anyone would like to know!

Me too and for the same reason.

Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:192950

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:46:25 GMT, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

~The message
~from "shazzbat" contains these words:
~
~
~ "jane" wrote in message
~ ...
~ This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)
~
~ My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.
~
~ jane
~
~
~ SNIP
~ I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.
~
~ Pedt has posted it in urg, it arrived with Jane's copy on my news server.

I think I got btinternetted again. I received it in unnc but not urg,
so duly forwarded it, then an hour or so later, it appeared properly
on urg.
*sigh*


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

shazzbat wrote:
"jane" wrote in message
...

This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)

My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.

jane



SNIP
I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.
I also notice that several voters on both sides are not names I would call
regular or even casual posters here, although I have neither the know-how or
the inclination to search posting history to confirm or deny this.
We must have a lot of lurkers.

I voted using a different email address to the one that appears in my
Usenet postings. That address is just a spam hole. I voted 'NO' if
anyone would like to know!

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:46:25 GMT, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from "shazzbat" contains these words:


"jane" wrote in message
...
This just appeared on u.n.n.c. (this forward isn't crossposted)

My thanks to Pedt for running the vote.

jane


SNIP
I was wondering why it hadn't happened here.

Pedt has posted it in urg, it arrived with Jane's copy on my news server.

I also notice that several voters on both sides are not names I would call
regular or even casual posters here,

That is because many use spam proof names, when posting to news
groups.
To vote one must provide a verifiable e-mail address.


Quite.

although I have neither the know-how or
the inclination to search posting history to confirm or deny this.
We must have a lot of lurkers.

Maybe. Sometimes trolls here pretend to have support from silent
lurkers.Urg certainly has trolls who use multiple ID's to attack
gardening posters, undermine the group, mislead newbies, and create a
false impression of support for themselves.

:-)

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:43:06 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

I voted using a different email address to the one that appears in my
Usenet postings. That address is just a spam hole. I voted 'NO' if
anyone would like to know!

Me too and for the same reason.