PROPOSED REORGANIZATION>rec.gardens
Fellwalker
rec.gardens.organic, I'd now like to ask this question...
Would it be better to just reorganize rec.gardens into several
groups, to make it easier for people to get to the subjects they're
interested in?
Groups suggested to me have included:
rec.gardens.indoor (houseplants, solariums, greenhouses)
rec.gardens.hydroponic
rec.gardens.landscape (lawns, landscape plants, flowers (unless in a
seperate group)
rec.gardens.organic (organic practices, techniques,
philosopy.sustainable agriculture on a small scale)
rec.gardens.food-plants (vegetables, herbs, fruit)
rec.gardens.flowers (unless it's included in r.g.landscape instead)
rec.gardens.misc (to replace rec.gardens)
To give you a quickie explanation...
If reorganiztion was considered, it would be similar in process to
forming a new group. A request for discussion would be cross-posted to
news.announce.newsgroups and any groups related to the topic(s). After a
30 day period of discussion in which the name(s) and charter(s) of any
proposed groups would be decided, a vote would be taken (by an
independant vote taker) on _each_ proposed group. (So one group could be
approved while another fails).
Please POST your opinions to this thread...while I appreciate the mail
on this subject, it really needs to be discussed here in the group.
--Max
--
-- ...with rings on her fingers and bells on her toes... <des...@netcom.com>
Nancy Swell
>
> Would it be better to just reorganize rec.gardens into several
>groups, to make it easier for people to get to the subjects they're
>interested in?
Please yes! There are so many articles posted and it is such a diverse
group that it is next to impossible to find what you are looking for. I
quess that they could be filtered, but there are just too many to download.
A friend has just started a rock gardening group. He thought it would be
a small, easily managed group he could do with E-mail. He was really swamped
in four days! I think one of the European universities is setting up a
site for it. Probably as a listserv. When you stop to think how many people
garden, and how much their special interests differ, it makes sense to
divide the big group. I would like to add shade gardens to your suggested
lists.
Christine Owens
in items that would fall into all of these groups. I have an
indoor jungle, lean toward organic methods, do both landscape
and flower-bed gardening, and grow fruits and veggies every
year. If you split the group up, I would have to go to all of
these boards to get what I find in one place, right now.
Also, I find that putting it all together causes a lot of cross-
fertilization, so to speak. For example, the veggie gardener
who is thinking about branching out into flowers can get a
lot of ideas in a familiar venue. The organic gardeners have
a forum to try and convert the rest of us -- at least a little;
if you had a separate group for organic gardening, the only
people who would read the posts would be the already-
converted and agitators.
So, I vote for don't do it.
Chris Owens
Julie LeMonte
>
The organic gardeners have
>a forum to try and convert the rest of us -- at least a little;
>if you had a separate group for organic gardening, the only
>people who would read the posts would be the already-
>converted and agitators.
>
While I am an organic gardener, I have given up on trying to
preach organic methods to the folks out there who, against
all evidence, refuse to use them. It is frustrating for me to read
about things people are doing that are bad for the land and the
water suppy, and I'm not into insulting their intellegence - gardeners
tend to be a bright lot; if they choose to not use organic methods,
they simply have different priorities than I do.
I would still continue to read rec.gardens, but would truly enjoy a
newsgroup full of gardeners with whom I agree philisophically -
and let the agitators come as they may.
FWIW
JCL
Stan
>Also, I find that putting it all together causes a lot of cross-
>fertilization, so to speak. For example, the veggie gardener
>who is thinking about branching out into flowers can get a
>lot of ideas in a familiar venue. The organic gardeners have
>a forum to try and convert the rest of us -- at least a little;
>if you had a separate group for organic gardening, the only
>people who would read the posts would be the already-
>converted and agitators.
>
>So, I vote for don't do it.
my interest in rec.gardens (and newsgroups in general) it the timely
exchange of *news*. asking specific questions and/or replying to
request for information. if i wanted a general gardening discussion
then i would IRC chat or use a forum on AOL or a conference of the
WELL. i really have no desire to *convert* others to my ways via
internet newsgroups.
so, if it went to a vote on rec.gardens reorg, mine would be YES.
Brian Murrey
I would rather see rec.gardens stay as it is. The traffic flow isn't all that
huge as it is. I think that if we segmented the group much the flow might be
nada in some areas and worse in others.
--
Kent H Lundberg
| rec.gardens.indoor (houseplants, solariums, greenhouses)
| rec.gardens.hydroponic
| rec.gardens.landscape (lawns, landscape plants, flowers (unless in a
| rec.gardens.flowers (unless it's included in r.g.landscape instead)
| rec.gardens.misc (to replace rec.gardens)
I would like to see a rec.gardens.compost, or maybe just a rec.compost.
Bruce A. Moon
rec.gardens. ornamental and rec.gardens.misc. There is too much crossing
over between interests with the finer distinctions. Organic gardeners may
be growing ornamentals or food, but the most of the techniques would
apply to others using the conventional practices. Later, when volume
balloons further, other divisions could be made.
Bruce Moon
Rio Linda, CA
as...@orion.alaska.edu
> gardener?" These are exactly the folks who might NOT approach a
> newsgroup called rec.gardens.organic, because they don't KNOW that
> organic methods are available as alternatives ...
I'm one of those "new here" and "novice gardeners." If there were
a breakdown of rec.gardens into r.g.organic (et al), I would hope
that someone would say to me, "Well, I do it this (non-organic) way,
but there are others who feel that an organic approach is better.
There is a group called r.g.organic -- they would probably be able
to give you some good advice on what they would do too."
Then this gardener would get the "best of both worlds" --- advice
from both sides of the gardening coin. Of course, as it is now, the
"new gardener" would get advice from both sides in one group. If
the proposed re-organization goes through, I think we (the rec.gardens
readers) could help the "novices" become better familliar with the
heirarchy, and therefore get all possible information/pointers.
Maybe a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly "FAQ" type-thing ---maybe x-posted to
all rec.gardens groups--- could help these new people.
> If there were to be a split, I'd think rec.gardens.indoor,
> rec.gardens.edible, and rec.gardens.misc makes more sense.
I like this idea too. :) Being an Alaskan, my outdoor-gardening
season is very short, and I'm very happy folks are considering a
rec.gardens.indoor group.
Kerry Jane
as...@orion.alaska.edu
Richard S. Fee
However, that was several months ago. Since then it seems as though
"traffic" has increased by at least a factor of two. At close to 200
messages per day, the group becomes unusable for those who check in on
a weekly basis.
Recently, I've had two of my informational querries pass on without
comment. It's unlikely that no one had the information for which I
was searching. I would guess that my posts scrolled off the end of
the rec.gardens list before those that posessed the information saw
my message.
Previously, I would read ALL of the posts on rec.gardens out of interest
and curiosity. With the current volume, that is no longer possible.
General gardening questions can still be handled under a rec.gardens.misc
group or by cross-posting to 2 or 3 of the more relevant groups. Most of
the beginner questions can be answered by any number of people out there.
I fail to see how creating more groups would be exclusionary. On the contrary,
I believe it could serve as a noise filter. I don't need advise on lawn care,
tree care, or irrigation (I'm renting), and I can't afford lawn equipment, I
don't really grow vegetables (Okay a few tomato plants, but that's it). What
I am looking for is specific information on native plants, plant sources, and
occasionally creative gardening suggestions. I don't need to sort through the
50th "What about my bulbs coming up to soon?" querry.
For those who fear that all of the "experts" will hang out in their own ghetto,
I would imagine that that is far from the truth. Why would Mr. Compost hang out
exclusively in rec.gardens.compost. He knows all of that "stuff" already. He is probably more interested in hearing about using cucumber peelings to kill off
root mealies for example, and would just "skim" rec.gardens.compost to see that
the information content of replies is accurate and complete.
Disclaimer: I use Mr. Compost as an example of a "famous expert" and don't have
any knowledge of his stand on splitting rec.gardens or on cucumber peelings,
although he's probably NOT a fan of root mealies ;). Nor am I criticizing people
who have concerned about their overeager bulbs. (They should be fine; if not this
year, then next.) I just don't like getting lost in the flood.
Regards
Richard Fee
Christine Owens
Chris Owens
Adam Finkelstein
Richard S. Fee <rs...@scripps.edu> wrote:
>I just don't like getting lost in the flood.
The argument that a newsgroup is too full of posts to read does not
really justify creating new newsgroups. By using appropriate threaded
newsreaders, one can scan a 1000 posts in a minute or so.
Check out news.answers for information on and places to obtain threaded
newsreading software.
Adam
--
______________________________________
Adam Finkelstein
ad...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu
Stephen C Daukas
:des...@netcom.com (Fellwalker) writes:
[...]
:> Please POST your opinions to this thread...while I appreciate the mail
:>on this subject, it really needs to be discussed here in the group.
This "thread" has been going on for two years now! This group hasn't been
reorganized yet, probably because there really isn't a need for that. The
discussions I saw two years ago included all of the following:
Too much to wade through -> place articles/subjects in the kill file
Want to read specific subjects -> yank articles/subjects of interest
etc.
(in other words, use the features of the news readers designed
to do just want people want to do by segmenting the groups, but
then again, people are lazy...)
The many problems with segmentation include:
People will cross post to the newly created groups, causing
more traffic and loss of bandwidth... Take a look at groups
that have done this in the past.
Groups can't always be segmented easily and, therfore, people
will feel compelled to post to more than one group (similar
to the above, but slightly different).
"Newbie" questions are, as a matter of course, always posted
to all groups concerned with the topic (e.g., gardening) and
any advantage to segmentation is thereby lost. (A special case
of the above.)
All of this was the general content to the "thread" from two years ago.
Sounds like nothing has changed...
I for one have to say that the amount and content of this group has not
changed significantly over the past few years. There is still a thread on
PT lumber, how to deal with Bees, etc.. I suspect that a new group on
"organic" gardening will get articles about dealing with bees just as a
"non-organic" group would as there are organic and inorganic answers to
bee (almost any) questions. The only problem is that with a topic like
"how to deal with bees", both groups end up with multiple threads that an
interested person has to then follow, and follow-up to, in multiple
groups...
The real problem is with people not using established threads to begin with,
or in not using the features of the news reader... So, we come back to
people not using their software to full advantage. Segmentation is not a
cure-all solution.
Regards,
Steve
University of Massachusetts Medical School
s...@umassmed.ummed.edu
s...@iii.net
Mary f
>
> >des...@netcom.com (Fellwalker) writes:
> <snip>
> > Would it be better to just reorganize rec.gardens into several
> >groups, to make it easier for people to get to the subjects they're
> >interested in?
>I would rather see rec.gardens stay as it is. The traffic flow isn't all that
>huge as it is. I think that if we segmented the group much the flow might be
>nada in some areas and worse in others.
I agree I like it as it is (even being a newbie) because there are
so many different topics, I find I learn something new about
gardening.
-mary f
kl...@cobra.uni.edu
take me more than about 2 min to scan the titles of the posts to see
if there's something that strikes my fancy (no, I don't have a threaded
newsreader). Yes, I subscribe to rec.gardens.orchids and rec.gardens.
roses, which are much lower traffic than this group but, to tell the
truth, I rarely read them. I *like* the variety and cross-fertilization
of ideas that we get in this group.
If we were to divide into rec.gardens.organic (and r.g.inorganic???? ;-) )
I sure won't have a philosophical home. The die hard types in either
camp will be after me with flame throwers, since my basic style is
"slob", which I define as getting the plants to do as much of the
work as possible. This fits nicely with the organic gardening style,
except (oh horrors!) I'll use synthetic fertilizers sometimes, and
I'll also use synthetic pesticides when I truly believe it's the best
possible choice for a problem that *has* to be controlled.
Indoor vs. outdoor? Well, some of the techniques and technical
considerations are different, but plants that I think of as
greenhouse plants (from my Iowa perspective), like poinsettia,
banana, strelitzia are outdoor plants in the southern US.
Veggies vs. flowers? Lots of plants are dual purpose: e.g. scarlet
runner bean fancies up a chain link fence quite nicely, and makes
pretty good beans, too! (besides, many of the problems in gardening,
like weeds, soil condition, and diseases afflict both flower and
veggie gardeners).
In the final analysis, I would like to keep the status quo in rec.
gardens because compartmentalization tends to lead to narrow
vision of what a subject really is. Or, as someone wrote to me
in email (and it's a compliment I'll treasure forever!) "I like
your posts because I find out about things I didn't even know I
was interested in."
Kay Klier kl...@cobra.uni.edu
Donald Maclachlan
gardens divided into too many sub groups. The subgrouping of edible,
ornamental, houseplants and misc. sounds great.
Barbara Sigerson via don...@wimsey.com
Pat Dietz
days and it gets plain tedious plowing through 300 articles and
weeding out the ones I'm not interested in. Reorganize!
Rob King
The idea of dividing the list by GEOGRAPHIC areas
is not feasable... too many areas are similar, and cross-posting would
be EVERYWHERE.
The logical division is by subject. Many new groups have been proposed,
so here's my $.08 worth <that's 4 people giving their .02/worth>:
rec.gardens.SHOW covering plants grown for their flowers & foliage;
covering annuals, bienniels, perenniels, herbs
would most likely go here, also.
rec.gardens.FOOD gardening for food, organically & inorganically
rec.gardens.WARM Indoor, tropical, greenhouses, hydroponic
rec.gardens.MISC anything else: animal control, tillers, tools,
irrigation, seed starting, etc.
rec.gardens.TALL <this was kinda the oddball> trees, shrubs, etc...
they had to go somewhere.
Anyway, maybe it's some help.... most ANY subject can be put into one of
these catagories, and I think the division of interests is quite equally
divided. As always, input and/or modifications are welcome.
Rob.
---
* QMPro 1.53 * ------>---->--->-->->> rob....@nfe.com <<-<--<---<-----
Gary Cooper
> My $0.02: I'm happier seeing rec.gardens remain as it is. It doesn't
> take me more than about 2 min to scan the titles of the posts to see
> if there's something that strikes my fancy (no, I don't have a threaded
> newsreader). Yes, I subscribe to rec.gardens.orchids and rec.gardens.
> roses, which are much lower traffic than this group but, to tell the
> truth, I rarely read them. I *like* the variety and cross-fertilization
> of ideas that we get in this group.
<usual brilliant stuff from Kay deleted to save bandwidth>
Why do people seem to feel that just because there are x-hundred
posts a day that they have to *read* them all? Even without a
threaded newsreader it's no trouble at all to scan through the
headers and only read those which strike you as interesting. If we
split the group the really keen among us (ok, ok, the obsessives!)
will probably take most of the new groups and end-up with even
more to scan, as the total number of posts will be bound to rise.
One further thought. In your life as a gardener you will change.
You might start out with a passion for tomatoes but, ten years later,
you could find yourself a fanatic for lithops. What makes that change
is a complex mix of factors, but the key one is curiosity. One day
you read about a plant, or see it, or fall into conversation with
someone about it and the next the little devil is growing in your
garden. If we compartmentalise our group, we run the risk of
compartmentalising our minds and that, surely, *can't* be good gardening?
--
Gary Cooper
Sherry Bailey
like it's a new idea! those of us who have followed the group for years know
it's VERY old hat. And I suspect most of us who have followed it for years
also like it the way it is and cite lots of reasons for it.
Here's a new one. Seems to me (and maybe I'm wrong) that the loudest
proponants of change to rec.gardens are people trying to solve one particular
problem (like creating perfect compost) without a REAL interest in gardening
per se. Along with people who are new (and don't know how to maximize the
features of their newsreaders)(which they damned well should LEARN before
complaining!!!) and those who download on commercial services and have to
spend money for access. Although I sympathize with the last group, I don't
feel particularly pressured to facilitate for them. MOST readers don't have
that issue to deal with, and chopping the group into tiny digestible bites for
the few would not serve the many (pardon me, Mr. Spock!) Besides, if they are
REALLY interested in gardening, they will make it worse because they will have
to download many redundant threads with duplicate postings because of the
intermeshed nature of the topics.
There IS no satisfactory way to divide the subject of gardening -- the
solution is to scan your subjects and only read the ones you find interesting,
skipping the rest. If you can use "tin" or another threaded news reader
instead of rn or one of the older options, the threads are more obvious, the
subject list shorter.
I say REAL gardeners need access to the gamut of information, even if they
choose to skip all "deer and animal pest" postings that week... I never saw a
gardening magazine that limited itself to only one aspect of gardening -- even
Organic Gardening, which comes closest, has articles on ornamentals, edibles,
lawncare, tools, pest control, and tons of other things some people want to
see in separate newsgroups.
I read some of the numerous special rec.pets.dogs.* newsgroups. At least in
that subject area things are definable as "behavior" or "breeds" or "training
issues". Gardening has too much overlap. The traffic is STILL fairly low
compared to many groups. Subjects are EASILY scanned for personal
selection. Kill files can be created for subjects you NEVER want to see
(although I find it hard to believe that anyone who loves to garden would feel
THAT strongly about any specific topic!) I say, keep it together!
Sherry
Ruth Evans
the break up into individual groups, I've noticed that lots of the
groups carry on topics that are basically the same. Seems like it would
have been just as easy to keep them all together and just browse message
that you're interested in.
Ruth
__ ___ __
__ ////\ /\/\ /\/ _//\ __ /// | Anne McCaffrey: Master Word Crafter|
\\\//// '\/ \/ / /\/ '\\\\/// | Princess: Cutest Wiggle Tail Ever!|
\XX/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\__/\/\/ \XX/ | rev...@vrb.com or rev...@msbbs.com |
Fellwalker
: > Ever notice how many postings begin with "I'm new here", or "novice
I think people are making a huge mistake if they think that a
rec.gardens. organic group is going to take all the organic gardeners
away from the other rec.gardens groups. There is a big difference between
the sort of discussions you have with someone over just general
information, and discussions you have within a peer group of similar
interests.
I didn't propose an organic gardening group so that all the people
who gardened organically would go there and discuss _all_ their
gardening. I proposed it so there would be a place to specifically
discuss the problems, practices, philosophies, etc that relate
_specifically_ to organic gardening, while all the other discussion could
take place either in rec.gardens (where it usually does) or whatever
groups come out of a reorganization.
*sigh. Does _anyone_ understand what I'm saying?
Adam Finkelstein
Sherry makes very good points. What is a garden anyway? A manufactured
ecological community maybe? Define a community. Can you single out one
"keystone" organism that all others depend on? The newsgroup rec.gardens
is similar. All post relate to each other in some way.
Making new newsgroups for specific facets of gardening is fine:
rec.gardens.roses for example, but the reasoning behind the creation must
be sound.
Gary Cooper
<lots deleted to save bandwidth>
> *sigh. Does _anyone_ understand what I'm saying?
I suspect we do, Max. It's just that we don't all agree with you :-)
--
Gary Cooper
Ruth Evans
>One further thought. In your life as a gardener you will change.
>You might start out with a passion for tomatoes but, ten years later,
>you could find yourself a fanatic for lithops. What makes that change
>is a complex mix of factors, but the key one is curiosity. One day
>you read about a plant, or see it, or fall into conversation with
>someone about it and the next the little devil is growing in your
>garden. If we compartmentalise our group, we run the risk of
>compartmentalising our minds and that, surely, *can't* be good gardenin
>--
>Gary Cooper
Well put!
Margaret Baker
>rec.gardens.edible, and rec.gardens.misc makes more sense.
Ditto.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles & Margaret Baker, Portland, Oregon, USA (cmb...@teleport.com)
"Orchid Species Culture" - Timber Press. Vol.1, Pescatorea, Phaius,
Phalaenopsis, Pholidota, Phragmipedium, Pleione - ISBN 0-88192-208-0
Vol. 2, in press, Dendrobium
Ebeth Jones
>Adam Finkelstein (ad...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3hojje$c...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>,
>: Bruce A. Moon <bm...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote:
>
>: > I go along with the poster who advocated rec.gardens.edible,
>: >over between interests with the finer distinctions.
>
>: Adam
>
> _Gratuitously_ crossposting? Jeez, Alex, lighten up! If someone's
>crossposting to several groups, as long as it doesn't violate any
>charters, that's his business. If you don't want to reply to him and have
>it spread across several groups, edit the newsgroups line before you send
>it.
> If someone is posting inappropriately to _any_ group, someone can
>always politely remind him/her that the subject of this group is 'such
>and such' and he might want to look elsewhere for the info.
Puh-leeze!
"as long as it doesn't violate the charters"? When, oh when, are
you going to get it? It is always September on the net, there will
always be a newbie who doesn't even have a clue that there *is* a
charter, much less what the charter says. And of course we all know
that the charters are impossible to enforce, polite reminders or
not. Your polite reminders will become an end unto themselves,
filling up so much space in the group that the next thing you know
you will be requesting votes for a "rec.gardens.enforce.the.charter"
newsgroup.
--
Elizabeth Jones E-MAIL: baj...@nvl.army.mil
"After long thought and much perplexity, to be very brief was all
that she could determine on with any confidence of safety." Jane Austen
Janine Dahms Walker
articles and select those of interest. I also like reading about plants
from all over the country, and have had many responses from people outside
my zone 3/4. Besides, I enjoy readers from the south complaining about the
cold! It's all relative in Minesota! Janine Dahms Walker
Fellwalker
: Why do people seem to feel that just because there are x-hundred
: posts a day that they have to *read* them all? Even without a
: threaded newsreader it's no trouble at all to scan through the
: headers and only read those which strike you as interesting. If we
: split the group the really keen among us (ok, ok, the obsessives!)
: will probably take most of the new groups and end-up with even
: more to scan, as the total number of posts will be bound to rise.
I read them all because I'm _interested_ in more than a few types of
gardening. However, I wouldn't buy a loosefeaf gardening book, take the
pages out, and mix them up on the floor...then try to read it. I would
look through it by chapter to find areas that I was interested in.
That's all that's being proposed here. Taking a gardening book,
rec.gardens, and giving it chapters so it's easier to read.
If the number of posts rise if the group is subduvided, GREAT! That
means more gardeners are sharing more information...and probably having
an easier time reading it then if it was all mixed up in one pile.
Fellwalker
: There IS no satisfactory way to divide the subject of gardening -- the
: solution is to scan your subjects and only read the ones you find interesting,
: skipping the rest. If you can use "tin" or another threaded news reader
: instead of rn or one of the older options, the threads are more obvious, the
: subject list shorter.
: I say REAL gardeners need access to the gamut of information, even if they
: choose to skip all "deer and animal pest" postings that week... I never saw a
: gardening magazine that limited itself to only one aspect of gardening -- even
: Organic Gardening, which comes closest, has articles on ornamentals, edibles,
: lawncare, tools, pest control, and tons of other things some people want to
: see in separate newsgroups.
I've never seen a gardening magazine (or any other magazine) that
didn't put a table of contents at the begining so you could find what
subjects you were interested in, and I've never seen anything short of a
gardening encyclopedia that had (up to) 300 articles in every issue. You
get something that big and it starts making sense to split things into
"chapters".
Marcia Goetsch
Adam> In article <3hojje$c...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>, Bruce A. Moon
Adam> <bm...@cello.gina.calstate.edu> wrote:
>> I go along with the poster who advocated rec.gardens.edible,
>> rec.gardens. ornamental and rec.gardens.misc. There is too much crossing
>> over between interests with the finer distinctions.
Adam> What would keep posters from gratuitously crossposting to all these
Adam> groups? Adam
Adam> -- ______________________________________ Adam Finkelstein
Adam> ad...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu
Actually I HOPE posters crosspost to all the groups. I like rec.gardens
the way it is. I grow edibles and ornamentals, I lean organic but am
not opposed to conventional methods. I like hearing about what is growing
in Australia during Boston's winter so I can dream. None of the divisions
proposed seem to me to be an improvement. Yes there are a lot of posts,
but I don't have to read every one.
--
Marcia Goetsch
Boston, MA USA Zone 6
Sherry Bailey
: I've never seen a gardening magazine (or any other magazine) that
: didn't put a table of contents at the begining so you could find what
: subjects you were interested in, and I've never seen anything short of a
: gardening encyclopedia that had (up to) 300 articles in every issue. You
: get something that big and it starts making sense to split things into
: "chapters".
: --Max
: --
What newsreader are you using? I have used at least three different ones on
UNIX, and all of them thread the subject lines -- THOSE are your chapters. The
most obvious of these is tin, which sorts all the articles into subject lists
and even BRINGS BACK previously read and lost postings to which new followups
are being added... my sysadmin led me to believe that tin is freeware
available for all UNIX systems. But even in rn and the other one I can't
remember now, there is always a command key to follow a thread foreward or
backward, so if not as tidy as in tin, the capacity to have "chapters" is
still there.
Sherry
ut...@martha.utcc.utk.edu
i've stayed out of this up to now, but i've decided to put my two cents
worth in.
|>
|> I read them all because I'm _interested_ in more than a few types of
|> gardening. However, I wouldn't buy a loosefeaf gardening book, take the
|> pages out, and mix them up on the floor...then try to read it. I would
|> look through it by chapter to find areas that I was interested in.
|> That's all that's being proposed here. Taking a gardening book,
|> rec.gardens, and giving it chapters so it's easier to read.
|>
yup, thats what's being proposed, but that's not what'll happen. in the
example above things work out 'cause one editor gets to decide where things
go. in the anarchy of usenet there's no one who gets to decide where things
go. what really happens is that, for example, i'm wonderin' how to deal
with my new gardinia bush. as things are i post one message to this group.
in the rec.plants.lots-of-stuff proposal i'd most likly post my query to
several groups - say the organic group, the compost group, the gardinia group
(if there was one), the flower group, the pests group, the southeast group,
the indoor plant group, the ... group. now you may feel that some of these
groups are inappropriate - which just makes my point.
|>
|> If the number of posts rise if the group is subduvided, GREAT! That
|> means more gardeners are sharing more information...and probably having
|> an easier time reading it then if it was all mixed up in one pile.
|>
nope the number of posts rise 'cause it just isn't clear where lots of
questions go. so folks like me who do lots of different kinds of gardening
(and enjoy reading 'bout lots more) will end up having to read lots of
groups and lots of cross posting... and lots of messages saying "this message
doesn't go here it goes ..." followed by "well i think the message does go
here because ..."
i say leave things as they are... and if there's a need for a specialized
group - say rec.gardens.houseplants - create that one.
ron
Ron Tipton ron.t...@utk.edu
Network Engineer Office: 615.974.6616
University of Tennessee Home: 615.579.3376
D Thomas
remain alive as a first resort. Might I also suggest rec.garden.design
and rec.garden.fruit?
Lena Bolander
here are of interest to me. There is no way to make a division without having
som aspects in common between the resulting groups and cross-posting would
only give me more information to browse.
/Lena
Steven M. Begley
>From: don...@wimsey.com (Donald Maclachlan)
>Subject: Re: PROPOSED REORGANIZATION>rec.gardens
>Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:35:19 -0800
This works for me! BUT!!!!!
I'm a fairly experienced gardener in the Northeast (Philadelphia, PA) I don't
mean to sound like some know-it-all or something but I really enjoy helping
with peoplpe's questions when I can. I find myself spending most of my
time reading questions and answering when I think I have something to
contribute.
If the the group is divided along the lines Barbara endorsed above
(and even if it's not) We should make it a point to STRONGLY encourage anyone
posting anything other than greenhouse or some climate controlled environment
to start out by saying were they are from, what zone, or something. Most of
my replies to questions start out: "Where are you from?" This way, the
regional thing will take care of itself and we won't be offending our friends
around the world by being perochial.
Ok, that's my 2 cents worth...
Steven (sbe...@omni.voicenet.com)