Subject: Re: CFV on rec.plants* Where is it?

From: [email-masked] (John Woodworth)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 08:01:27

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (George Herbert) writes:

>Look for the CFV "real soon now" 8-)

If you see a CFV, please post the fact in rec.gardens. I am strongly opposed 
to any reorganization or fragmentation of rec.gardens.
John 

"The aristocracy of intellect admits nothing of democracy"

                                     -- Robertson Davies

---

From: [email-masked] (John Woodworth)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 08:01:27

-- Robertson Davies

---

From: [email-masked] (John Woodworth)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 08:01:27

-- Robertson Davies

---

From: [email-masked] (Meredith Morris-Babb)
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 95 13:03:25 GMT

When will we see the CVF for the rec.plants* organzation?  Are we waiting
for R. Sexton to write the proposal? I may be mistaken, but i do think he
has a limited amount of time in which to present this proposal.  Is anyone
keeping track of the dates.

If there is a mail discussion going on concerning this reorg, I would like
to be included.  It would be nice to get this thing settlerd so we can get
back to gardening and greenery.

Meredith, zone 6 or 7

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 11 Apr 1995 11:24:51 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>(I am the UVV member who volunteered to do the vote.)
>
>I have been advised by the proponent (Richard J. Sexton    [email-masked])
>that (quote from his email) "we're consolidating the rec.gardens
>reorg with rec.plants, so it'll be a while yet".

This is what Richard J. Sexton wants. Most of the people who post news in
rec.gardens, even if they want to reorg the group, would rather do it
without Sexton and his proposal. 
Adam

Adam
-- 
______________________________________
Adam Finkelstein 
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Toppan)
Date: 7 Apr 1995 17:25:53 GMT

John Woodworth ([email-masked]) shaped the electrons to say:

: If you see a CFV, please post the fact in rec.gardens. I am strongly opposed 
: to any reorganization or fragmentation of rec.gardens.

If the CFV involved rec.gardens it will be posted there.  All you have
to do is watch for it.

--
Andrew Toppan --- [email-masked]	--- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Sexton)
Date: 13 Apr 1995 22:16:08 -0400

>without Sexton and his proposal. 

Dream on.

-- 

                    http://www.vrx.net/richard
  Richard J. Sexton  /  VRx Network Services, Inc.  /  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Sexton)
Date: 13 Apr 1995 22:19:47 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>to any reorganization or fragmentation of rec.gardens.

Well why don't you prepare an RFD to incorporate rec.gardens.roses
and rec.gardens.orchids back into rec.gardens.

Clearly, they're leaving wrecked the group.

--

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Sexton)
Date: 13 Apr 1995 22:29:57 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, George Herbert <[email-masked]> wrote:
>A UVV member has volounteered to run the vote for rec.plants.*, at this
>point the only thing holding things up was that the proponents address
>for this proposal didn't work.  

Hey, it's not like I'm hard to find.

VRx % whois "Sexton, Richard"
Sexton, Richard (RS79)          [email-masked]
   87 Seymour Avenue
   Toronto, Ontario M4J3T6
   CA
   (416) 778-5955
 
   Record last updated on 31-Mar-95.
 
The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information
(Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's).

If you want to be on a mailing list to discuss the reorganizaation of
rec.gardens and creation of the rec.plants hierarchy, send mail to:

[email-masked]

to send mail to the list

[email-masked]

--

---

From: [email-masked] (John Woodworth)
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 09:46:15

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Richard Sexton) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Richard Sexton)
>Subject: Re: CFV on rec.plants*  Where is it?
>Date: 13 Apr 1995 22:19:47 -0400

>and rec.gardens.orchids back into rec.gardens.

No. Maintaining harmony is more important than some coercive or underhanded 
attempt to make things "right." I am an avid rosarian and would love to see 
roses back in rec.gardens, but I would never disrupt rec.gardens.roses. 

Since roses moved to another forum, I rarely look into it. Almost never. 
Likewise with .orchids (I have only five). I don't want to subscribe to many 
groups. 

>Clearly, they're leaving wrecked the group.

Clearly, their leaving diminished it.

John 

                                     -- Robertson Davies

---

From: [email-masked] (John Woodworth)
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 09:46:15

John 

                                     -- Robertson Davies

---

From: [email-masked] (Nicholas Plummer)
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 15:28:48 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (John

> Clearly, their leaving diminished it.

I don't know about r.g.roses, but I think you're wrong about r.g.orchids. 
I monitored rec.gardens for a while before the creation of the orchid
group.  About all I saw involving orchids were multiple repetitions of
"where do I find orchid stuff" which was answered with "Subscribe to the
listserve digest."  r.g.orchids created a forum for orchid postings that
did not exist in rec.gardens.  It did not clearly diminish rec.gardens, as
it has only a very peripheral relationship to the parent group.  IMHO,
moving rec.gardens.orchids to rec.plants.* would diminish neither
rec.gardens nor *.orchids

Nicholas Plummer
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Fellwalker)
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 04:09:58 GMT

Richard Sexton ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Adam Finkelstein <[email-masked]> wrote:

: >This is what Richard J. Sexton wants. Most of the people who post news in
: >rec.gardens, even if they want to reorg the group, would rather do it
: >without Sexton and his proposal. 

: Dream on.

(please stand back, minor flammage ahead :-(   )

    Y'know Richard, for someone who _needs_ support to have his idea come
to fruition (rec.plants, or whatever final incarnation it comes to be),
you are singularly successfull in both antagonizing and alienating the
very people you _need_ support from. 
    
   And for your information, while tale suggested we work together to try 
to come up with a comprehensive plan, that DOESN'T mean you are now 
reorganizing rec.gardens or need to be a part of our proposal for it to 
go ahead. 

--Max

-- 
--  ...with rings on her fingers and bells on her toes... <[email-masked]>