Subject: Re: REORGANIZATION>rec.gardens

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 24 Feb 1995 14:44:12 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
L. R. Fortney <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>[email-masked] (Meredith Morris-Babb) wrote:

 copious "big picture" anal retentive proposed rec.gardens.*
 groups deleted.

>  I would certainly agree to rec.gardens.pests, but don't you think trees
>fits into landscape, at least to the point that having both would be
>confusing and encourage cross posting?
>  The other good suggestion was to add rec.gardens.tools.
>  I could also live happily with "edible" replacing vegetable and fruit. 
>It's true some flowers are edible, but it would save arguments as to
>whether a tomato (tomatoe?) is a vegetable or a fruit, and it would make
>fewer subgroups.

 Okay this is supposed to be funny...

 Maybe what we need to do for rec.gardens, is make a new group for
 ***each atom***. Yes that's right; each atom, for each molecule, for each
 element, for each compound... this way, nobody needs to read stuff they
 aren't interested in, and as new discoveries are made, we can make new
 groups up. I mean, this is all encompassing! Think of the LOGIC this
 holds. 

 Adam
-- 
______________________________________
Adam Finkelstein 
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Helen Montgomery)
Date: 28 Feb 1995 18:35:43 GMT

Is this newsgroup about to get reorganized or is this just wishful thinking?
Frankly, it sounds great to me, sure would be more organized and easier to
get to preferred subject matter. At this point I'm only interested in trees
and edible gardens, it would be nice to be able to go straight to these subjects.

My two cents worth.....unsolicited, I realize, but....well......:).........H

---

From: [email-masked] (Helen Montgomery)
Date: 2 Mar 1995 19:09:41 GMT

The first one sounds bassackwards to me....kill it dead. H

---

From: [email-masked] (L. R. Fortney)
Date: 1 Mar 1995 16:10:17 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

> and edible gardens, it would be nice to be able to go straight to these
subjects.
   There seem to be two distinct activities.  The first, and absolutely
horrible idea, is to reorganize a number of topics (including rec.gardens)
under rec.plants.??? where one of the ??? would be gardening.  If this
plan is defeated, then there is a second idea to reorganize rec.gardens
into more reasonable subgroups.  The first order of business is to kill
the rec.plants proposal.

-- 
Lloyd Fortney ---Opinions, just opinions---

---

From: [email-masked] (Harry Boswell)
Date: 4 Mar 1995 15:51:48 GMT

Let me preface this by saying that I'd still prefer that r.g not be
reorganized.  But if we do, let's start simple, say be going with the
much-discussed rec.gardens.ornamental and rec.gardens.edible, with 
a rec.gardens.misc thrown in for a catch-all.  That gives us a basic 
grouping, but not too much.  First, however, my understanding is that
we've got to defeat the rec.plants. mess before we can officially 
start towards anything.

--
Harry Boswell                 [email-masked]  
Information Technology Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers        Vicksburg, MS

---

From: [email-masked] (Gary Cooper)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 15:16:50 +0000

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked]  writes:

> Hi Laura--It would be better if it was divided according to location. We
> dont have too much in common with folks in the midwest and we plant tomatoes
> in the fall. <Phil Ft. Laud. Fl.>

But what about all the topics that *don't* relate to regional
interests? Some of the most fascinating and useful threads in
rec.gardens have absolutely nothing to do with where you live.

Break rec.gardens into tiny sections and those who wish to discuss
important general issues won't crosspost - they'll just not bother
at all. If you sub-divide along regional lines the inevitable
result will be the loss of a lot of useful information.

-- 
Gary Cooper

---

From: [email-masked] (Gary Cooper)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 15:13:49 +0000

> we've got to defeat the rec.plants. mess before we can officially 

Yup - I'm with Harry on this. I'm in complete opposition to
splitting rec.gardens at all, but if it's going to happen we 
need to keep to a small number of groups, lest we fragment to
absurdly minute proportions. The first stage, however, has to be 
to defeat the proposal for a rec.plants hierarchy. ISTM that
that this is currently steaming ahead over in news.groups and that
it remains of vital importance that rec.gardens readers keep an
eye on developments there. The threat is still real.

-- 
Gary Cooper

---

From: mark <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Mar 1995 03:08:53 GMT

Sounds like there is a lot of support for re-organizing.  What is the
actual process for going about this?  Being relatively new to the 
internet I am not familiar with how this is done.

I would think that even though EVERYONE will not be in agreement on 
the specifics (e.g.  rec.gardens.landscape or rec.gardens.lawns and 
trees), we would all like to be able to focus on our specific areas
of interest.

My 2 cents,
  Laura (not Mark)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 95 19:30:49 -0500

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 95 19:30:49 -0500

---

From: [email-masked] (Catherine Dobbins M.D.)
Date: 6 Mar 1995 20:07:43 -0800

In rec.gardens [email-masked] said: 

>Yup - I'm with Harry on this. I'm in complete opposition to splitting  
>rec.gardens at all, but if it's going to happen we need to keep to a small
 
>number of groups, lest we fragment to absurdly minute proportions. The
first  
>stage, however, has to be to defeat the proposal for a rec.plants
hierarchy.  
>ISTM that that this is currently steaming ahead over in news.groups and
that it  
>remains of vital importance that rec.gardens readers keep an eye on  
>developments there. The threat is still real. 
> 
> 
>--  
>Gary Cooper 
Count me in among the group opposing reorganization of rec.gardens.  One of
the joys of reading this group is discovering things I'd never thought
about.  And, it's easy enough to skip the articles I'm not really
interested in.-- 
M.C. Dobbins, M.D. 
Hillsborough, CA 
[email-masked]