RFD: rec.gardens.vegetable
Scott D. Jung
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group rec.gardens.vegetable
Newsgroup line:
rec.gardens.vegetable Vegetable gardening topics.
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.gardens.vegetable. This
is not a Call For Vote (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Procedural details are below.
RATIONALE: rec.gardens.vegetable
Currently, the topic of vegetable gardening is lumped with others in
rec.gardens. This catch-all group also harbors discussion of organic
vs. inorganic methods of gardening, flower gardening, composting, seed
sharing (all types), trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, pests and
diseases, lawns, etc.
By creating a group specifically for vegetable gardening, rec.gardens
could lighten its burden of sometimes over 250 messages per day. Some
may argue this would be a seasonal group, but with the diversity of
seasons and duration of those seasons, as well as the need to start
indoors before planting season in many regions; this would not be a
seasonal group.
As this is a niche that can be carved away without causing too much
crossposting, rec.gardens and its readers would not be adversely
affected.
CHARTER: rec.gardens.vegetable
This newsgroups provides an open forum to discuss issues pertaining to
vegetable gardening. Postings related to creating a vegetable garden,
seed germination, extermination of pests and diseases, seed sharing,
plant variety particulars, etc. would be welcome. Both organic and
chemical methods would be discussed. Advice and support would be
especially encouraged. This would be an unmoderated newsgroup, with
no official standing or connection to any particular company or
product.
Advertising Policy:
Following standard Usenet guidelines, the newsgroup is not intended to
be used for commercial advertising, solicitation, or marketing of
products or services. However, announcements of products or services
directly relevant to the newsgroup with be permitted, but only in the
following circumstances:
-The product is new or has undergone substantial change
-The posting is clearly marked as an announcement by prefixing the
subject line with the tag, "ANNOUNCE:"
-The posting is brief and contains no marketing hype.
Prohibited Material
In addition to the restrictions on advertising, the following material
shall not be posted to the newsgroup:
-Program binaries/object files
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call for
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
The RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create A New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal." Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
After the RFD is officially posted to news.announce.newgroups it will
be reposted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newsgroups,news.groups,rec.gardens,aus.gardens,
fj.rec.gardens, rec.gardens.roses, rec.gardens.orchids,
triangle.gardens
and the following mailing lists:
GAR...@lsv.uky.edu
To subscribe, send message to: LIST...@lsv.uky.edu.
Body of message should say: SUBSCRIBE GARDENS <your name>
RES-...@tamvm1.tamu.edu
To subscribe, send message to: LIST...@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU
Body of message should say: SUBSCRIBE RES-GARD <your name>
MGA...@listproc.wsu.edu
To subscribe, send message to: list...@listproc.wsu.edu
Body of message should say: SUBSCRIBE MGARDEN <your name>
COM...@listproc.wsu.edu
To subscribe, send a message to: list...@listproc.wsu.edu
Body of message should say: SUBSCRIBE COMPOST <your name>
Proponent: Scott Jung <ju...@ix.netcom.com>
Scott D. Jung
ju...@ix.netcom.com PC-Hero
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/2392
http://www.netcom.com/~jung
David Ross
I oppose this proposal. I intermix perennial and bulb vegetables with
ornamental plants in my landscape. I deal with this as a whole.
In a home garden, there may be much in common between the growing of
edible and inedible plants. Indeed, many plants grown as ornamentals are
actually edible (e.g.: nasturtiums).
Finally, I do not see where the line would be drawn between vegetables
and fruits. Will we have further fragmentation? Where will we put the
flowering fruit trees and the ornamental kale?
Scott D. Jung
If you reply to this message, we will have good discussion both on
rec.gardens and news.groups(the defacto discussion area for new
newsgroups)
Scott
ju...@ix.netcom.com (Scott D. Jung) wrote:
:)> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
:)> unmoderated group rec.gardens.vegetable
:)>
:)>Newsgroup line:
:)>rec.gardens.vegetable Vegetable gardening topics.
:)>
:)>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
:)>world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.gardens.vegetable. This
:)>is not a Call For Vote (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
:)>Procedural details are below.
:)>
:)>RATIONALE: rec.gardens.vegetable
:)>
:)>Currently, the topic of vegetable gardening is lumped with others in
:)>rec.gardens. This catch-all group also harbors discussion of organic
:)>vs. inorganic methods of gardening, flower gardening, composting, seed
:)>sharing (all types), trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, pests and
:)>diseases, lawns, etc.
:)>
:)>By creating a group specifically for vegetable gardening, rec.gardens
:)>could lighten its burden of sometimes over 250 messages per day. Some
:)>may argue this would be a seasonal group, but with the diversity of
:)>seasons and duration of those seasons, as well as the need to start
:)>indoors before planting season in many regions; this would not be a
:)>seasonal group.
:)>
:)>As this is a niche that can be carved away without causing too much
:)>crossposting, rec.gardens and its readers would not be adversely
:)>affected.
:)>
:)>CHARTER: rec.gardens.vegetable
:)>
:)>This newsgroups provides an open forum to discuss issues pertaining to
:)>vegetable gardening. Postings related to creating a vegetable garden,
:)>seed germination, extermination of pests and diseases, seed sharing,
:)>plant variety particulars, etc. would be welcome. Both organic and
:)>chemical methods would be discussed. Advice and support would be
:)>especially encouraged. This would be an unmoderated newsgroup, with
:)>no official standing or connection to any particular company or
:)>product.
:)>
:)>Advertising Policy:
:)>
:)>Following standard Usenet guidelines, the newsgroup is not intended to
:)>be used for commercial advertising, solicitation, or marketing of
:)>products or services. However, announcements of products or services
:)>directly relevant to the newsgroup with be permitted, but only in the
:)>following circumstances:
:)>
:)>-The product is new or has undergone substantial change
:)>-The posting is clearly marked as an announcement by prefixing the
:)>subject line with the tag, "ANNOUNCE:"
:)>-The posting is brief and contains no marketing hype.
:)>
:)>Prohibited Material
:)>
:)>In addition to the restrictions on advertising, the following material
:)>shall not be posted to the newsgroup:
:)>
:)>-Program binaries/object files
:)>
:)>END CHARTER.
:)>
:)>PROCEDURE:
:)>
:)>This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
:)>of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
:)>should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
:)>for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
:)>proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call for
:)>Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
:)>warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
:)>
:)>All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
:)>
:)>The RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
:)>guidelines outlined in "How to Create A New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
:)>to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal." Please refer to these
:)>documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
:)>questions about the process.
:)>
:)>DISTRIBUTION:
:)>
:)>After the RFD is officially posted to news.announce.newgroups it will
:)>be reposted to the following newsgroups:
:)>
:)>news.announce.newsgroups,news.groups,rec.gardens,aus.gardens,
:)>fj.rec.gardens, rec.gardens.roses, rec.gardens.orchids,
:)>triangle.gardens
:)>
:)>and the following mailing lists:
:)>
:)>GAR...@lsv.uky.edu
:)>To subscribe, send message to: LIST...@lsv.uky.edu.
:)>Body of message should say: SUBSCRIBE GARDENS <your name>
:)>
:)>RES-...@tamvm1.tamu.edu
:)>To subscribe, send message to: LIST...@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU
:)>Body of message should say: SUBSCRIBE RES-GARD <your name>
:)>
:)>MGA...@listproc.wsu.edu
:)>To subscribe, send message to: list...@listproc.wsu.edu
:)>Body of message should say: SUBSCRIBE MGARDEN <your name>
:)>
:)>COM...@listproc.wsu.edu
:)>To subscribe, send a message to: list...@listproc.wsu.edu
:)>Body of message should say: SUBSCRIBE COMPOST <your name>
:)>
:)>Proponent: Scott Jung <ju...@ix.netcom.com>
:)> Scott D. Jung
:)>ju...@ix.netcom.com PC-Hero
:)>http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/2392
:)>http://www.netcom.com/~jung
Scott Parker
ju...@ix.netcom.com (Scott D. Jung) wrote:
>RATIONALE: rec.gardens.vegetable
>By creating a group specifically for vegetable gardening, rec.gardens
>could lighten its burden of sometimes over 250 messages per day.
>As this is a niche that can be carved away without causing too much
>crossposting, rec.gardens and its readers would not be adversely
>affected.
The problem I see with rec.gardens.vegetables as a group is that it
isn't obvious that it includes items such as fruit, nuts, and herbs
which are an integral part of many a "kitchen" garden. Wouldn't it be
better named (as someone once suggested)
rec.gardens.edible
or even:
rec.gardens.produce
?
Scott
http://users.uniserve.com/~lparker/ (for stories & puzzles)
Denise Vajdak
John Mertus wrote:
>
> In article <559263$g...@atlas.uniserve.com>, lpa...@uniserve.com says...
>
> >
> >The problem I see with rec.gardens.vegetables as a group is that it
> >isn't obvious that it includes items such as fruit, nuts, and herbs
> >which are an integral part of many a "kitchen" garden. Wouldn't it be
> >better named (as someone once suggested)
> >rec.gardens.edible
> >or even:
> >rec.gardens.produce
> >?
>
> edible flowers etc. The common useage in gardening is often something
> like "are you a vegetable or flower gardener or both." Its understood
> that vegetable means fruits, herbs etc. IMHO, I believe the name not only
> reflects what is desired but is "sexier" than .edible or .produce.
>
> There are common grounds of both veggie and flower gardening such
> as composting, hardening off, keeping deer out. But there is such a difference
> between veggie gardening and flower gardening that not only is the
> overlap minimal but even the same questions have different answers.
> For example, a veggie gardener might not object to putting up a
> fence the deer cannot see through so are less likely to jump, but the
> flower gardener would then be hiding their flowers to the world.
>
> In an informal poll taken on GAR...@LSV.UKY.EDU, a few years ago,
> the flower only people were about 30%, the veggie only, about 10%, and
> the remainder did both. So veggie and flower gardeners are have
> considerable overlap. Perhaps a better poll should be taken, dispite
> the flaws in self-selection polling.
>
> -John_...@Brown.EDU
I say split the groups.
I agree that many people are flower and vegetable (fruit, nut, etc.)
gardeners, but lots of people like wild birds and pet birds and those
are separate groups. With everything lumped together, there are too
many posts to keep up with. I have to scan through all of the vegetable
posts to find info on flowers, if they were separated, then it would cut
down on the number of posts. If someone does want all of the info, they
can subscribe to both groups. There should be little need for cross
posting.
--
@>-->--- @>-->--- @>-->--- ---<--<@ ---<--<@ ---<--<@
DENISE VAJDAK TAMU Class of '92 dva...@ci.bryan.tx.us
Facility Services-City of Bryan, Texas
@濃 http://www.rtis.com/reg/bryan/communit/facility/
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/dvajdak/
Dennis Mathiasen
John_...@Brown.EDU (John Mertus) wrote:
>There are common grounds of both veggie and flower gardening such
>as composting, hardening off, keeping deer out. But there is such a difference
>between veggie gardening and flower gardening that not only is the
>overlap minimal but even the same questions have different answers.
>For example, a veggie gardener might not object to putting up a
>fence the deer cannot see through so are less likely to jump, but the
>flower gardener would then be hiding their flowers to the world.
To call the overlap between flower and vegatable gardening minimal is
simply not accurate. The list of subject areas given is just a
fraction of those that might be given. Some additional that come to
mind are: long term soil improvement; selection of appropriate soil
ammendments; short and long term disease and insect control, just to
name a few.
The example given to illustrate different answers strikes me as a thin
one. It is true that there are some differences in methods that make
some sense. Many flowers perform better in poor soil, for example,
while there are few vegatables that do. But the differences mostly
amount to such generalities that they are of little practical
consequence.
If we start fragmenting gardening into subject areas there is no
logical place to stop. Why not r.g.houseplants; r.g.greenhouse;
r.g.lawns, r.g.shrubs; r.g.trees; r.g.perennials; r.g.annuals;
r.g.soils, etc. Since most gardeners interests are not so narrowly
focused why should they be burdened with reading all these groups?
> In an informal poll taken on GAR...@LSV.UKY.EDU, a few years ago,
>the flower only people were about 30%, the veggie only, about 10%, and
>the remainder did both. So veggie and flower gardeners are have
>considerable overlap. Perhaps a better poll should be taken, dispite
>the flaws in self-selection polling.
Isn't this an argument *against* the proposed group? If we accept
that 60% of gardeners grow both ornamentals and edibles, practically
all those people will want to follow both groups. Further, any
advantage is confined to 10%, leaving 90% with no improvement and 60%
with a loss in convenience. The loss appears to seriously outweigh
the gain.
Yes, perhaps another poll should be taken. The flaws in self
selected polling are desirable perhaps, since the respondents will
tend to be the more regular and involved readers - the same people who
will be most affected by the proposed group.
Cross posting would probably not be minimal. Every area of overlap
will generate it, every plant that's both edible and ornamental will
generate it and those plants that don't neaty fit either group will
generate it. This makes for a long list.
Moreover, the possibility that interesting information is *not* cross
posted will force most people to read both groups. The loss of
convenience to perhaps 60% of readers while providing a gain to
perhaps 10% makes the proposed group seem a poor idea to me.
Dennis Mathiasen
den...@borg.com
Natasha
At the risk of repeating myself, I am against splitting up rec. gardens for any
reason. I like it just fine the way it is right now. It really doesn't need to
be split.
The variety of it is what I like so much about this newsgroup.
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Natasha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit The Ogre's Wood at http://www.slic.com/volfnat/home.htm
_ _
.-. | | |
|M|_|A|N| Books are man's best friend.
|A|a|.|.|<\
|T|r| | | \\
|H|t|M|Z| \\ "Bookshelf" by
| |!| | | \> David S. Issel
""""""""""""""""""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich Campbell
Scott Parker (lpa...@uniserve.com) wrote::
: >By creating a group specifically for vegetable gardening, rec.gardens
: >could lighten its burden of sometimes over 250 messages per day.
: The problem I see with rec.gardens.vegetables as a group is that it
: isn't obvious that it includes items such as fruit, nuts, and herbs
: which are an integral part of many a "kitchen" garden. Wouldn't it be
: better named (as someone once suggested)
: rec.gardens.edible
: or even:
: rec.gardens.produce
Since people seem bound and determined to split up rec.gardens
this seems to be one of the better lines to split on. However
I too have a problem with the name rec.gardens.vegetable due to
the reasons mentioned above. I would like to see a change in name
to rec.gardens.edible(s). This would cover all topics of interest
to people who grow their own produce (vegetable, fruit & nut)
and it would be self-descriptive to any newcomers wanting to
post questions on their peaches or pecans as well as zucchini.
Yes, I realize it's not quite as 'sexy' a name but it's more
descriptive of the territory. And I also realize that there
are plants out there which are both ornamental and edible. Those
typically can be categorized as one or the other though
so I don't believe that they will cause much confusion as
to which group they belong in.
While I'm certainly not for a split, due to the constant
call to break up rec.gardens I may go along with this
one, but not with it's current name. Change to a more
descriptive name and you can have my vote when the
time comes.
--
Rich Campbell, USDA zone 7 (near Dallas)
It is possible to have a carefree garden
as long as you don't care what you grow.
Responding by email, remove the '*' from the address.
This is intended to (hopefully) foil some of the
automated bulk junk e-mail programs.
Unsolicited commercial messages sent via email will be billed
$25/message plus $.01/character, incl. header lines. No exceptions.
Sending such mail constitutes agreement to these terms.
Dan Parker
I would like to go one better and see the group expanded to edibles in
general (vegetables, fruits, berries, nuts, etc.)
- I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!
Jon Shemitz
Scott D. Jung wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.gardens.vegetable
My first thought is "I'd vote for this - I don't really care about the
ornamentals discussions."
My second thought is that I'd still scan rec.gardens for compost and
greenhouse discussions, so I wouldn't really gain anything. I don't
think I'll vote for rec.gardens.vegetable unless it's part of a
comprehensive reorg: perhaps rec.gardens.vegetable, r.g.ornamental,
r.g.soil-and-compost, and r.g.misc.
> -The posting is clearly marked as an announcement by prefixing the
> subject line with the tag, "ANNOUNCE:"
Realistically, this won't stick. Remember a while back when Kay Klier
tried to get people to prepend subject tags? Less than a fifth of the
posts were tagged, for less than maybe three months.
--
http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon Personal Pages
http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/pubs Programming Publications
http://www.midnightbeach.com/hs Home School Resource List
Catherine Hensley
I think this is a wonderful idea, and long overdue. I have very little
interest in ornamental gardening, being an advocate of the use of only
native and climate-appropriate exotics in landscapes. Because I live in
an alpine desert climate, that limits the number of non-vegetable plants
I am interested in, and most of the plants I *am* interested in would
draw blank stares from New Jersey or Oregon gardeners. However, I am
very interested in vegetables, and in discussing season lengths and
addapted varieties and such.
When the vote comes, I will vote YES! Until then, I applaud the
persistence that brought about this call for discussion. Ignore the
knee-jerk "no" responses. This is a move in the right direction.
Catherine (Zone 5 alpine desert)
Liz Albrook
In article <3278D7...@midnightbeach.com>, j...@midnightbeach.com
says...
> Scott D. Jung wrote:
> > -The posting is clearly marked as an announcement by prefixing the
> > subject line with the tag, "ANNOUNCE:"
> Realistically, this won't stick. Remember a while back when Kay Klier
> tried to get people to prepend subject tags? Less than a fifth of the
> posts were tagged, for less than maybe three months.
The only place I've seen this work is in rec.pets.cats where a
particular type of post is tagged. According to everything I've found
it's been a dismal failure elsewhere on Usenet.
My experience in the misc.invest.* hierarchy has been that advertisers
generally ignore requests to keep the ads out of groups, even when a
group is created specifically for ads.
Liz
Matthew Daly
In article <LRFORTNEY-311...@hepmc7.phy.duke.edu> LRFO...@hep.phy.duke.edu (L. R. Fortney) writes:
>
> I think rec.gardens.vegetable is a good choice and would be an obvious
>place to look for fruits and nuts, but I would also not object to
>rec.gardens.edible.
It's anything but obvious. It would be quite like thinking that a
newsgroup called rec.sports.dallas-cowboys would be an obvious place
to discuss the Chicago Bears. Gosh, it seems like only a week ago
that the Muppet people thought that you could call a group X and
expect people wandering in to know that X, Y, and Z were on-topic. :-)
If you want a group to discuss all three, pick a name that reflects
that. I think that edible is a good name, or perhaps fruit-nut-veg
if people want more ideas.
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly I don't buy everything I read ... I haven't
da...@ppd.kodak.com even read everything I've bought.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
Liz Albrook
In article <327917...@teexnet.tamu.edu>, elab...@teexnet.tamu.edu
says...
> I'm against it too.
>
> Where would the herb questions/answers fall? In the regular rec.gardens
> group or the vegetable group?
>
> I like being able to monitor all kinds of plants that might catch my
> interest in one place.
I'm reposting this from rec.gardens into news.groups as well.
People who are interested in this RFD (and I hope that all the
participants in this group are interested) should subscribe to
news.groups for the duration of the discussion. There will be
postings to news.groups that will not appear in rec.gardens.
If you've never participated in RFD discussions then you should be
aware that there is a particular Usenet group that was created for the
discussion of creating new groups and changing old groups. The name
of that group is news.groups. The name is confusing but it is the
actual name of the specific group. There will be people participating
in the discussion who have never read rec.gardens and have no interest
in rec.gardens. They are interested in how Usenet is structured, in
how groups are named and in the sorts of provisions found in charters
for Usenet groups. If you don't follow the discussions in the group
news.groups then you will miss out on the contributions that these
people will make. Some of their comments and suggestions are going to
influence how people vote.
In addition to discussing this RFD, there will be people who vote on
the proposal who also have no interest in gardening or rec.gardens.
One of the reasons that it is important that those of us who read
rec.gardens post our comments on news.groups is that there may be
issues about this proposal that non-gardening types will not
understand until one of us gardening types mention them. Since it is
in our interest to make sure that people who vote understand all the
issues, it is important that we post in news.groups.
Whether you are in favor of this RFD or against this RFD, please send
your comments to news.groups.
Liz
--
Liz Albrook
USDA Zone 7, Sunset Zone 3
North Central Idaho
Liz Albrook
In article <8467025...@uunet.uu.net>, ju...@ix.netcom.com says...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.gardens.vegetable
> As this is a niche that can be carved away without causing too much
> crossposting, rec.gardens and its readers would not be adversely
> affected.
Not in the current form of the RFD.
The RFD calls for creating r.g.vegetable (r.g.edibles would be a
better name and obviously inclusive of fruits and nuts IMO). It does
not call for changing the charter of rec.gardens.
As a result, if r.g.vegetable passed in current form we would have
rec.gardens and rec.gardens.vegetable both of which contain vegetable
gardening as on topic posts leading to massive crossposting. The net
result for those of us who raise both edibles and nonedibles would be
chaos. We'd read rec.gardens for all the nonedibles posts and
rec.gardens.vegetable would contain articles crossposted to
rec.gardens. There is no way to determine how high the percentage of
crossposted messages would run, but I'd guess that at the height of
the tomato season it would easily run 100 or more posts per day.
(I question the figure provided of 250 posts per day relating to
vegetable gardening, even at the height of the season. How was this
number determined?)
The only way to accomplish creating a group of this sort without
crossposting is to do a reorganization of rec.gardens.
In addition to that consideration, there is also the issue that Bill
and Ronald are hard at work on an RFD to create
rec.gardens.ecosystems. That RFD has been well publicized on
rec.gardens. This RFD was sprung on the group without notice, without
request for support and without prior input from the group at large.
Personally, I like rec.gardens the way it is. I have stated in the
past that I will support splitting the group if there are sufficient
numbers of people who ask for a split because they find the current
group impossible to follow due to the number of posts. There is no
evidence presented in this proposal to support a split on that basis
-- the only basis I find acceptible for a split. Considering that
there was no request for support or poll conducted in rec.gardens
concerning splitting/creation of a veggie group then I'd like to know
how you or anyone knows if there is sufficient interest and need for a
reorganization.
The reason I oppose a reorganization of rec.gardens is one that has
been repeated a number of times -- too many issues overlap. Soil and
pest management are not ordinarily divisible into neat subgroups. It
is interesting to note that the current subgroups under rec.gardens
are all highly specialized, high interest groups that have unique
problems. R.g.bonsai and r.g.orchids have topics that are obviously
different from the bulk of gardening topics and would overlap only
with a group that does not currently exist -- rec.gardens.houseplants.
R.g.roses contains posts that are mostly highly specialized, dealing
with topics that are unique to roses. Vegetables as a group lack the
specialization and uniqueness that the other garden subgroups have.
That is the reason that until/unless considerable evidence is given
that people have problems with the group due to *volume of posts* that
I will not support a reorganization of rec.gardens.
Stephen Victor
On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, David Ross quoted all 113, that's one hundred and
thirteen, lines of this RFD. I would have been extraordinarily annoyed
about this had he not following his quote with the following:
> I oppose this proposal. I intermix perennial and bulb vegetables with
> ornamental plants in my landscape. I deal with this as a whole.
>
> In a home garden, there may be much in common between the growing of
> edible and inedible plants. Indeed, many plants grown as ornamentals are
> actually edible (e.g.: nasturtiums).
>
> Finally, I do not see where the line would be drawn between vegetables
> and fruits. Will we have further fragmentation? Where will we put the
> flowering fruit trees and the ornamental kale?
Good God, he's right! What about the kale? Has anyone thought about the
kale??! I call on all users of USENET to act NOW to end the diabolical
scheme to create this heinous newsgroup.
Please, for heaven's sake, THINK ABOUT THE KALE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen P. Victor svi...@compassnet.com
Houston, Texas USA http://www.compassnet.com/~svictor
De gustibus non disputandum est.
Loretta McFadden
In article <3277fdb4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com
(Scott D. Jung) wrote:
> If you reply to this message, we will have good discussion both on
> rec.gardens and news.groups(the defacto discussion area for new
> newsgroups)
> Scott
>
Sign me up. I'd love a group that concentrated on veggies.
Betsy
L. R. Fortney
Granted that there are common threads to all types of gardening, and
granted that it's difficult to find the right keywords, and granted that
one can carry splitting to extremes...the fact remains that this catch-all
newsgroup is so big that it takes far too long to scan subjects.
The gain in having specialized subgroups is that gardeners with
specialized interestes might be attracted to the subgroups and raise the
level of expertise. Speaking for myself, I've pretty much given up
reading and contributing to rec.gardens even though I've gardened for over
thirty years.
The person who wants to read everything need only read several
subgroups...the cost in time is small as long as cross posting is
minimized.
As I see it, the problem is only to find a set of subgroup names that
are as independent as possible and understand that perfection is
impossible.
I think rec.gardens.vegetable is a good choice and would be an obvious
place to look for fruits and nuts, but I would also not object to
rec.gardens.edible.
--
Lloyd Fortney
--------------------
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~fortney/lrf_home_page.html
has links to my garden, flower, flyfishing, and travel JPEG images as well as teaching, research, and stuff like that
Natalie Ramsey
Scott D. Jung (ju...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: unmoderated group rec.gardens.vegetable
[snip]
: RATIONALE: rec.gardens.vegetable
: Currently, the topic of vegetable gardening is lumped with others in
: rec.gardens. This catch-all group also harbors discussion of organic
: vs. inorganic methods of gardening, flower gardening, composting, seed
: sharing (all types), trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, pests and
: diseases, lawns, etc.
: By creating a group specifically for vegetable gardening, rec.gardens
: could lighten its burden of sometimes over 250 messages per day.
[snip]
: As this is a niche that can be carved away without causing too much
: crossposting, rec.gardens and its readers would not be adversely
: affected.
Um.... the proposal for rec.gardens.organic has yet to pass the 90-day
limit for resubmission of its RFD. Could someone clarify on whether
another proposal affecting rec.gardens can currently move forward?
(Yes, I know Tale approved it, but Tale is not infallible.)
Blessings,
Natalie
--
Natalie Overstreet Ramsey - <nat...@col.hp.com> - ** I don't speak for HP **
Upon the advice of my attorney, my .sig has no comment at this time.
Scott D. Jung
You should make sure you post these messages to news.groups.
Thanks
Scott
Amy <elab...@teexnet.tamu.edu> wrote:
:)>I'm against it too.
:)>
:)>Where would the herb questions/answers fall? In the regular rec.gardens
:)>group or the vegetable group?
:)>
:)>I like being able to monitor all kinds of plants that might catch my
:)>interest in one place.
:)>Amy
L. R. Fortney
In article <3277fdb4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com
(Scott D. Jung) wrote:
> :)> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> :)> unmoderated group rec.gardens.vegetable
> :)>
Excellent idea and long overdue in this newsgroup.
Liz Albrook
In article <327962a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
snip
> :)>Considering that
> :)>there was no request for support or poll conducted in rec.gardens
> :)>concerning splitting/creation of a veggie group then I'd like to know
> :)>how you or anyone knows if there is sufficient interest and need for a
> :)>reorganization.
>
> Again, which rec.gardens? Clearly you haven't read all the posts
> because there are a 5 or 6 I can think of that WANT a split. As I
> understand it, a poll is being taken. You are participating in it.
No, this is a discussion of an RFD, not an interest poll. An interest
poll, or at least a mention of the creation of an RFD, might have
helped avoid some of the problems in this RFD.
snip
> :)>R.g.bonsai and r.g.orchids have topics that are obviously
> :)>different from the bulk of gardening topics and would overlap only
> :)>with a group that does not currently exist -- rec.gardens.houseplants.
> :)>R.g.roses contains posts that are mostly highly specialized, dealing
> :)>with topics that are unique to roses. Vegetables as a group lack the
> :)>specialization and uniqueness that the other garden subgroups have.
>
> I am sorry, I don't EAT my flowers or my trees or my roses or my lawn,
> or the fecal matter of my neighbor's cat.
It might come as a surprise to you, then, to discover that a lot of
people eat flowers, parts of trees and roses. If you could explain
specifically how the culture of edibles differs from that of
nonedibles then perhaps we could agree that there is a unique basis
for a group similar to those found in r.g.bonsai, orchids and roses.
Liz Albrook
In article <327962a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
Again inserting the portion of the RFD discussed below:
.In article <8467025...@uunet.uu.net>, ju...@ix.netcom.com says...
.> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
.> unmoderated group rec.gardens.vegetable
.> As this is a niche that can be carved away without causing too much
.> crossposting, rec.gardens and its readers would not be adversely
.> affected.
> :)>Not in the current form of the RFD.
> :)>
> :)>The RFD calls for creating r.g.vegetable (r.g.edibles would be a
> :)>better name and obviously inclusive of fruits and nuts IMO). It does
> :)>not call for changing the charter of rec.gardens.
>
> Simply put, if you think that proposal will fly....I have oceanfront
> property in Arizona to seel you. But you can try
snip
> :)>As a result, if r.g.vegetable passed in current form we would have
> :)>rec.gardens and rec.gardens.vegetable both of which contain vegetable
> :)>gardening as on topic posts leading to massive crossposting. The net
> :)>result for those of us who raise both edibles and nonedibles would be
> :)>chaos.
snip
> CHAOS? What rec.gardens have you been hanging out in? I am in the one
> where we discuss cats defecating on neighbors lawns! Would you
> classify that as fertilizer discussion or PH imbalance?
> :)>The only way to accomplish creating a group of this sort without
> :)>crossposting is to do a reorganization of rec.gardens.
>
> Arizona, still for sale.
You state in the RFD that vegetables as a topic can be snipped out of
rec.gardens, that creating a group for the discussion of vegetables
will not create crossposting and that readers of rec.gardens will not
be adversely affected.
1. The only way to snip a topic out of rec.gardens is to change the
group's charter.
2. If a group is created that has a topic already discussed in
rec.gardens then there will be massive crossposting between that group
and rec.gardens.
3. If there is massive crossposting then every person who follows
both rec.gardens and rec.gardens.vegetable will be adversely affected
by crossposting. That would include everyone who grows both
ornamental and edible plants. According to the survey results John
Mertus cited that comprises approximately 60% of all rec.gardens
readers.
You might try something other than a flip response to those points.
>
> :)>
> :)>In addition to that consideration, there is also the issue that Bill
> :)>and Ronald are hard at work on an RFD to create
> :)>rec.gardens.ecosystems. That RFD has been well publicized on
> :)>rec.gardens. This RFD was sprung on the group without notice, without
> :)>request for support and without prior input from the group at large.
>
> I have talked with Bill and I have his blessing!
>
> :)>
John Mertus
>
>The problem I see with rec.gardens.vegetables as a group is that it
>isn't obvious that it includes items such as fruit, nuts, and herbs
>which are an integral part of many a "kitchen" garden. Wouldn't it be
>better named (as someone once suggested)
>rec.gardens.edible
>or even:
>rec.gardens.produce
>?
I don't agree that "vegetable" doesn't include fruit, nuts,
edible flowers etc. The common useage in gardening is often something
like "are you a vegetable or flower gardener or both." Its understood
that vegetable means fruits, herbs etc. IMHO, I believe the name not only
reflects what is desired but is "sexier" than .edible or .produce.
There are common grounds of both veggie and flower gardening such
as composting, hardening off, keeping deer out. But there is such a difference
between veggie gardening and flower gardening that not only is the
overlap minimal but even the same questions have different answers.
For example, a veggie gardener might not object to putting up a
fence the deer cannot see through so are less likely to jump, but the
flower gardener would then be hiding their flowers to the world.
In an informal poll taken on GAR...@LSV.UKY.EDU, a few years ago,
the flower only people were about 30%, the veggie only, about 10%, and
the remainder did both. So veggie and flower gardeners are have
considerable overlap. Perhaps a better poll should be taken, dispite
the flaws in self-selection polling.
-John_...@Brown.EDU
Scott D. Jung
ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
:)>Not in the current form of the RFD.
:)>
:)>The RFD calls for creating r.g.vegetable (r.g.edibles would be a
:)>better name and obviously inclusive of fruits and nuts IMO). It does
:)>not call for changing the charter of rec.gardens.
Simply put, if you think that proposal will fly....I have oceanfront
property in Arizona to seel you. But you can try. I saw a need.
YES, it was selfish. I want a group dedicated to growing "edibles".
I never meant to exclude fruits and nuts and herbs. They have brought
their concerns to me and I will probably resubmit the RFD with that
change in mind.
:)>
:)>As a result, if r.g.vegetable passed in current form we would have
:)>rec.gardens and rec.gardens.vegetable both of which contain vegetable
:)>gardening as on topic posts leading to massive crossposting. The net
:)>result for those of us who raise both edibles and nonedibles would be
:)>chaos. We'd read rec.gardens for all the nonedibles posts and
:)>rec.gardens.vegetable would contain articles crossposted to
:)>rec.gardens. There is no way to determine how high the percentage of
:)>crossposted messages would run, but I'd guess that at the height of
:)>the tomato season it would easily run 100 or more posts per day.
:)>(I question the figure provided of 250 posts per day relating to
:)>vegetable gardening, even at the height of the season. How was this
:)>number determined?)
CHAOS? What rec.gardens have you been hanging out in? I am in the one
where we discuss cats defecating on neighbors lawns! Would you
classify that as fertilizer discussion or PH imbalance?
:)>
:)>The only way to accomplish creating a group of this sort without
:)>crossposting is to do a reorganization of rec.gardens.
Arizona, still for sale.
:)>
:)>In addition to that consideration, there is also the issue that Bill
:)>and Ronald are hard at work on an RFD to create
:)>rec.gardens.ecosystems. That RFD has been well publicized on
:)>rec.gardens. This RFD was sprung on the group without notice, without
:)>request for support and without prior input from the group at large.
I have talked with Bill and I have his blessing!
:)>
:)>Personally, I like rec.gardens the way it is.
Chaotic? Like browsing in a bookstore in a fire?
:)>have stated in the
:)>past that I will support splitting the group if there are sufficient
:)>numbers of people who ask for a split because they find the current
:)>group impossible to follow due to the number of posts. There is no
:)>evidence presented in this proposal to support a split on that basis
:)>-- the only basis I find acceptible for a split. Considering that
:)>there was no request for support or poll conducted in rec.gardens
:)>concerning splitting/creation of a veggie group then I'd like to know
:)>how you or anyone knows if there is sufficient interest and need for a
:)>reorganization.
Again, which rec.gardens? Clearly you haven't read all the posts
because there are a 5 or 6 I can think of that WANT a split. As I
understand it, a poll is being taken. You are participating in it.
:)>
:)>The reason I oppose a reorganization of rec.gardens is one that has
:)>been repeated a number of times -- too many issues overlap. Soil and
:)>pest management are not ordinarily divisible into neat subgroups. It
:)>is interesting to note that the current subgroups under rec.gardens
:)>are all highly specialized, high interest groups that have unique
:)>problems. R.g.bonsai and r.g.orchids have topics that are obviously
:)>different from the bulk of gardening topics and would overlap only
:)>with a group that does not currently exist -- rec.gardens.houseplants.
:)>R.g.roses contains posts that are mostly highly specialized, dealing
:)>with topics that are unique to roses. Vegetables as a group lack the
:)>specialization and uniqueness that the other garden subgroups have.
I am sorry, I don't EAT my flowers or my trees or my roses or my lawn,
or the fecal matter of my neighbor's cat.
:)>
:)>That is the reason that until/unless considerable evidence is given
:)>that people have problems with the group due to *volume of posts* that
:)>I will not support a reorganization of rec.gardens.
:)>
:)>--
:)>Liz Albrook
:)>USDA Zone 7, Sunset Zone 3
:)>North Central Idaho
Scott Parker
ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
>The RFD calls for creating r.g.vegetable (r.g.edibles would be a
>better name and obviously inclusive of fruits and nuts IMO). It does
>not call for changing the charter of rec.gardens.
>As a result, if r.g.vegetable passed in current form we would have
>rec.gardens and rec.gardens.vegetable both of which contain vegetable
>gardening as on topic posts leading to massive crossposting.
Massive crossposting? That's not what happened when the rec.scuba
group split off two subgroups - rec.scuba.locations and
rec.scuba.equipment. Once the subgroups got to be carried by most
ISP's and after a few gentle reminders in the main group, things
settled pretty well into place. Yes, there still is a bit of
crossposting or posting of "locations" or "equipment" in the main
group but it's working quite well.
>Personally, I like rec.gardens the way it is. I have stated in the
>past that I will support splitting the group if there are sufficient
>numbers of people who ask for a split because they find the current
>group impossible to follow due to the number of posts.
Well, I'm crazy about "edibles", too lazy to bother about flowers, and
am totally bored by houseplants. The rec.gardens group the way it is
now is huge and mostly of no interest to me. During the height of the
growing season (in the northern hemisphere) I drop out of it because
there's too much ornamental "noise" for me to wade through.
WatrSprite
Personally, I'd be interested in having a definition between the list for
floral and vegetable topics. I am not here for flowers, I'm here for
composting and gardening vegetables. So, I get to throw stuff out that I
just paid good money to download on a daily basis. Certainly, if I ever
decided to get into decorative gardening, I could as easily sign back up
for the floral section.
Personally, I'll take this list any way I can get it, but I already have a
rose group that I read and am only here for veggie gardening. Ah, well,
whatever the group decides as a whole I'll live with, but I'd rather have
the veggie group separate.
This is a vote FOR rec.gardens.vegetable.
Lisa Lisa
the Wicked Wench of the West
the Wise One of k'Sheyna Hold
a Jarra Chareen
Scott D. Jung
ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
:)>In article <327962a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com
:)>says...
:)>
:)>> ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
:)>
:)>snip
:)>
:)>> :)>Considering that
:)>> :)>there was no request for support or poll conducted in rec.gardens
:)>> :)>concerning splitting/creation of a veggie group then I'd like to know
:)>> :)>how you or anyone knows if there is sufficient interest and need for a
:)>> :)>reorganization.
:)>>
:)>> Again, which rec.gardens? Clearly you haven't read all the posts
:)>> because there are a 5 or 6 I can think of that WANT a split. As I
:)>> understand it, a poll is being taken. You are participating in it.
:)>
:)>No, this is a discussion of an RFD, not an interest poll. An interest
:)>poll, or at least a mention of the creation of an RFD, might have
:)>helped avoid some of the problems in this RFD.
There was a discussion. And there WAS interest. It is truly
unfortunate that some people can't accept a change to rec.gardens..
:)>
:)>snip
:)>
:)>> :)>R.g.bonsai and r.g.orchids have topics that are obviously
:)>> :)>different from the bulk of gardening topics and would overlap only
:)>> :)>with a group that does not currently exist -- rec.gardens.houseplants.
:)>> :)>R.g.roses contains posts that are mostly highly specialized, dealing
:)>> :)>with topics that are unique to roses. Vegetables as a group lack the
:)>> :)>specialization and uniqueness that the other garden subgroups have.
:)>>
:)>> I am sorry, I don't EAT my flowers or my trees or my roses or my lawn,
:)>> or the fecal matter of my neighbor's cat.
:)>
:)>It might come as a surprise to you, then, to discover that a lot of
:)>people eat flowers, parts of trees and roses. If you could explain
:)>specifically how the culture of edibles differs from that of
:)>nonedibles then perhaps we could agree that there is a unique basis
:)>for a group similar to those found in r.g.bonsai, orchids and roses.
You want to find a majority on that one? I'll drop this RFD right now
if you can get 100 people to tell me that they subscribe to
rec.gardens and discuss eating their trees, roses, and flowers.
Martha Cather
> >
> >
I'm fairly opposed to the splitting of groups, esp. the gardening
group. I have a veggie garden that sort of turns into a flower
free-for-all by the end of summer. I plant lots of edible flowering
plants, I grow some vegetables simply for their looks (I really
don't care for either scarlet runner beans or the orange eggplants
I grow, but both look nice), and I prefer to do a quick scan through
only one newsgroup rather than having to look through two for
my occasional gardening question/answer. And kale aside, what would
you do with fruit trees? Mine are supposed to produce fruit, but
4 out of 5 years, they simply make some nice blooms and then get
wiped out by late frost, thus turning into ornamentals or shade trees.
MC
David Mackenzie
I look forward to a rec.gardens.vegetable (edible) group. I find that
the posts I am looking for in the news groups and Email groups I read
daily are related to vegitable gardening only and composting information
is fun also. I hope that a group such as this would help me to better
understand my zone in its relationship to vegitable gardening and
intensified vegetable gardening.
Yes.
mary stevanus
I am in favor of splitting up the group. I am interested in all garden
topics, but when i see 500+ messages in my box in this list I am forced to
hit the delete key. That number is too overwhelming and too time
consuming. It's not that i am not interested, I just don't have the time.
Mary, zone 6
John Woodworth
Natasha wrote:
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, I am against splitting up rec. gardens for any
> reason. I like it just fine the way it is right now. It really doesn't need to
> be split.
> The variety of it is what I like so much about this newsgroup.
> Just my two cents.
I'm against any split, too. Wellll, maybe one. Leave rec.gardens alone,
but add another called rec.gardens.discussions-split.
The continual resurgance of this topic is very tiresome.
--
John
"Pro meo lingua graeca est!"
.
Scott D. Jung
Should probably post these to news.groups as well.
Scott
Ken Dean <kd...@misnet.com> wrote:
:)>> Again, we agree with Liz. A half a dozen people saying they'd welcome the
:)>> split is clearly not a majority of the people who take part in the
:)>> discussions here. In terms of the volume of posts, we have never had a
:)>> problem with it.
:)>>
:)>> We hope rec.gardens stays as is.
:)>>
:)>> Thanks for listening,
:)>>
:)>> Bill & Harvey
:)>> SKID Zone 6 CT
:)>___________________________________________________________________________________
:)>
:)>I'm getting the impression that this good idea for a newsgroup has
:)>gotten off on the wrong foot. Looks to me as though someone offered a
:)>good suggestion to have a vegetable newsgroup. I favor the idea since
:)>it would eliminate the need to sift through all of the non-vegetable
:)>threads. The discussion and "voting" process is just getting started,
:)>as I understand it, and I don't think anyone is recommending that the
:)>newsgroup begin with 6 votes in favor.
:)>
:)>Since it's a community newsgroup, the community will decide. Seems
:)>fair.
:)>
:)>Ken
Scott D. Jung
Probably should be posting these to news.groups.
Scott
George Shirley <gshi...@iamerica.net> wrote:
:)>Scott D. Jung wrote:
:)>>
:)>> Dear Bill and Harvey,
:)>>
:)>> I am sorry that you feel that this was not discussed. I was not aware
:)>> that this was a part of the process, honestly. I saw several
:)>> questions about it and I saw the need.
:)>>
:)>> As far as the group as a whole. Few people are even discussing the
:)>> issue. I am not sure what the norm for this type of thing is, so I
:)>> have no basis for judgement.
:)>>
:)>> As far as the actual group feeling. I fyou want to assign 10 people
:)>> to each vote in the RFD section, it is hardly a majority either way.
:)>> So far I have 6 votes against creation of this group. One of those
:)>> was for a total reorganization. There are 6 votes for creation as
:)>> written. Another 4 would vote for if the name changed to include
:)>> edibles. and another 4 people commented but did not really determine
:)>> their leanings.
:)>>
:)>> So there are indeed half a dozen that want this, but there are only
:)>> half dozen opposed.
:)>> Scott
:)>>
:)>> This is as of 5PM EST.
:)>>
:)>> sk...@bway.net wrote:
:)>>
:)>> :)>Dear group;
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>-<lots of stuff snipped throughout>-
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>> ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
:)>> :)>> :)>In addition to that consideration, there is also the issue that Bill
:)>> :)>> :)>and Ronald are hard at work on an RFD to create
:)>> :)>> :)>rec.gardens.ecosystems. That RFD has been well publicized on
:)>> :)>> :)>rec.gardens. This RFD was sprung on the group without notice, without
:)>> :)>> :)>request for support and without prior input from the group at large.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>We agree with Liz on this point. There were many requests for the
:)>> :)>organic/ecosystems split long before the original proposal was submitted.
:)>> :)>The high degree of publicity/discussion before submitting it was helpful
:)>> :)>in making everyone aware of it--this vegetable/edible split appeared out
:)>> :)>of nowhere, without warning, and was immediately submitted to news.groups.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>> Scott wrote:
:)>> :)>> I have talked with Bill and I have his blessing!
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>We didn't know Bill/roseguy had the call on this. We thought this was
:)>> :)>more of a community approach, family-like in nature where everyone had a
:)>> :)>say--*before* the RFD.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>> ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
:)>> :)>> :)>Personally, I like rec.gardens the way it is.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>> Scott wrote:
:)>> :)>> Chaotic? Like browsing in a bookstore in a fire?
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>We like rec.gardens the way it is. The overlapping nature of the topics
:)>> :)>in this group make very few splits as surgical as some would believe.
:)>> :)>Many (most) participants of this group view the multi-faceted nature of
:)>> :)>rec.gardens as a benefit, not a problem.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>> :)>That is the reason that until/unless considerable evidence is given
:)>> :)>> :)>that people have problems with the group due to *volume of posts* that
:)>> :)>> :)>I will not support a reorganization of rec.gardens.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>Again, we agree with Liz. A half a dozen people saying they'd welcome the
:)>> :)>split is clearly not a majority of the people who take part in the
:)>> :)>discussions here. In terms of the volume of posts, we have never had a
:)>> :)>problem with it.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>We hope rec.gardens stays as is.
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>Thanks for listening,
:)>> :)>
:)>> :)>Bill & Harvey
:)>> :)>SKID Zone 6 CT
:)>>
:)>> Scott D. Jung
:)>> ju...@ix.netcom.com PC-Hero
:)>> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/2392
:)>> http://www.netcom.com/~jung
:)>
:)>Well Scott. You can count me as another vote against. We've been
:)>through this issue multiple times to my knowledge. I LIKE the ambiance
:)>of getting a look at flower, veggie, etc. posts all mixed together. I'll
:)>vote against when the time comes.
:)>
:)>George in SW Louisiana
Scott D. Jung
ma...@best.com (M. Wilson) wrote:
:)>Just to add another pseudo-vote - I, too, feel that the sheer volume
:)>of posts in rec.gardens makes a food gardening group desirable.
:)>
:)>I believe that when a newsgroup gets too big, discussion is stifled,
:)>just by the sheer weight of all the posts. "Too big", to me, is the
:)>point where reading and contributing to a newsgroup is no longer
:)>worth the amount of work that it requires. That point varies by
:)>person, of course, but as a person reaches it, they tend to drift
:)>away, to stop contributing. It's my belief that this is what many
:)>vegetable gardeners are doing.
:)>
:)>When I compare the discussion of vegetables in rec.gardens to the
:)>discussions in, say, rec.food.drink.tea, or rec.gardens.roses, I'm
:)>jealous. I want that kind of detailed, passionate discussion of food
:)>gardening, and I'm not getting it in rec.gardens, or anywhere else on
:)>Usenet. I don't think that I will get it, until it's moved to a less
:)>crowded space.
:)>
:)>A few quibbles about the proposal:
:)>
:)>- I'd rather see the group named rec.gardens.edibles. I don't believe
:)>that people will realize that rec.gardens.vegetables is an
:)>appropriate place for discussions of, say, strawberries; I think
:)>they'll post asking where rec.gardens.fruit is. Charters are quickly
:)>forgotten once groups are created - IMO, whenever possible, the
:)>purpose of a group should be in the name.
:)>
:)>- I'm opposed to *any* opening to advertising. Allowing advertising
:)>"within the rules" works for a moderated group, where those rules can
:)>be enforced. In an unmoderated group, a plain no-advertising policy
:)>is easier to enforce, in my opinion.
:)>
:)>- Is there a reason why this RFD was not also posted to the Square
:)>Foot Gardening and Organic Gardening mailing lists? Both of these
:)>lists have extensive discussion of food gardening.
The main problem with those groups, in the eyes of the UVV is that
people who don't subscribe, cannot post messages. Hence, the vote
taker cannot post to the mailing list. I would appreciate it if you
(I assume you subscribe to both?) would post the message there. You
should include a disclaimer that discussion should take place in
news.groups. Also post a message there when the CFV eventually
happens. I am reasonably sure that there will be a second RFD prior
to that CFV. THe main reason is to change the name to edibles and to
include fuits and nuts and herbs.
:)>
:)>- I'd like to see some discussion, in posts if not in the charter, of
:)>where "crossover" topics, such as herbs, edible flowers, fruit trees,
:)>and the like, would be discussed.
:)>
:)>And what might be much more than a quibble:
:)>
:)>I don't fully understand Liz Albrook's discusson of changes in
:)>charter, and how it affects on-topic posts and cross-posting; if
:)>she's reading this, maybe she could explain further?
What she is talking about, is that in the RFD, you will see a section
called charter. This documents what is to be discussed in the group.
Her complaint is that vegetable gardening IS covered in rec.gardens.
I am not advocating removing all vegetable discussion in that group.
If rec.gardens would like to discuss vegetables, that is fine. I am
advocating a group that will discuss ONLY 'edibles'. A place where
readers can read about and post about edibles. NO posts on flowers
(unless they are directly involved with eating them....in other words
you may discuss saffron crocus in the context of eating them)
With regards to crossposting, there are a certain number of posts
regarding edibles gardening currently being posted. There are three
scenarios I see:
1. If those posts are moved to the new group, In total: Now if
people want to read about everything, they won't receive any more
messages than they currently do, they will simply be in two groups.
(and organized just a wee bit, don't let it scare you)
2. If those posts are crossposted to the new group, In total: Now if
people want to read about everything, they don't need to join the new
group. BUT, if they want to read ONLY about edibles, they may now go
to the new group and ONLY get edibles discussions.
3. Partial Crossposting. I think this will be a problem for a while.
People will believe that the new group won't have anyone in it. But
as time progresses, posts about edible gardening will be moved to the
new group.
YES, there will be crossposts. You grow the edibles in the same soil
as you grow the ornamentals. You fertilize them somewhat the same.
You use compost and organic material almost the same. BUT I would
stress that you grow roses and orchids in the same soils and the same
issues apply to them, yet they are self sufficient enough to require
them their own space.
:)>When the other rec.gardens.* groups were created, did their creation
:)>include a change to rec.gardens' charter? Is a 'split' group usually
:)>accompanied by such a charter change in the original group? If so, I
:)>certainly agree that this is a subject that shouldn't be skimmed
:)>over. I want a food gardening group, but I want a well-formed one,
:)>and I don't want to see rec.gardens damaged in the process.
:)>
:)>--
:)>M. Wilson ma...@best.com
M. Wilson
Just to add another pseudo-vote - I, too, feel that the sheer volume
I believe that when a newsgroup gets too big, discussion is stifled,
just by the sheer weight of all the posts. "Too big", to me, is the
point where reading and contributing to a newsgroup is no longer
worth the amount of work that it requires. That point varies by
person, of course, but as a person reaches it, they tend to drift
away, to stop contributing. It's my belief that this is what many
vegetable gardeners are doing.
When I compare the discussion of vegetables in rec.gardens to the
discussions in, say, rec.food.drink.tea, or rec.gardens.roses, I'm
jealous. I want that kind of detailed, passionate discussion of food
gardening, and I'm not getting it in rec.gardens, or anywhere else on
Usenet. I don't think that I will get it, until it's moved to a less
crowded space.
A few quibbles about the proposal:
- I'd rather see the group named rec.gardens.edibles. I don't believe
that people will realize that rec.gardens.vegetables is an
appropriate place for discussions of, say, strawberries; I think
they'll post asking where rec.gardens.fruit is. Charters are quickly
forgotten once groups are created - IMO, whenever possible, the
purpose of a group should be in the name.
- I'm opposed to *any* opening to advertising. Allowing advertising
"within the rules" works for a moderated group, where those rules can
be enforced. In an unmoderated group, a plain no-advertising policy
is easier to enforce, in my opinion.
- Is there a reason why this RFD was not also posted to the Square
Foot Gardening and Organic Gardening mailing lists? Both of these
lists have extensive discussion of food gardening.
- I'd like to see some discussion, in posts if not in the charter, of
where "crossover" topics, such as herbs, edible flowers, fruit trees,
and the like, would be discussed.
And what might be much more than a quibble:
I don't fully understand Liz Albrook's discusson of changes in
charter, and how it affects on-topic posts and cross-posting; if
she's reading this, maybe she could explain further?
When the other rec.gardens.* groups were created, did their creation
include a change to rec.gardens' charter? Is a 'split' group usually
accompanied by such a charter change in the original group? If so, I
certainly agree that this is a subject that shouldn't be skimmed
over. I want a food gardening group, but I want a well-formed one,
and I don't want to see rec.gardens damaged in the process.
--
M. Wilson ma...@best.com
Vroomfndel
Ya'll, I think about wishing that rec.gardens was more manageable to
download each time I bring the messages down to read. Irregardless of
server charges, I still pay for the phone call. Even though the volume of
messages is at times overwhelming (and expensive), if/when the time comes,
I will vote NO.
At present, I am humgry for information re gardening in the deep south --
coastal Mississippi. I have thought that it would be wonderful to read
only messages from a group devoted to the deep south, yet the most
valuable tidbit I have received from the group came from someone who
*used* to live down here. If the group had been split geographically, I
might not have seen that post.
I am most interested in eidible landscaping. Among the things I grow are
roses for their hips; camelia, yaupon, red bay and sassafras (a baby) for
their leaves; calendula for their flowers and purple coneflower for their
roots.
I understand from an unrelated post by Liz (something to do with some
folks getting more responces to their gripes than other folks get to their
questions), that there is some sort of toggle available to pre-screen the
messages received. In other words, it seemed that regulars did not even
have to see the redundant questions re tomatoes. Liz's post re this 'do
not distribute' line also alluded to a reader "losing tenure" and getting
bombarded again if s/he did something to inflame whomever it was who
activated this screening mechinism.
Ah, to be tenured...
Jan
on the MS gulf coast
Vroomfndel
Poppy
And I would definitely vote YES to split the group. Right now it's
such a mish-mash. I live in an area where we're lucky enough to garden
12 months a year and I do both flowers and edibles. But as I have
distinct areas for flowers and veggies, it would be so much easier to
find the information I need or to help someone else with distinct
groups.
My 2 cents.
Poppy
Pop...@juno.com
Dana Hollish & Doug Hill
I am a third year/season food and herb gardener and have very much enjoyed
rec.gardens. However, I often find it overwhelming and would be very
interested in a more focused group about edibles as described below. I am
not really interested in reading about all of the other items on a regualr
basis, but I like being able to search for answers about other topics when
I am interested.
I believe that I would be a more active and frequent participant in an
"edibles" discussion because I have a personal interest and some actual
experiences to share on the topics discussed. I would also have more time
to spend reading about topics I care about rather than scanning and
deleting the ones I know will not be of interest to me at this time.
I think it would be great if the tomato plant questions are all being
posted to the people who care about edibles, and the flowering bulb
questions are all being posted to the people who care about the
non-edibles, and the people who care about both can read both groups and
share their broader based experiences with all of us. I think this would
attract more people and more expeiences to rec.gardens which is wonderful,
but has too much volume to keep everyone interested.
Thanks
Dana Hollish, who this year ate her first home grown eggplants!
In article <327b4dcd....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com
(Scott D. Jung) wrote:
barbara pattist
ggl...@minn.net (Ginger Sackett Glaser) wrote:
>LRFO...@hep.phy.duke.edu (L. R. Fortney) wrote:
>> Granted that there are common threads to all types of gardening, and
>>granted that it's difficult to find the right keywords, and granted that
>>one can carry splitting to extremes...the fact remains that this catch-all
>>newsgroup is so big that it takes far too long to scan subjects.
>While I think if and when rec.gardens needs to be split that
>foodstuff/nonfoodstuff is the way to go, I must point out that
>rec.gardens is not that big of a group. There are rarely more than 150
>messages a day, and often less. Unless of course, my ISP is
>inexplicably missing rec.gardens posts and not any is a really big
>group like rec.pets.cats, soc.weddings etc
>Ginger
Ginger's figures are correct, at least for the current season.
Number of articles posted:
Oct.28th 140
Oct.29th 155
Oct.30th 124
Oct.31st 148
Nov. 1st 137
barbara
Scott Parker
sk...@bway.net wrote:
>We still maintain that rec.gardens should stay as is. The collection of
>knowledge within the group is a credit to all the people that take part in
>it. By dividing, we lose some of that, and it would be unfortunate.
But what we might gain from the split is more participation by
"veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered to wade through all
the other discussions. It can be overwhelming.
What kind of software are people using who find it difficult to
subscribe to more than one group? Using Free Agent, I easily
subscribe to two dozen on a regular basis.
sk...@bway.net
Jerry Pank wrote:
>>I'm new to this newsgroup but wow! 400 fresh postings in 12 hours!
>>I would say it needs splitting.
>>Hey, Is it any trouble to read both newsgroups?
Barabara Pattist wrote:
>Ginger's figures are correct, at least for the current season.
>Number of articles posted:
>Oct.28th 140
>Oct.29th 155
>Oct.30th 124
>Oct.31st 148
>Nov. 1st 137
We have never had a problem with the number of posts in rec.gardens, and
view it as an asset--the collective knowledge of so many people is an
incredible resource to draw upon. Using it as an excuse for a split tends
to be counterproductive because gardening issues are multi-faceted and
cannot be 'cut along dotted lines'.
In regard to the proposal currently being offered, we are re-posting the
following from rec.gardens:
> >Scott D. Jung wrote:
> > I am sorry that you feel that this was not discussed. I was not aware
> > that this was a part of the process, honestly. I saw several
> > questions about it and I saw the need.
Saying "I was not aware that this was a part of the process, honestly"
leads us to believe this new proposal, unfortunately now in RFD, was done
on a whim and without sufficient planning or forethought.
> > As far as the group as a whole. Few people are even discussing the
> > issue. I am not sure what the norm for this type of thing is, so I
> > have no basis for judgement.
Another reason to have given more time for a general discussion within the
group. Here again, you say: "I am not sure what the norm for this type of
thing is". We feel it would have been better to ask first, and take the
time to wait for the discussion to develop.
> > So there are indeed half a dozen that want this, but there are only
> > half dozen opposed.
As of this post that is. We think you will find that the number of people
opposed to this split will grow quickly for the following reasons:
1. There was little or no discussion time allowed in rec.gardens before
the proposal was submitted for RFD.
2. There is also the issue that Bill and Ronald are hard at work on an
RFD to create
rec.gardens.ecosystems. Yes, you may have Bill's blessing, but having
another proposal on the table only complicates matters. Has anyone
considered the potential for crossposting between 'ecosystems' and
'edibles'? It will be significant.
3. Overlapping of issues, hence crossposting. Issues such as soil prep,
pest management, pollination, animal deterrents, seed collection, seed
swaps, composting, etc. The list goes on, and these things are not easily
divisible.
4. With the expectation that rec.gardens.ecosystems will be resubmitted,
and having 'edibles' in RFD, the potential for people demanding splits
along other lines is inevitable (it already happens):
rec.gardens.annuals/.perennials/.trees.shrubs/.zone.5 (all zones or
geographic) etc. By the time all is said and done, there would be nothing
left, except the need to subscribe to 12 different groups, just to get
what we have already in rec.gardens.
We still maintain that rec.gardens should stay as is. The collection of
knowledge within the group is a credit to all the people that take part in
it. By dividing, we lose that, and it is unfortunate.
Bill & Harvey
SKID Zone 6 CT USA
Scott D. Jung
sk...@bway.net wrote:
:)>
:)>> >Scott D. Jung wrote:
:)>> > I am sorry that you feel that this was not discussed. I was not aware
:)>> > that this was a part of the process, honestly. I saw several
:)>> > questions about it and I saw the need.
:)>
:)>Saying "I was not aware that this was a part of the process, honestly"
:)>leads us to believe this new proposal, unfortunately now in RFD, was done
:)>on a whim and without sufficient planning or forethought.
And not posting to news.groups, only points out that I am not the only
one who isn't totally clear on some things.
:)>
:)>> > As far as the group as a whole. Few people are even discussing the
:)>> > issue. I am not sure what the norm for this type of thing is, so I
:)>> > have no basis for judgement.
:)>
:)>Another reason to have given more time for a general discussion within the
:)>group. Here again, you say: "I am not sure what the norm for this type of
:)>thing is". We feel it would have been better to ask first, and take the
:)>time to wait for the discussion to develop.
I meant, NOT having ever been a proponent of a new group, I was not
sure of what to expect with regard to the number of posts to
news.groups.
:)>
:)>> > So there are indeed half a dozen that want this, but there are only
:)>> > half dozen opposed.
:)>
:)>As of this post that is. We think you will find that the number of people
:)>opposed to this split will grow quickly for the following reasons:
Actually it is about half and half. STILL.
:)>
:)>1. There was little or no discussion time allowed in rec.gardens before
:)>the proposal was submitted for RFD.
:)>
:)>2. There is also the issue that Bill and Ronald are hard at work on an
:)>RFD to create
:)>rec.gardens.ecosystems. Yes, you may have Bill's blessing, but having
:)>another proposal on the table only complicates matters. Has anyone
:)>considered the potential for crossposting between 'ecosystems' and
:)>'edibles'? It will be significant.
:)>
:)>3. Overlapping of issues, hence crossposting. Issues such as soil prep,
:)>pest management, pollination, animal deterrents, seed collection, seed
:)>swaps, composting, etc. The list goes on, and these things are not easily
:)>divisible.
I notice tons of crossposting from rec.gardens.orchids and roses.
:)>
:)>4. With the expectation that rec.gardens.ecosystems will be resubmitted,
:)>and having 'edibles' in RFD, the potential for people demanding splits
:)>along other lines is inevitable (it already happens):
:)>rec.gardens.annuals/.perennials/.trees.shrubs/.zone.5 (all zones or
:)>geographic) etc. By the time all is said and done, there would be nothing
:)>left, except the need to subscribe to 12 different groups, just to get
:)>what we have already in rec.gardens.
Is this that tough for you? I have no problem subscribing to as many
groups as I want.
:)>
:)>We still maintain that rec.gardens should stay as is. The collection of
:)>knowledge within the group is a credit to all the people that take part in
:)>it. By dividing, we lose some of that, and it would be unfortunate.
I have already heard from at least 3-4 people who LEFT rec.gardens
because there was too much noise. They wanted to be more in depth
with edible gardening. Without having to search through the load of
posts.
:)>
:)>Bill & Harvey
:)>SKID Zone 6 CT USA
PLEASE, post these messages to news.groups as well.
sk...@bway.net
In article <55jdog$s...@atlas.uniserve.com>, lpa...@uniserve.com (Scott
Parker) wrote:
> sk...@bway.net wrote:
>
> >We still maintain that rec.gardens should stay as is. The collection of
> >knowledge within the group is a credit to all the people that take part in
> >it. By dividing, we lose some of that, and it would be unfortunate.
> What kind of software are people using who find it difficult to
> subscribe to more than one group? Using Free Agent, I easily
> subscribe to two dozen on a regular basis.
>
> Scott
> http://users.uniserve.com/~lparker/ (for stories & puzzles)
Scott Parker wrote:
> But what we might gain from the split is more participation by
> "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered to wade through all
> the other discussions. It can be overwhelming.
If there are " "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered",
perhaps their interest in the cyber community of gardening isn't that
strong. We have never felt "overwhelmed" by the volume or range of posts
in rec.gardens--we read the titles of the posts, and if we're interested
in the subject, we read it/respond to it.
It isn't difficult to subscribe to several groups, but under these
circumstances, cross-posting would most definitely be a problem. Too many
issues are inter-related, and again, surgical divisions cannot be made
(=crossposting).
Bill & Harvey
Denise Vajdak
> > But what we might gain from the split is more participation by
> > "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered to wade through all
> > the other discussions. It can be overwhelming.
Yes, all the posts can be, and usually are, overwhelming, especially to
those of us that try to read the newsgroups at breaks at work. It takes
almost all of the time I have just to read through the subject lines,
let alone the whole posts. Splitting would aleviate some of this
overload.
> If there are " "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered",
> perhaps their interest in the cyber community of gardening isn't that
> strong. We have never felt "overwhelmed" by the volume or range of posts
> in rec.gardens--we read the titles of the posts, and if we're interested
> in the subject, we read it/respond to it.
>
> It isn't difficult to subscribe to several groups, but under these
> circumstances, cross-posting would most definitely be a problem. Too many
> issues are inter-related, and again, surgical divisions cannot be made
> (=crossposting).
I don't see cross posting as a problem and as you pointed out, if you
were reading the two groups, you could just read the titles and skip
ones you read on the other group. Why is everyone so scared of change?
--
@>-->--- @>-->--- @>-->--- ---<--<@ ---<--<@ ---<--<@
DENISE VAJDAK TAMU Class of '92 dva...@ci.bryan.tx.us
Facility Services-City of Bryan, Texas
@¿@ http://www.rtis.com/reg/bryan/communit/facility/
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/dvajdak/
Scott D. Jung
sk...@bway.net wrote:
:)>In article <55jdog$s...@atlas.uniserve.com>, lpa...@uniserve.com (Scott
:)>Parker) wrote:
:)>
:)>> sk...@bway.net wrote:
:)>>
:)>> >We still maintain that rec.gardens should stay as is. The collection of
:)>> >knowledge within the group is a credit to all the people that take part in
:)>> >it. By dividing, we lose some of that, and it would be unfortunate.
:)>
:)>> What kind of software are people using who find it difficult to
:)>> subscribe to more than one group? Using Free Agent, I easily
:)>> subscribe to two dozen on a regular basis.
:)>>
:)>> Scott
:)>> http://users.uniserve.com/~lparker/ (for stories & puzzles)
:)>
:)>Scott Parker wrote:
:)>> But what we might gain from the split is more participation by
:)>> "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered to wade through all
:)>> the other discussions. It can be overwhelming.
:)>
:)>If there are " "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered",
:)>perhaps their interest in the cyber community of gardening isn't that
:)>strong. We have never felt "overwhelmed" by the volume or range of posts
:)>in rec.gardens--we read the titles of the posts, and if we're interested
:)>in the subject, we read it/respond to it.
So what the author is saying is that his concerns should take
precedence over those who aren't in rec.gardens. This group is NOT
JUST for rec.gardens subscribers, but the internet community as a
whole.
:)>
:)>It isn't difficult to subscribe to several groups, but under these
:)>circumstances, cross-posting would most definitely be a problem. Too many
:)>issues are inter-related, and again, surgical divisions cannot be made
:)>(=crossposting).
:)>
:)>Bill & Harvey
:)>SKID Zone 6 CT USA
sk...@bway.net
> So what the author is saying is that his concerns should take
> precedence over those who aren't in rec.gardens. This group is NOT
> JUST for rec.gardens subscribers, but the internet community as a
> whole.
Scott:
The same thing could be said about the author of this charter.
Yes, the newsgroups are for the entire internet community--but again, a
split of a topic where issues overlap will only complicate things. Where
will one post for things like soil prep, seed germination, companion
planting, etc? It seems likely that if this split occurs, these subjects
(along with many others), will get cross-posted, and the split will have
benefitted no one. We will once again bring up the fact that
rec.gardens.ecosystems will be re-submitted--yet another venue for these
very same topics.
Bill & Harvey
Scott D. Jung
sk...@bway.net wrote:
:)>> So what the author is saying is that his concerns should take
:)>> precedence over those who aren't in rec.gardens. This group is NOT
:)>> JUST for rec.gardens subscribers, but the internet community as a
:)>> whole.
:)>
:)>Scott:
:)>
:)>The same thing could be said about the author of this charter.
:)>
:)>Yes, the newsgroups are for the entire internet community--but again, a
:)>split of a topic where issues overlap will only complicate things. Where
:)>will one post for things like soil prep, seed germination, companion
:)>planting, etc? It seems likely that if this split occurs, these subjects
:)>(along with many others), will get cross-posted, and the split will have
:)>benefitted no one. We will once again bring up the fact that
:)>rec.gardens.ecosystems will be re-submitted--yet another venue for these
:)>very same topics.
So where would you read those posts NOW? on rec.gardens, of course.
Since that is the catch-all. Where would they be posted in the
future? Hard to say. They might be crossposted. You seem not to
have any intention of subscribing to rec.gardens.edible anyway, so
what do you care? If someone is going to cross post that, they may
crosspost from rec.gardens.roses or orchids? They do use the same
soil. And companion plants are equally important. What do you do
now?
Scott
Jim_...@transarc.com
nat...@col.hp.com (Natalie Ramsey) writes:
> Jerry Pank (Jer...@advancedsys.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : Great Idea.
>
> : I can't see the problem with defenitions.
>
> : If you eat it, its a 'vegetable'.
>
> Perhaps that's true in gardenerese, but the de facto language of
> Usenet is English. :-)
>
> In all seriousness, "vegetable" is not an obvious name for a group
> that discusses all sorts of, well, edible plants. And the name needs
> to be obvious to casual glancers through newsgroup lists as well
> as to current readers of rec.gardens.
>
Most of the folks I know who grow gardens of edible plants refer to
their gardens as "vegetable gardens." Yes, the gardens include
tomatoes, which are really fruits, and basil, which is an herb. But
the term vegetable garden seems to be in common use as the term for
a garden containing various edible plants.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
Technical Writer -- Encina Programming Documentation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/
Vroomfndel
In article <MPG.ce55177a...@news.zippo.com>,
ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) writes:
>Subject: Re: RFD: rec.gardens.vegetable
>From: ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook)
>Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 12:39:52 -0800
>
>In article <55g8ng$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vroom...@aol.com
>says...
>
>> I understand from an unrelated post by Liz (something to do with some
>> folks getting more responces to their gripes than other folks get to
their
>> questions), that there is some sort of toggle available to pre-screen
the
>> messages received. In other words, it seemed that regulars did not
even
>> have to see the redundant questions re tomatoes. Liz's post re this
'do
>> not distribute' line also alluded to a reader "losing tenure" and
getting
>> bombarded again if s/he did something to inflame whomever it was who
>> activated this screening mechinism.
>
>You lost me with this one.
>
>There are programs with killfiles. I recently purchased one.
>
>
The posting to which I was referring is:
Subject: Re: Could this group be broken down?
From: Liz Albrook <ealb...@lewiston.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 10:20:02 -0700
Kay Cangemi wrote:
>
> In article <32645B...@waonline.com>, Nancy & Michael
> <mwas...@waonline.com> wrote:
>
> > But I think separating out the newsgroup in some manner makes
> > a lot of sense... 300+ messages is too many to manage.
> >
> How come all the complainers always get more posts than I do??(:(:
Kay,
We all have a special "Do not distribute to" line that we
fill in with the names and addresses of rec.gardens regulars
so that the regulars don't get overwhelmed. Newbies don't
know about this special feature of rec.gardens which is why
we get all of those "My tomatoes are splitting/turning black
on the ends/wilting/being eaten/dying/taking over the
garden/good/bad what do I do?" posts every summer.
Of course, if a regular manages, however difficult it might be,
to really rile the rest of us then the get off the special
DNDT line and get bombed with thousands of posts per day.
That said, I could support the creation of rec.gardens.tomatoes
or at least rec.gardens.tomatoes.asked.and.answered.a.million.times.
Liz
Loretta McFadden
Scott -
I can't make much sense of this tangle and I'm not sure if my first vote
registered or was even relevant. But here it is again - I think a separate
veggie list is a very good idea. (Wish I could vote twice on Tuesday.)
Betsy
Natalie Ramsey
Jim_...@transarc.com wrote:
: nat...@col.hp.com (Natalie Ramsey) writes:
: > Jerry Pank (Jer...@advancedsys.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >
: >
: > In all seriousness, "vegetable" is not an obvious name for a group
: > that discusses all sorts of, well, edible plants. And the name needs
: > to be obvious to casual glancers through newsgroup lists as well
: > as to current readers of rec.gardens.
: Most of the folks I know who grow gardens of edible plants refer to
: their gardens as "vegetable gardens." Yes, the gardens include
: tomatoes, which are really fruits, and basil, which is an herb. But
: the term vegetable garden seems to be in common use as the term for
: a garden containing various edible plants.
Maybe so, but I have a couple of fruit trees which are most assuredly
not part of my vegetable garden, but which are covered by the group
as proposed. It wouldn't occur to me to ask about fruit trees
in a group called rec.gardens.vegetable.
Besides which, the namespace concerns are as much for the non-gardener
as for the gardener.
Blessings,
Natalie
--
Natalie Overstreet Ramsey - <nat...@col.hp.com> - ** I don't speak for HP **
Upon the advice of my attorney, my .sig has no comment at this time.
Denise Vajdak
Where
> will one post for things like soil prep,
Soil prep for what? Vegetables? Alkaline soil loving flowers? It all
depends.
>seed germination,
What type of seeds? Be specific.
>companion planting, etc? It seems likely that if this split occurs, these subjects
> (along with many others), will get cross-posted,
Not if the posts are specific and not broad as they are now and many
people ask the poster to narrow it down. Right now there are TOO many
posts to weed through for those of us that don't have all day to read
posts about flower AND vegetables (excuse me, edibles AND non-edibles).
Try it and see, I bet there wouldn't be too many cross-posts once the
servers start adding the new group and since they would be more
specific, more people might be more inclined to join in.
Dan Parker
I'm in favor of anything that will keep me from having to wade through
this old (and very tired) kudzu discussion.
--
- I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!
David Ross
Denise Vajdak wrote [in part]:
> I don't see cross posting as a problem and as you pointed out, if you
> were reading the two groups, you could just read the titles and skip
> ones you read on the other group. Why is everyone so scared of change?
If the title is "Re: RFD: rec.gardens.vegetable" and it is part of a very long and
active thread, how do I know that I read this reply on rec.gardens or on news.groups?
We can already tell from various postings in this thread that -- on a cross-posted
item -- not everyone posts a reply to both newsgroups. Thus, I would have to open and
read the posting before I could tell that I already read it in the other newsgroup.
This example could easily be applied to "Re: HELP. Leaves turning yellow" or any other
subject that could belong to either newsgroup.
David Ross
Ken Dean wrote:
>
> I'm getting the impression that this good idea for a newsgroup has
>
I have integrated vegetables into my landscaping. For example, where my
landscape plans called for a large bush (with grey-green leaves to
balance the feijoa on the other side of the yard), I planted artichoke.
Splitting vegetables off this newsgroup would result in double postings
for me.
Runs With Scissors
In article <55jdog$s...@atlas.uniserve.com> lpa...@uniserve.com (Scott Parker) delayed the second coming by announcing:
>
>
What kind of software are people using who find it difficult to
sift through rec.gardens? Using trn, I easily make it through all
of rec.gardens' posts every day.
Breaking out vegetables is the wrong way to go. I can see that even
though that's all I grow. There is too much overlap with other areas
as has been pointed out repeatedly. Personally I would support breaking
out a lawn newsgroup, as that has less in common with growing flowers,
vegetables, herbs, etc. but there are still the composting issues and
productive discussions about organic vs. chemical and the mushroom
questions usually wind up generating pretty interesting discussion too.
I really don't see any other independent topic(s) that can be broken out,
or should be broken out due to overwhelming volume, as was, I believe, the
case with rose growing.
Another problem is the issue of companion planting, which is often a mix
of edibles and non-edibles. And for God's sake, WHAT ABOUT THE KALE? :)
I will be voting "no" when the Call For Votes comes out whether the name
is .vegetables or .edibles. I just don't think that that is a good way
to make a split.
--
Heard at a day care center: <PGP email welcome.>
One of the three year olds made the statement to a teacher,"My Dad needs to
stop drinking those Bud Lights". When she asked why, he replied, "'Cause
last night he barfed all over my Cookie Monster pillow".
Martha Cather
Denise Vajdak wrote:
> I don't see cross posting as a problem and as you pointed out, if you
> were reading the two groups, you could just read the titles and skip
> ones you read on the other group. Why is everyone so scared of change?
It's been my experience that each time a group splits, I try (for a
while) and read the new groups. But inevitably, each grows and after
awhile, I find the whole thing unwieldy and quit reading either of them.
It seems like newsgroups tend to become self-limiting in volume after
awhile, maybe that's just because of the way I set up my news reader.
I select to read some number of recent posts, usually about 150. Now
if I start reading two groups instead of one, that means I am now
scanning through either 300 post titles or else have to cut down
the messages for all my groups or go individually group by group.
Probably just an idiosyncracy on my part, but that's one personal
reason for opposing change.
MC
Liz Albrook
In article <55kq4u$m...@news-e2b.gnn.com>, Jim...@gnn.com says...
>
> In article <MPG.ce34742d...@news.zippo.com> Liz Albrook wrote:
>
> >1. The only way to snip a topic out of rec.gardens is to change the
> >group's charter.
>
> This is not really true. For example, the overwhelming majority of
> traffic is being snipped out of news.admin.net-abuse.misc. This was
> recognized by a comment in the RFD for the new groups - but there
> was no separate vote on the effective rechartering of n.a.n-a.m.
It is true when long term contributors to rec.gardens do not join
rec.gardens.vegetable and they post vegetable related posts in
rec.gardens. When that occurs and vegetable topics are found on both
groups many people are going to post to both groups in order to get
all possible answers. This is particularly the case when many,
perhaps even most, of the long time well-respected members of
rec.gardens refuse to post to rec.gardens.vegetables. I've yet to see
one of those people support this proposal.
> >2. If a group is created that has a topic already discussed in
> >rec.gardens then there will be massive crossposting between that group
> >and rec.gardens.
>
> Is there massive cross-posting between rec.gardens and rec.gardens.roses?
No, and for good reason. There are few rose posts in rec.gardens.
When newbies as rose questions, unless they are fairly simple, they
are directed to r.g.roses. Although a number of people on rec.gardens
grow roses, few of them, myself included, would call themselves rose
gardeners or experts on roses. The culture of roses is an extensive,
specialized topic. In r.g.roses one can find specific information on
thousands of cultivars and problems specific to roses.
The difference between roses and vegetables is simple There are *no*
issues specific to vegetables as opposed to ornamentals with the
exception of a few chemicals that may be applied to ornamentals that
may not be applied to edibles. Issues of soil, seed starting, most
pest problems, etc. are common to both edibles and ornamentals.
> >3. If there is massive crossposting then every person who follows
> >both rec.gardens and rec.gardens.vegetable will be adversely affected
> >by crossposting. That would include everyone who grows both
> >ornamental and edible plants. According to the survey results John
> >Mertus cited that comprises approximately 60% of all rec.gardens
> >readers.
>
> This of course does not not mean that 60% of all articles will be
> cross-posted. Presumably, most discussion about flowers or lawns
> will not be cross-posted to r.g.vegetables. And what is the adverse
> affect if cross-posting occurs?
This proposal was advanced because it supposedly takes too much time
to go through all the messages. If more than half the people on
rec.gardens are interested in both edibles and ornamentals while a
much smaller percentage are interested in only edibles, then fewer
people will have to "wade through" all those non-edibles postings
while more people will "wade through" all the postings in both
r.gardens and r.g.vegetables. Cross-posting is not a problem for
people who use some software. For the majority of dial-in users,
crossposted articles increase the amount of time spent online
receiving headers and articles. This group is being proposed to be
more convenient for some people. That's fine. The problem is it is
likely to inconvenience even more people.
>
> Maybe a more complete split should occur, with limited and thoughtful
> cross-posting encouraged.
Maybe, if there are big problems with volume, then there should be a
reorganization not an ill-thought out piecemeal approach that creates
as many problems as it solves -- particularly in light of the fact
that there are now 2 piecemeal proposals on the table.
--
Liz Albrook
USDA Zone 7, Sunset Zone 3
North Central Idaho
David Ross
Jerry Pank wrote:
>
> Great Idea.
>
> I can't see the problem with defenitions.
>
Into which newsgroup would you include nastrutiums, variagated thyme,
flowering fruit trees, and the other edible ornamentals?
>
> I'm new to this newsgroup but wow! 400 fresh postings in 12 hours!
> I would say it needs splitting.
> Hey, Is it any trouble to read both newsgroups?
With cross-postings between two newsgroups, we will be reading the same
postings in both (because of overlap). We cannot avoid subscribing to
both since some responses to cross-postings will appear in only one
newsgroup. The effect is to increase the effort to participate.
David Ross
Scott Parker wrote [in part]:
> But what we might gain from the split is more participation by
> "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered to wade through all
> the other discussions. It can be overwhelming.
What we lose is time reading redundant cross-postings. An issue that
covers two newsgroups would be posted to both. Someone interested in
broad issues then reads both, reading the same posting in both. This
cannot be avoided because responses might be posted in only one of the
two newsgroups.
Jim Riley
In article <MPG.ce34742d...@news.zippo.com> Liz Albrook wrote:
>In article <327962a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>You state in the RFD that vegetables as a topic can be snipped out of
>rec.gardens, that creating a group for the discussion of vegetables
>will not create crossposting and that readers of rec.gardens will not
>be adversely affected.
>
>1. The only way to snip a topic out of rec.gardens is to change the
>group's charter.
This is not really true. For example, the overwhelming majority of
traffic is being snipped out of news.admin.net-abuse.misc. This was
recognized by a comment in the RFD for the new groups - but there
was no separate vote on the effective rechartering of n.a.n-a.m.
Similarly, I doubt that there was a rechartering of rec.gardens when
rec.gardens.roses, .orchids, or .bonsai were created.
>2. If a group is created that has a topic already discussed in
>rec.gardens then there will be massive crossposting between that group
>and rec.gardens.
Is there massive cross-posting between rec.gardens and rec.gardens.roses?
>3. If there is massive crossposting then every person who follows
>both rec.gardens and rec.gardens.vegetable will be adversely affected
>by crossposting. That would include everyone who grows both
>ornamental and edible plants. According to the survey results John
>Mertus cited that comprises approximately 60% of all rec.gardens
>readers.
This of course does not not mean that 60% of all articles will be
cross-posted. Presumably, most discussion about flowers or lawns
will not be cross-posted to r.g.vegetables. And what is the adverse
affect if cross-posting occurs?
Maybe a more complete split should occur, with limited and thoughtful
cross-posting encouraged. For example if there were a r.g.trees+shrubs
and a r.g.edibles then discussion about peach trees would be appropriate
to both. rec.gardens could remain for general discussion or for topics
that don't fit any other group. There could be climate-based as well
as garden-typed groups as well. With this model, the various groups
would serve as an index rather than as a table of contents.
--
Jim Riley
Scott D. Jung
As has been noted before, it will be awhile longer. The name will be
changed to rec.gardens.edible and after that happens, it must be 21
days before it can go to a vote.
Scott
LRFO...@hep.phy.duke.edu (L. R. Fortney) wrote:
:)>In article <skid-03119...@dial56.bway.net>, sk...@bway.net wrote:
:)>
:)>>
:)>> 1. There was little or no discussion time allowed in rec.gardens before
:)>> the proposal was submitted for RFD.
:)>
:)>
:)> The splitting of this group has been discussed extensively for years,
:)>but never came to a vote because of the strange inner workings of the
:)>newsgroup organization.
:)>
:)> I'm happy to see a reasonable propose put to a vote. And I'll vote for
:)>it. Let's get on with the vote and see what happens.
:)>
:)>--
:)>Lloyd Fortney
:)>--------------------
:)>http://www.phy.duke.edu/~fortney/lrf_home_page.html
:)>has links to my garden, flower, flyfishing, and travel JPEG images as well as teaching, research, and stuff like that
Scott D. Jung
David Ross <dav...@omnikron.com> wrote:
:)>Denise Vajdak wrote [in part]:
:)>
:)>> I don't see cross posting as a problem and as you pointed out, if you
:)>> were reading the two groups, you could just read the titles and skip
:)>> ones you read on the other group. Why is everyone so scared of change?
:)>
:)>If the title is "Re: RFD: rec.gardens.vegetable" and it is part of a very long and
:)>active thread, how do I know that I read this reply on rec.gardens or on news.groups?
:)>We can already tell from various postings in this thread that -- on a cross-posted
:)>item -- not everyone posts a reply to both newsgroups. Thus, I would have to open and
:)>read the posting before I could tell that I already read it in the other newsgroup.
But you were interested enough to want to read it. Hence, you will
pull the few extras in.
Scott
:)>
:)>This example could easily be applied to "Re: HELP. Leaves turning yellow" or any other
:)>subject that could belong to either newsgroup.
Scott Parker
ggl...@minn.net (Ginger Sackett Glaser) wrote:
>lpa...@uniserve.com (Scott Parker) wrote:
>>Massive crossposting? That's not what happened when the rec.scuba
>>group split off two subgroups - rec.scuba.locations and
>>rec.scuba.equipment. Once the subgroups got to be carried by most
>>ISP's and after a few gentle reminders in the main group, things
>>settled pretty well into place.
>Well, if this proposal was to split rec.gardens into rg.veggies and
>rg.flowers, I would expect the experience to be the same as in the
>scuba groups. However, if you had been split inot rec.scuba and
>rec.scuba.locations only, how much cross-posting would there have
>been?
Sorry, I thought the wording was clear but I guess not. The rec.scuba
group split OFF two subgroups, it didn't split INTO two subgroups. In
other words, there are now: rec scuba (where general discussions take
place), rec.scuba.locations (where people discuss dive destinations),
and rec.scuba.equipment (where people discuss equipment).
Scott
http://users.uniserve.com/~lparker/ (for short stories)
Ginger Sackett Glaser
lpa...@uniserve.com (Scott Parker) wrote:
>sk...@bway.net wrote:
>>We still maintain that rec.gardens should stay as is. The collection of
>>knowledge within the group is a credit to all the people that take part in
>>it. By dividing, we lose some of that, and it would be unfortunate.
>But what we might gain from the split is more participation by
>"veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered to wade through all
>the other discussions. It can be overwhelming.
>What kind of software are people using who find it difficult to
>subscribe to more than one group? Using Free Agent, I easily
>subscribe to two dozen on a regular basis.
Actually, with Free Agent, and even Agent .99, subscribing to more
groups isn't the problem, having to download the same article several
times as it is posted in each group IS a problem, since there is no
crosspost management (yes, I know a fix is promised in Agent 1.0 but
it isn't here yet). As I see this group having several crossposts to
rg, plus the normal amount of SPAM since it isn't moderated, it would
cause me to have to deal with a lot more messages than I currently do.
Ginger
Ginger Sackett Glaser
lpa...@uniserve.com (Scott Parker) wrote:
>>lpa...@uniserve.com (Scott Parker) wrote:
Thank you for clarifying. I give your groups points for the lack of
cross-posts too, it isn't that easy to achieve on the net. Have you
had any trouble with new users crossposting? I ask because I think
rec.gardens gets a large number of questions from those new to the
group..
Ginger
sk...@bway.net
> sk...@bway.net wrote:
> :)>Yes, the newsgroups are for the entire internet community--but again, a
> :)>split of a topic where issues overlap will only complicate things. Where
> :)>will one post for things like soil prep, seed germination, companion
> :)>planting, etc? It seems likely that if this split occurs, these subjects
> :)>(along with many others), will get cross-posted, and the split will have
> :)>benefitted no one. We will once again bring up the fact that
> :)>rec.gardens.ecosystems will be re-submitted--yet another venue for these
> :)>very same topics.
ju...@ix.netcom.com (Scott D. Jung) wrote:
> So where would you read those posts NOW?
>on rec.gardens, of course.
Right.
> Since that is the catch-all. Where would they be posted in the
> future? Hard to say.
It appears that you've confirmed our point here.
>They might be crossposted.
We think it is a case that they *will* be cross-posted, not 'might'.
>You seem not to have any intention of subscribing to rec.gardens.edible
anyway, so
> what do you care?
Our subscribing isn't the issue here, we said we were against this
particular split. We care, because, as we've said before, there are too
many grey areas that do not lend themselves to clear and easy division.
We offer our opinion, because that is what an RFD is for--Request For
*Discussion*.
>If someone is going to cross post that, they may
> crosspost from rec.gardens.roses or orchids?
>They do use the same soil.
>And companion plants are equally important. What do you do
> now?
Highly unlikely. This issue was made brilliantly clear in a previous post
by another rec.gardens member. We don't have it now--but will look for
it. Additionally, we would say that these points are mute. Present
cross-posting from either of these groups to rec.gardens is virtually
non-existant.
sk...@bway.net
Ahhhhhhhh, but Dan, kudzu is an edible, and will follow you into this new
group if it is created!
Check out:
http://www.cptr.ua.edu/kudzu.htm
Fascinating.
Scott D. Jung
ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
:)>In article <55kq4u$m...@news-e2b.gnn.com>, Jim...@gnn.com says...
:)>>
:)>> In article <MPG.ce34742d...@news.zippo.com> Liz Albrook wrote:
:)>>
:)>
:)>> >1. The only way to snip a topic out of rec.gardens is to change the
:)>> >group's charter.
:)>>
:)>> This is not really true. For example, the overwhelming majority of
:)>> traffic is being snipped out of news.admin.net-abuse.misc. This was
:)>> recognized by a comment in the RFD for the new groups - but there
:)>> was no separate vote on the effective rechartering of n.a.n-a.m.
:)>
:)>It is true when long term contributors to rec.gardens do not join
:)>rec.gardens.vegetable and they post vegetable related posts in
:)>rec.gardens. When that occurs and vegetable topics are found on both
:)>groups many people are going to post to both groups in order to get
:)>all possible answers. This is particularly the case when many,
:)>perhaps even most, of the long time well-respected members of
:)>rec.gardens refuse to post to rec.gardens.vegetables. I've yet to see
:)>one of those people support this proposal.
And that makes everything OK. You seem to be complaining for your own
benefit. If everyone crossposts and you aren't planning on reading
rec.gardens.edible, then why are you worried. You will still have all
your chaos in rec.gardens. You won't be missing a post. Where as
MANY people who have been there a while (myself as a lurker included)
will be able to have a sane alternative for edible gardening topics.
If you don't read both groups, you won't know that they are
crossposted, unless of course in your infinite time you read all the
headers as well.
:)>
:)>
:)>> >2. If a group is created that has a topic already discussed in
:)>> >rec.gardens then there will be massive crossposting between that group
:)>> >and rec.gardens.
:)>>
:)>> Is there massive cross-posting between rec.gardens and rec.gardens.roses?
:)>
:)>No, and for good reason. There are few rose posts in rec.gardens.
:)>When newbies as rose questions, unless they are fairly simple, they
:)>are directed to r.g.roses. Although a number of people on rec.gardens
:)>grow roses, few of them, myself included, would call themselves rose
:)>gardeners or experts on roses. The culture of roses is an extensive,
:)>specialized topic. In r.g.roses one can find specific information on
:)>thousands of cultivars and problems specific to roses.
Oh you are opening up yourself for comment here....but I'll allow
others to stomp on you for that insensitive comment.
:)>
:)>The difference between roses and vegetables is simple There are *no*
:)>issues specific to vegetables as opposed to ornamentals with the
:)>exception of a few chemicals that may be applied to ornamentals that
:)>may not be applied to edibles. Issues of soil, seed starting, most
:)>pest problems, etc. are common to both edibles and ornamentals.
:)>
:)>> >3. If there is massive crossposting then every person who follows
:)>> >both rec.gardens and rec.gardens.vegetable will be adversely affected
:)>> >by crossposting. That would include everyone who grows both
:)>> >ornamental and edible plants. According to the survey results John
:)>> >Mertus cited that comprises approximately 60% of all rec.gardens
:)>> >readers.
:)>>
:)>> This of course does not not mean that 60% of all articles will be
:)>> cross-posted. Presumably, most discussion about flowers or lawns
:)>> will not be cross-posted to r.g.vegetables. And what is the adverse
:)>> affect if cross-posting occurs?
:)>
:)>This proposal was advanced because it supposedly takes too much time
:)>to go through all the messages. If more than half the people on
:)>rec.gardens are interested in both edibles and ornamentals while a
:)>much smaller percentage are interested in only edibles, then fewer
:)>people will have to "wade through" all those non-edibles postings
:)>while more people will "wade through" all the postings in both
:)>r.gardens and r.g.vegetables. Cross-posting is not a problem for
:)>people who use some software. For the majority of dial-in users,
:)>crossposted articles increase the amount of time spent online
:)>receiving headers and articles. This group is being proposed to be
:)>more convenient for some people. That's fine. The problem is it is
:)>likely to inconvenience even more people.
I guess we will see.
:)>>
:)>> Maybe a more complete split should occur, with limited and thoughtful
:)>> cross-posting encouraged.
:)>
:)>Maybe, if there are big problems with volume, then there should be a
:)>reorganization not an ill-thought out piecemeal approach that creates
:)>as many problems as it solves -- particularly in light of the fact
:)>that there are now 2 piecemeal proposals on the table.
You come up with it and we will vote for it! SHOE IS ON THE OTHER
FOOT NOW! I dare you....
You know as well as I do that that has less chance of passage than
this group does. You just want to make yourself out to be fair. When
in reality, you know that nobody will ever undertake the project.
Scott
:)>
:)>
:)>--
:)>Liz Albrook
:)>USDA Zone 7, Sunset Zone 3
:)>North Central Idaho
Scott D. Jung
sk...@bway.net wrote:
snip
:)>
:)>>If someone is going to cross post that, they may
:)>> crosspost from rec.gardens.roses or orchids?
:)>>They do use the same soil.
:)>>And companion plants are equally important. What do you do
:)>> now?
:)>
:)>Highly unlikely. This issue was made brilliantly clear in a previous post
:)>by another rec.gardens member. We don't have it now--but will look for
:)>it. Additionally, we would say that these points are mute. Present
:)>cross-posting from either of these groups to rec.gardens is virtually
:)>non-existant.
You have made MY point for me.
Scott
:)>Bill & Harvey
:)>SKID Zone 6 CT USA
Ed Bender
I vote against the proposed split because I think there
will be a lot of crossposting that I will have to sift
through. A three way split such as the following would
probably reduce crossposting.
1. rec.gardens.edible-plants
Includes herbs and companion planting for foods.
Pests that the poster thinks are specific to edible
plants such as a beetle would be here whereas more
general pests like deer and snails would be in 3.
2. rec.gardens.nonedible-plants
This is a poor name, but I can't think of a better
one right now. "nonedible" refers to the poster's
intent; e.g., decorative kale might appear here.
3. rec.gardens.general
Includes soil preparation, mulching, general pests,
landscaping, greenhouses, etc.
Ed Bender
Vote early. Vote often.
Denise Vajdak
>
> What we lose is time reading redundant cross-postings. An issue that
> covers two newsgroups would be posted to both. Someone interested in
> broad issues then reads both, reading the same posting in both. This
> cannot be avoided because responses might be posted in only one of the
> two newsgroups.
You should be able to see the title and the name of the poster, that
should clue you in to which posts are cross-posted. For those of you
that are unsure of which group to post to, just pick ONE. If you use
your common sense, you should be able to decide which one to post to
even if you are talking about those "borderline" plants. rec.gardens
would be the catch all for these. Other posts should be clear cut and
will naturally fit in each of the categories.
--
@>-->--- @>-->--- @>-->--- ---<--<@ ---<--<@ ---<--<@
DENISE VAJDAK TAMU Class of '92 dva...@ci.bryan.tx.us
Facility Services-City of Bryan, Texas
@濃 http://www.rtis.com/reg/bryan/communit/facility/
http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/dvajdak/
Scott D. Jung
Please post these to news.groups as well.
Scott
tr...@serv.net (Mary Conner) wrote:
:)>In article <skid-03119...@dial14.bway.net>, <sk...@bway.net> wrote:
:)>>If there are " "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered",
:)>>perhaps their interest in the cyber community of gardening isn't that
:)>>strong. We have never felt "overwhelmed" by the volume or range of posts
:)>>in rec.gardens--we read the titles of the posts, and if we're interested
:)>>in the subject, we read it/respond to it.
:)>
:)>Rather than not be "bothered", it should be "don't have the time".
:)>
:)>I'm a long time Usenetter, and have seen lots and lots of these split/
:)>don't split arguments come and go. I usually just lurk here in rec.gardens,
:)>largely due to lack of time to participate. But I've got a few cents
:)>to put in here.
:)>
:)>To be upfront, if rec.gardens.edibles goes to a vote, I will probably
:)>vote for it. If it passes, I will subscribe to it, and probably unsubscribe
:)>this group, or perhaps just scan it.
:)>
:)>Splits do more than just break up a group into sub-groups. They can
:)>end up creating new communities, and more traffic than the main group
:)>ever would have gotten. I see this in the rose group, which I also
:)>follow. If there were no rose group, I can't see a lot of that very
:)>fruitful discussion taking place here. High volume stifles some
:)>discussion, that is undeniable, since I have seen it happen time and
:)>time again that a group split off from a high volume main group
:)>practically blossoms when people do not feel intimidated by the
:)>high volume.
:)>
:)>>It isn't difficult to subscribe to several groups, but under these
:)>>circumstances, cross-posting would most definitely be a problem. Too many
:)>>issues are inter-related, and again, surgical divisions cannot be made
:)>>(=crossposting).
:)>
:)>Crossposting can be somewhat of a problem, but if one has a decent
:)>newsreader it will not bother you (similar to your argument of if you
:)>have a decent newsreader you can just pick out the threads you want
:)>to read). One concern I see a lot is that people feel they will be
:)>losing an audience---they want only one place to post their questions.
:)>However, understand that by keeping a single encompassing group, you
:)>are losing an audience already---people who are interested in following
:)>a topic, but who haven't the time or energy (sorting through screenfuls
:)>of messages trying to decide which ones to read when only a handful will
:)>be left consumes a great deal of mental energy) to keep up with a
:)>generalist group. In a specialist group, these people might well come
:)>in and be an even better source of information because they are
:)>knowledgeable about and interested in the same thing you are.
:)>
:)>About six months ago, I was an active participant in another newsgroup,
:)>in circumstances much like this. Split discussions come up all the
:)>time there. I favored a split, since picking out the 10% of threads
:)>I wanted to read was time consuming, and they were fairly well
:)>categorizable. I learned a lot from this group, and had gotten to
:)>the point where I was not learning much more, but was starting to
:)>share back some of the things I'd learned there. I noticed that
:)>some of the people I had learned things from were no longer posting.
:)>I suspect they left the group for the same reason I did---too much
:)>volume. Now that group does not have us as an audience anymore to
:)>ask us questions and hear what we have learned. How many very
:)>knowledgeable gardeners who concentrate on edibles and who would
:)>read a more focussed group are not here because of the volume?
:)>Why do we not have one big "rec" group? There is, after all, some
:)>crossposting between this group and other rec groups, no?
:)>
:)>--
:)>Mary Conner
:)>tr...@serv.net
sk...@bway.net
> I vote against the proposed split because I think there
> will be a lot of crossposting that I will have to sift
> through. A three way split such as the following would
> probably reduce crossposting.
Just a reminder: At the moment, the proposal has been posted for
discussion, no votes are being taken.
Bill & Harvey
Kay Cangemi
>
> Most of the folks I know who grow gardens of edible plants refer to
> their gardens as "vegetable gardens." Yes, the gardens include
> tomatoes, which are really fruits, and basil, which is an herb. But
> the term vegetable garden seems to be in common use as the term for
> a garden containing various edible plants.
>
By this reasoning, my tomatoes, peppers, and basil are roses because they
were planted in the rose garden. Except of course for the peppers and basil
which were planted in the perennial garden. Those are perennials. And the
cherry tree must be lawn, because that's where it's planted.
Kay Cangemi
New York, USDA Zone 5
Ginger Sackett Glaser
ggl...@minn.net (Ginger Sackett Glaser) wrote:
Sorry to follow up my own article, but I downloaded the latest and
greatest Agent .99 yesterday, and lo and behold the cross post
management works MOST of the time. From what I can tell on my system
about 1/4 slip through. So, I withdraw the objection that this very
common reader doesn't manage crossposts, though I still believe the
largest majority of common readers still have this problem.
Ginger
Dan Parker
David Ross wrote:
> I have integrated vegetables into my landscaping. For example, where my
> landscape plans called for a large bush (with grey-green leaves to
> balance the feijoa on the other side of the yard), I planted artichoke.
> Splitting vegetables off this newsgroup would result in double postings
> for me.
I've integrated food into my refrigerator. That doesn't mean that I
expect Sears to have a produce section, or my grocery store to sell
appliances. I would hazard a guess that the postings concerning the
ornamental use of veggies are minimal and do not constitute a posting
problem for the vast majority of users.
Ginger Sackett Glaser
e...@ccrwest.org (Ed Bender) wrote:
>I vote against the proposed split because I think there
>will be a lot of crossposting that I will have to sift
>through. A three way split such as the following would
>probably reduce crossposting.
>
>1. rec.gardens.edible-plants
> Includes herbs and companion planting for foods.
> Pests that the poster thinks are specific to edible
> plants such as a beetle would be here whereas more
> general pests like deer and snails would be in 3.
>
>2. rec.gardens.nonedible-plants
> This is a poor name, but I can't think of a better
> one right now. "nonedible" refers to the poster's
> intent; e.g., decorative kale might appear here.
>
>3. rec.gardens.general
> Includes soil preparation, mulching, general pests,
> landscaping, greenhouses, etc.
>
>Ed Bender
>Vote early. Vote often.
Actually, this would be a good idea. One of my big objections to this
is that it isn't a comprehensive reorg and will lead to crossposting
problems. In a comprehensive reorg, each group would be clearly
separated from the others, and there would be little which is on topic
to more than one group. Plus, some type of moderation might be
presented which could get rid of the elephant threads.
Ginger
Dennis Mathiasen
Denise Vajdak <dva...@ci.bryan.tx.us> wrote:
>>
>> What we lose is time reading redundant cross-postings. An issue that
>> covers two newsgroups would be posted to both. Someone interested in
>> broad issues then reads both, reading the same posting in both. This
>> cannot be avoided because responses might be posted in only one of the
>> two newsgroups.
>
>You should be able to see the title and the name of the poster, that
>should clue you in to which posts are cross-posted. For those of you
>that are unsure of which group to post to, just pick ONE. If you use
>your common sense, you should be able to decide which one to post to
>even if you are talking about those "borderline" plants. rec.gardens
>would be the catch all for these. Other posts should be clear cut and
>will naturally fit in each of the categories.
As someone else pointed out, the great majority of new threads are
started by people who are not regular readers of rec.gardens. When
such a person has a question or problem and is confronted with the
decision which group to post to, it's not going to be clear in many
cases.
Won't most people making that decision just post to both? There is
a long list of overlappping subjects, so it's likely that there will
be a long list of duplicates every day.
Given the volume in rec.gardens, it isn't reasonable to expect that
someone reading both is going to consistently remember all the
postings without at least starting to read each duplicate. I don't
see this problem ever going away. There are just too many new and
very casual readers.
That this didn't happen when r.g.roses was formed doesn't mean it
won't happen with r.g.veg. Roses are most often something a gardener
gets involved with long after being involved in gardening. It isn't
novice gardeners who will start threads in r.g.roses. On the other
hand, it's probably true that most people's interest in gardening
*begins* with vegetables.
That the quality and quantity of postings about roses increased when
that group was formed suggests that the same thing will happen with
r.g.veg. This is probably the best argument in favor of it. It's
clear that there would be some gain for those people interested only
in vegetable growing, but not all posts of interest will appear in
r.g.veg. How to handle leaves, for example, will be discussed in both
- resulting in less completeness in both.
For most people the gain in quantity and quality of veg. posts won't
be worth the extra wasted time.
Dennis Mathiasen
den...@borg.com
Jim_...@transarc.com
Nope, not at all (at least not by the reasoning I gave in my post). My
reasoning is that almost everyone I know of refers to the garden where
they grow edible stuff as their vegetable garden. It has nothing to do
with WHERE its planted. It has to do with common usage of the term
"vegetable garden."
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
Technical Writer -- Encina Programming Documentation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/
Scott D. Jung
:)>Actually, this would be a good idea. One of my big objections to this
:)>is that it isn't a comprehensive reorg and will lead to crossposting
:)>problems. In a comprehensive reorg, each group would be clearly
:)>separated from the others, and there would be little which is on topic
:)>to more than one group. Plus, some type of moderation might be
:)>presented which could get rid of the elephant threads.
I keep hearing this sentiment from even some of the 'old timers' in
rec.gardens. Hey, you propose it and we'll vote for it.
Scott
Pat Kiewicz
In article <LRFORTNEY-311...@hepmc7.phy.duke.edu>,
LRFO...@hep.phy.duke.edu says...
>
> Granted that there are common threads to all types of gardening, and
>granted that it's difficult to find the right keywords, and granted that
>one can carry splitting to extremes...the fact remains that this catch-all
>newsgroup is so big that it takes far too long to scan subjects.
>
> The gain in having specialized subgroups is that gardeners with
>specialized interestes might be attracted to the subgroups and raise the
>level of expertise. Speaking for myself, I've pretty much given up
>reading and contributing to rec.gardens even though I've gardened for over
>thirty years.
I too would expect to see more discussion of topics interesting to me as
a vegetable gardener first and foremost. Vegetable gardening often
doesn't get the 'respect' that ornamental gardening gets. Many of the
gardening shows on HGTV, for example, are really landscape or ornamental
garden shows, with, maybe, some attention as to how "this gardener actually
manages to make the vegetable plot look good, too." Even the shows which
do devote time to vegetable gardening also spends much (most?) of their
time on ornamentals. Vegetable gardening is usually given short-shrift in
newspaper garden sections, and only recently has there been a magazine
published that is dedicated to growing edibles (KITCHEN GARDEN).
I had a conversation once that went like this:
"What do you do?"
"I like to think of myself as a gardener."
"What do you grow?"
"Well, I grow *lots* of vegetables..."
<interupting> "Oh, to sell?"
...which I had take as implying that genteel suburbanites are supposed to buy
vegetables and grow flowers.
<snip>
> As I see it, the problem is only to find a set of subgroup names that
>are as independent as possible and understand that perfection is
>impossible.
>
> I think rec.gardens.vegetable is a good choice and would be an obvious
>place to look for fruits and nuts, but I would also not object to
>rec.gardens.edible.
I think rec.gardens.vegetable would be more obviously the place to handle
the inevitable blossom-end-rot-on-tomatoes questions (which could only
imporve the usability of rec.gardens!) and a place very much more
amenable to regular FAQ postings on such answered-a-million-times questions.
Pat in Plymouth MI
Ken Arromdee
ealb...@lewiston.com (Liz Albrook) wrote:
>The only place I've seen this work is in rec.pets.cats where a
>particular type of post is tagged. According to everything I've found
>it's been a dismal failure elsewhere on Usenet.
GRIT posts are consistently tagged in rec.arts.anime[.misc].
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@bayserve.net, karr...@nyx.nyx.net,
http://www.bayserve.net/~arromdee)
"2000 members of the vegetable kingdom and I have to work with _tomatoes_!"
counides,m
Please do not divide rec.gardens. I am interested primarily in veges,
fruit and nuts. However sometimes I dabble in Iris and daylillies. I am
very appreciative of the fact that flower, evergreen and other
ornamental gardens may contribute information in my areas of particular
interest. Keep us together that we may learn from each other PLEASE.
Naomi Counides
Associated Beefalo of Idaho
cne...@interealm.com
In article <skid-05119...@dial75.bway.net>, sk...@bway.net says...
>>They might be crossposted.
>
>We think it is a case that they *will* be cross-posted, not 'might'.
And I think they won't, for the most part.
>
>>If someone is going to cross post that, they may
>> crosspost from rec.gardens.roses or orchids?
>>They do use the same soil.
>>And companion plants are equally important. What do you do
>> now?
>
>Highly unlikely. This issue was made brilliantly clear in a previous post
>by another rec.gardens member. We don't have it now--but will look for
>it. Additionally, we would say that these points are mute. Present
>cross-posting from either of these groups to rec.gardens is virtually
>non-existant.
No, that issue was not made clear at all because the person making it
is NOT a rec.gardens.roses regular and it was obvious that she doesn't
really understand how that group works. While most posts do have
something to do with roses, all the things previously mentioned
are discussed in rec.gardens.roses and much more. Soil prep, mulch,
irrigation, companion plants, pesticides, greenhouses, etc. are
discussed at length and often not just where they concern roses.
According to your arguments, these posts should be being crossposted.
The reason there is very little cross posting between the groups is that
most of the r.g.r regulars don't post in r.g.. R.g.r has become their home,
their gardening group. When r.g.r was created, some of us who were at
the time regulars on r.g., left r.g. and became regulars on r.g.r.,
prefering its small size and focus.
I remember the RFD for rec.gardens.roses and for rec.gardens.orchids
and I most certainly remember how many of the same arguments against
rec.gardens.vegetable were used against them (primarily against r.g.r.)
The doom and gloomers weren't right then and they're not right now.
I would be willing to bet that if rec.gardens.vegetable (or edible)
were created, people would settle down there like they did in r.g.r.,
it would get its own group of regulars and there wouldn't be much
cross posting.
c netter
cne...@interealm.com
In article <328198c3...@news.minn.net>, ggl...@minn.net says...
>
>Actually, this would be a good idea. One of my big objections to this
>is that it isn't a comprehensive reorg and will lead to crossposting
>problems. In a comprehensive reorg, each group would be clearly
>separated from the others, and there would be little which is on topic
>to more than one group. Plus, some type of moderation might be
>presented which could get rid of the elephant threads.
>
It's a great idea that has been just about impossible to put into
place. I've been through a few of these in past years and getting
everyone to agree on all of the subgroups proved pretty much impossible.
The last one which I think was about 2 years ago, maybe 3, went through
several RFDs and then onto a mailing list set up just for discussing
this reorg. So, I'm thinking that creating one group at a time might
be the way to go because it'll be easier to get people to finally
agree on the one group.
c netter
cne...@interealm.com
In article <327f7909...@news.borg.com>, den...@borg.com says...
>
>That this didn't happen when r.g.roses was formed doesn't mean it
>won't happen with r.g.veg. Roses are most often something a gardener
>gets involved with long after being involved in gardening. It isn't
>novice gardeners who will start threads in r.g.roses. On the other
>hand, it's probably true that most people's interest in gardening
>*begins* with vegetables.
>
Not true.
Most people's interest in gardening starts with ornamentals
and often with roses. I know this, having represented my rose
society at enough public events. People want color, they see
a rose, they buy it, they get problems.
Vegetable gardens are usually thought of way after a person has
first experimented with ornamentals since getting a place to look
nice is usually first on the agenda. I think I had my first vegetable
garden about 10 years after my first outdoor garden (which was roses).
Many people don't consider anything other than vegetable gardening
to rightfully be called gardening, and so they may say they just
started gardening when in fact they have been "ornamental gardening"
for along time.
c netter
Ginger Sackett Glaser
Kay Cangemi
In article <327f7909...@news.borg.com>, den...@borg.com (Dennis
Mathiasen) wrote:
>
> As someone else pointed out, the great majority of new threads are
> started by people who are not regular readers of rec.gardens. When
> such a person has a question or problem and is confronted with the
> decision which group to post to, it's not going to be clear in many
> cases.
>
Also, newbies may be able to find one group and not the other. I expect an
awful lot of newbie vegetable questions to continue to show up in
rec.gardens because that's the group they found first.
(snip)
>
> Given the volume in rec.gardens, it isn't reasonable to expect that
> someone reading both is going to consistently remember all the
> postings without at least starting to read each duplicate. I don't
> see this problem ever going away. There are just too many new and
> very casual readers.
I don't know how anybody would determine this, but I do think a volume
breakdown by readership would be interesting. How many posts are written by
people who show up simply to ask a question and then leave.
>
> That this didn't happen when r.g.roses was formed doesn't mean it
> won't happen with r.g.veg. Roses are most often something a gardener
> gets involved with long after being involved in gardening. It isn't
> novice gardeners who will start threads in r.g.roses. On the other
> hand, it's probably true that most people's interest in gardening
> *begins* with vegetables.
>
Anybody who has read r.g.r. for a while has encountered the supplicating
newbie. You wonder how they can type while kneeling on the floor in
prayer:) It can be a very intimidating environment for a newbie, partially
because the volume is low enough that there is no place to hide.
> That the quality and quantity of postings about roses increased when
> that group was formed suggests that the same thing will happen with
> r.g.veg. This is probably the best argument in favor of it.
I wasn't around when r.g.r. was split off. I do know people who were, and
they do not consider it at all constructive for rec.gardens. A lot of
general gardening information split off with that group and has not yet
been replaced. Whether the quality of vegetable posts will increase with a
new group would depend on who is doing the posting. Since I haven't seen
any rec.garden regulars support this proposal, that is currently a total
unknown.
Kay Cangemi
In article <327f3a4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com (Scott
D. Jung) wrote:
>
> :)>In article <55kq4u$m...@news-e2b.gnn.com>, Jim...@gnn.com says...
> :)>>
> :)>> In article <MPG.ce34742d...@news.zippo.com> Liz Albrook wrote:
> :)>>
> :)>> cross-posting encouraged.
> :)>
> :)>Maybe, if there are big problems with volume, then there should be a
> :)>reorganization not an ill-thought out piecemeal approach that creates
> :)>as many problems as it solves -- particularly in light of the fact
> :)>that there are now 2 piecemeal proposals on the table.
>
> You come up with it and we will vote for it! SHOE IS ON THE OTHER
> FOOT NOW! I dare you....
>
> You know as well as I do that that has less chance of passage than
> this group does. You just want to make yourself out to be fair. When
> in reality, you know that nobody will ever undertake the project.
>
doesn't need it yet. The only argument I have seen in support of this group
is that the volume is too high for some extremely rude people to handle.
The reorg will be done only after a majority of rec.garden readers find the
volume unsupportable.
While the benefits of breaking up the group are obvious, for the small
group that is being split, the harm to the main group should be equally
obvious. For the smaller group to be successful, it must have something the
larger group doesn't have. Usually this is a better knowledge base. Then
its knowledge base is lost to the main group. The real problem with this is
when individuals combine a large knowledge base with a fairly narrow
interest. Then their knowledge is only available to those who share their
interest. This is the primary fear of the objectors. That the people who
know this will cross-post their questions to try to find this knowledge, as
well as the significant loss to the main group.
Scott D. Jung
can...@mhv.net (Kay Cangemi) wrote:
:)>>
:)>The reason a full reorg has not been proposed is because rec.gardens
:)>doesn't need it yet. The only argument I have seen in support of this group
:)>is that the volume is too high for some extremely rude people to handle.
:)>The reorg will be done only after a majority of rec.garden readers find the
:)>volume unsupportable.
I guess we will find out what the majority thinks. So far, according
to my notes, the "majority" favors the split. Whether that will make
100 votes and a 2/3 majority, time will tell. But currently, the
majority is speaking.
:)>
:)>While the benefits of breaking up the group are obvious, for the small
:)>group that is being split, the harm to the main group should be equally
:)>obvious. For the smaller group to be successful, it must have something the
:)>larger group doesn't have. Usually this is a better knowledge base. Then
:)>its knowledge base is lost to the main group. The real problem with this is
:)>when individuals combine a large knowledge base with a fairly narrow
:)>interest. Then their knowledge is only available to those who share their
:)>interest. This is the primary fear of the objectors. That the people who
:)>know this will cross-post their questions to try to find this knowledge, as
:)>well as the significant loss to the main group.
You keep talking about the obvious minority. As I noted above,
currently you are in the minority. Those numbers may revert to
majority opposed, but for now, don't speak for a majority that isn't.
Scott
:)>
:)>Kay Cangemi
:)>New York, USDA Zone 5
L. R. Fortney
> What kind of software are people using who find it difficult to
> sift through rec.gardens? Using trn, I easily make it through all
> of rec.gardens' posts every day.
But can you do it in five minutes, which is about all the time I have to
spend on a single subject?
--
Lloyd Fortney
--------------------
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~fortney
has links to my garden, flower, flyfishing, and travel JPEG images as well as teaching, research, and stuff like that
Mike Ross
sk...@bway.net wrote:
>
> In article <55jdog$s...@atlas.uniserve.com>, lpa...@uniserve.com (Scott
> Parker) wrote:
>
> > Scott Parker wrote:
> > But what we might gain from the split is more participation by
> > "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be bothered to wade through all
> > the other discussions. It can be overwhelming.
>
> perhaps their interest in the cyber community of gardening isn't that
>
>
> Bill & Harvey
> SKID Zone 6 CT USA
I don't like the feeling of "veggie" gardeners who currently can't be
bothered"
If I could be bothered I would, I don't have that much time to burn. If
you are not overwhelmed by the existing volume, then you can easily
track 2 newsgroups!
I don't have a problemm with cross postings since reading an article in
one newsgroup marks any dups read if cross posted (Netscape 3.0).
I am a proponent of an organic newsgroup, as well. I prefer to
compartmentalize up front since I don't have a good way to sort the
postings. I find that I don't want to devote the time necessary to
reading all the titles and I am not even attempting to keep up, right
now. This newsgroup is not only for those with unlimited time for there
gardening pursuits.
I could see that any given topic could end up the same way this general
topic of gardening has. Actually, I would hope that an organic newsgroup
would be hard to keep up with. Were that to happen, what minute
interests would that subgroup splinter into?
I support any effort to divide up the information. I will be more likely
to participate regularly, I believe the same would be true for many
others.
Michael E. Ross
Mike Ross
David Ross wrote:
>
> Jerry Pank wrote:
> >
> > Great Idea.
> >
> > I can't see the problem with defenitions.
> >
> > If you eat it, its a 'vegetable'.
>
> Into which newsgroup would you include nastrutiums, variagated thyme,
> flowering fruit trees, and the other edible ornamentals?
>
> >
> > I'm new to this newsgroup but wow! 400 fresh postings in 12 hours!
> > I would say it needs splitting.
> > Hey, Is it any trouble to read both newsgroups?
>
> With cross-postings between two newsgroups, we will be reading the same
> postings in both (because of overlap). We cannot avoid subscribing to
> both since some responses to cross-postings will appear in only one
> newsgroup. The effect is to increase the effort to participate.
1st, this not a family spat, and it is good to be accquainted with you,
David.
I'm using Netscape 3.0, which does a great job of tracking references.
If I read a post in one news group, it will be marked so in all other
newsgroups. I can show only unread news, therefore I don't even know
cross posting has ocurred. Or I can show all news read or un.
I want to reccommend Deja News, a usenet search engine that does a nice
job of displaying threads. If I want to find specific information, this
works nicely. It is a tool that would help us if we split, or if we
don't. It could make a split less painfull for those of a conservative
bent. (No offense please, the dictionary says conservatives prefer no or
gradual change, I apply this literally)
I like to read the newsgroups as they are posted in time. Deje News is
great for research, but it is more fun to follow the group.
I really liked Mary Conner's post <55mses$8...@imp.serv.net> on 5 Nov 1996
I think that cross-posting is a non-issue.
I want a split, I will participate more if this happens.
--
Michael E. Ross
cne...@interealm.com
In article <cangemi-ya0230800...@news.mhv.net>, can...@mhv.net says...
>The reason a full reorg has not been proposed is because rec.gardens
>doesn't need it yet. The only argument I have seen in support of this group
>is that the volume is too high for some extremely rude people to handle.
Thanks, Kay.
>The reorg will be done only after a majority of rec.garden readers find the
>volume unsupportable.
A full reorg has been proposed several times in the past. The last time
it made it to the RFD stage the discussion went on for months with no
resolution because it was pretty much impossible to get people to
agree on what all the sub groups should be.
>
>While the benefits of breaking up the group are obvious, for the small
>group that is being split, the harm to the main group should be equally
>obvious. For the smaller group to be successful, it must have something the
>larger group doesn't have. Usually this is a better knowledge base. Then
>its knowledge base is lost to the main group. The real problem with this is
>when individuals combine a large knowledge base with a fairly narrow
>interest. Then their knowledge is only available to those who share their
>interest. This is the primary fear of the objectors.
How is this knowledge lost to the larger group? Why is it only
available to those who share the interest? What is so hard about
subscribing to the smaller group as well?
c netter
cne...@interealm.com
"clip"
>Anybody who has read r.g.r. for a while has encountered the supplicating
>newbie. You wonder how they can type while kneeling on the floor in
>prayer:) It can be a very intimidating environment for a newbie, partially
>because the volume is low enough that there is no place to hide.
This is a real problem that didn't always exist in r.g.r. and is
frustrating to some of us old timers. The attitude in the newsgroup
reminds me of some rose societies (that are losing members).
Heck, even us old timers will get "spanked" if we dare to
stick up for a newbie.
But it wasn't always that way, and it (hopefully) won't stay that way.
>
>> That the quality and quantity of postings about roses increased when
>> that group was formed suggests that the same thing will happen with
>> r.g.veg. This is probably the best argument in favor of it.
>
>I wasn't around when r.g.r. was split off. I do know people who were, and
>they do not consider it at all constructive for rec.gardens. A lot of
>general gardening information split off with that group and has not yet
>been replaced. Whether the quality of vegetable posts will increase with a
>new group would depend on who is doing the posting. Since I haven't seen
>any rec.garden regulars support this proposal, that is currently a total
>unknown.
It may not have been considered constructive for rec.gardens at the time,
but it was VERY much appreciated by the rosarians who went to it.
It was difficult to do the kind of detailed conversations in rec.gardens
and once rec.gardens.roses was created, the amount of rose info was easily
triple in the first few weeks. That info just wasn't present in rec.gardens,
so saying that it is lost to rec.gardens just isn't true.
One thing that was easy for me to compare
was organizing a rose cutting swap. It was almost a failure in rec.gardens,
but quite a success in rec.gardens.roses the following year.
c netter
CEL
I notice that you want people to volunteer whether they discuss eating
trees, roots, flowers, etc. Well, I do. In fact, a good many of us do
discuss whether things other than the tradtional vegetables are edible
(and in fact the most amusing of the posts are on these subjects). So if
you want edibles, you may find a lot of these topics. I would just metion
to you that the term edible brings up: mushrooms, poisonous plants,
herbs, and many more topics. The ones that I have just mentioned have
been discussed with great frequency in rec.gardens. Right now a bunch of
people are involved in a discussion over kudzu. I believe that the
original discussion got started because someone mentioned that kudzu is
edible. Would this fit into the new newsgroup, or into rec. gardens?
So if you look through rec.gardens, you will find loads of people
discussing whether a large variety of things are edible. Possibly 100
people or more.
On the other side of things, if you just have veggies, you are not going
to knock the veggies out of rec.gardens. If I have a veggie question,
I'll probably ask in rec. gardens. I doubt if I will go looking for other
groups. I'll opt for the general discussion. It's generally more fun
that way, and you never know when a "general gardener" will have the
answer to the question that you ask. You make more freinds that way, and
learn more that way.
I also must ask about organic vs inorganic. Would we then slowly split
into more groups. Pretty soon, people would be complaining about the fact
that they have to look through six -ten groups (with many of the same
postings). I can certainly see that in the short run, the next step would
be rec.gardens.veggies.organic, rec.gardens, rec.gardens. organic,
rec.gardens.veggies (or edible, or whatever). You see what I mean.
And for those who think theat there are so many articles that they feel a
need to use the delete key, my suggestion is to go ahead and to use the
delete key. Do it! It really doesn't hurt you to do it. I don't think
that having a lot of articles (too many?) is a good excuse for splitting
the group. Just read what you want to, then leave the rest alone. If you
don't want to read the items, then treat them like a magazine subscription
-- don't read them. That's what I do. It really doesn't take that much
time. When I pay to get a magazine (or a newspaper) then my attitude is
that I can use it for whatever I wish. If I wish to read it, then I do.
If I don't wish to read it then I don't. I read what I feel like
reading. And just because I paid for it doesn't mean that I have to read
it at all, or read it all. It sounds as though the people here who want
the split, don't want their subscription to this group, so don't
subscribe. . . I don't mean this unfairly or meanly (this isn't a
flame). I think that this is basic common sense.
So, as you may gather, I do not support the decision to split up this
group. I like the general discussion of the group. Many of the topics
are ones that I would never think of on my own, and I enjoy seeing them.
I like having 500 or more items to scan (although I rarely get to actually
see them all). And I would rather see the discussion of edibles/veggies
left general.
CEL
--
Zone 5/6 (sometimes even 7), intermountain region, Western USA
What this means is dry, with extremes in temp!
"This is a professional. Do not try this in your own home."
CEL
In article <327b4dcd....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ju...@ix.netcom.com
(Scott D. Jung) wrote:
> BUT I would
> stress that you grow roses and orchids in the same soils
No you do not. You do not grow orchids in the same soils. Sorry. Not
unless they are terrestrials, and we know that a rec.garden.orchids would
not be about just terrestrial orchids unless. . . Oh no! Not
rec.gardens.orchids.terrestrial and rec.gardens.orchids.aboreal! AARGH!
I can just see this proliferate.