Hi folks, nice site you have here, some very interesting reading. I've tried a search but nothing really seems to come up for me.
I have a square of land (approx 2m by 2m) in a shaded corner of my garden, it does get some sun in the late evening however. My wife is very keen to have a fruit tree in the garden and this would seem a good place for it - would anyone have any suggestions of types of fruit tree to plant?

(Mods - I wasnt sure where to pit this thread, please move it if appropriate)

Thanks

Ross

In article , Bowser Bowser.1pbm81@gar
denbanter.co.uk writes

Hi folks, nice site you have here,

This is not a website, it's a newsgroup. Gardenbanter merely offers you
a back-door entrance.

some very interesting reading. I've
tried a search but nothing really seems to come up for me.
I have a square of land (approx 2m by 2m) in a shaded corner of my
garden, it does get some sun in the late evening however. My wife is
very keen to have a fruit tree in the garden and this would seem a good
place for it - would anyone have any suggestions of types of fruit tree
to plant?

That's difficult. Is it 2mx 2m spare space in a bed (in which you could
just about fit a tree in (though if it's already shaded, adding a tree
would exacerbate the shade problems of the surrounding ground), or is it
2m x 2m surrounded by fences, walls etc? - in which case I think it
would be too small for a tree.

Most fruits do better in sun. Have you considered soft fruit?
Blackberries and blackberry hybrids (eg loganberries, tayberries) crop
OK in shade.

(Mods - I wasnt sure where to pit this thread, please move it if
appropriate)

This is an unmoderated newsgroup (as most newsgroups are.)
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

Bowser wrote:
Hi folks, nice site you have here, some very interesting reading.
I've
tried a search but nothing really seems to come up for me.
I have a square of land (approx 2m by 2m) in a shaded corner of my
garden, it does get some sun in the late evening however. My wife
is
very keen to have a fruit tree in the garden and this would seem a
good place for it - would anyone have any suggestions of types of
fruit tree to plant?

(Mods - I wasnt sure where to pit this thread, please move it if
appropriate)

Hi Bowser! Welcome to the group. You've introduced yourself with a
tough problem: Kay's answer covers it, I'm afraid, unless somebody in
here has some points to add. A thornless blackberry with pretty cut
leaves would look nice and taste OK. There are a lot of flowers which
like some shade, and these could go in front. Easy ones include:
foxgloves, pansies, London pride, bergenia, snowdrops, begonias
(begonias probably won't survive the winter, though) primroses,
"bleeding heart", aquilegia, pulmonaria (though not all together!)

If you want to get the whole newsgroup, try going to:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.rec.gardening

There are technically better ways, but it works fine, and usually
quickly. If you browse around what you see, you may find some other
groups to interest you, too -- everything from Aardvarks to Aztecs
and onwards!

--
Mike.

Thanks Mike & Kay, this is (for me) an unusual set up for a forum, I remember the 'old days'! of usenet but everything seems to be UB nowadays!
Thanks for the advice, the corner is indeed shaded by a fence.
I really like the idea of Blackberry....I think I'll try that, do some reading first though.

Cheers

Ross

On Fri, 20 May 2005 07:42:02 +0000, Bowser
wrote:

Hi folks, nice site you have here...

It's not a "site" and we don't "have" it.

It's a *newsgroup* which is an entirely different, and much older,
thing than the world wide web, which many newbies confuse with "the
internet."

Just a little correction in the interests of terminological propriety.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, BC, Canada
to send email, change atlantic to pacific
and invalid to net

On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:51:14 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

This is an unmoderated newsgroup (as most newsgroups are.)

Not as it appears on gardenbanter. Gardenbanter now uses moderators
to censor the newsgroup posts which appear on ithe website's portal, and
doesn't reproduce posts marked "X-no-archive" at all. Those who object
to having their posts censored/edited without their knowledge or
consent, can avoid it by marking them x-no-archive.

If they're editing, then they're probably contravening the authors'
inherent copyright.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, BC, Canada
to send email, change atlantic to pacific
and invalid to net

In article , Bowser
writes
Thanks Mike & Kay, this is (for me) an unusual set up for a forum, I
remember the 'old days'! of usenet but everything seems to be UB
nowadays!
Thanks for the advice, the corner is indeed shaded by a fence.
I really like the idea of Blackberry....I think I'll try that, do some
reading first though.


Presumably Ross you are coming via Garden banter?
If you joined the proper full newsgroup I think you'll find it very
similar to usenet. Much more efficient and not subject to the whims of
gardenBanter filters.

Hope you get here and enjoy the company!

Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Amersham Gardening Association
http://www.lancedal.net/aga/

On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:51:14 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

Those who object
to having their posts censored/edited without their knowledge or
consent, can avoid it by marking them x-no-archive.



Is that possible on Demon and Turnpike, Janet? I'll have to see where
those options are, but they aren't easy to see at first glance.

Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

Rodger Whitlock wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:51:14 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:
[...]
Those who object to having their posts censored/edited
without their knowledge or consent, can avoid it by marking them
x-no-archive.

If they're editing, then they're probably contravening the authors'
inherent copyright.

That's really interesting. Certainly it's possible to alter a message
one's quoting in such a way as to misrepresent the author's meaning;
but I'd argue that the original text will always be traceable,
_except_ when the author's marked it for non-archiving. So perhaps,
if you don't want your messages tinkered with irreparably, you
_should_ always commit them to the archive. Without that, nobody can
ever know what you really said.

I suspect that copyright doesn't apply to quotation of messages in
this medium for the purpose of reply and comment. If I take huge
chunks out of somebody's text published elsewhere without
authorisation, though, it's a violation just as it would be in print.
I'm inclined to think that "published elsewhere" may include messages
from a separate newsgroup: there must have been some cases in
American courts!

On editing without the author's consent, I reckon it's allowed, since
editing quoted matter is established custom and practice, and
manifestly the medium wouldn't work without it. But editing so as to
misrepresent the meaning, or without indicating that it's taken
place, looks like a tort if it can be shown to be damaging.

--
Mike.

Yes, I am posting through Gardenbanter. Rodger - I am not a newbie at all, just using a different site to access the posts. Your pedantry is appreciated

Blackberries it is then!

Janet Baraclough wrote:
The message
from "Mike Lyle" contains
these
words:


I suspect that copyright doesn't apply to quotation of messages in
this medium for the purpose of reply and comment.

I'm sure that's correct; within usenet. But the issue at
gardenbanter is different, because in its new version it's now very
much a commercial website aimed at making money.

AFAIK, it's a breach of copyright for a third party to lift and
re-use someone else's material *for sale or commercial gain*
without
the
author's knowledge and consent.

Interesting, again. I wasn't thinking of GardenBanter at all, and you
pose a new question. Does linking to a public discussion group, as
one of the services by which a website owner plans to attract traffic
to his site, if it carries advertising or other commercial matter,
constitute commercial use of the material in the discussion group?

It's a stretch, I think. Newspapers and magazines from time to time
publish the URLs of Usenet groups as one of the services they use to
attract readers, and an ISP may offer direct access to Usenet for the
same reasons.

In my Internet editor days, we used to do it as a matter of course;
and if anybody had told me they didn't want their URL published, I'd
have been astounded at the refusal of free publicity, but I'd have
stopped it.

The "gateway" format of GardenBanter seems to me an only slightly
different thing: they don't claim ownership of the material, and in
fact their copyright box clearly says "The comments are the property
of their posters". The welcome message also says it isn't meant to
replace "your favourite newsreader", and names Outlook Express as
well as Google Groups. The only thing in their intro matter I'd raise
an eyebrow about is the statement "Normally you would not see these
newsgroups replicated on the web as the protocols for each are very
different (google groups being the exception), however, with the help
of many people this has been replicated into a high quality bulletin
board." Technically, I dislike the expression "bulletin board"; but
the presentation _is_ of high quality; the rest of it, though, is
either meaningless or misleading, according to taste -- personally, I
think it's both, if that's possible. But that may simply be a
misunderstanding of the word "replicate", hard though that is to
believe.

You know my views as a proselytizing Usenet enthusiast, but if you
ask me, it's very hard to see how they could be held in infringement
of copyright. And, frankly, I see no sign of any kind of guilty
intent, either.

--
Mike.

The message
from Janet Tweedy contains these words:

Presumably Ross you are coming via Garden banter?
If you joined the proper full newsgroup I think you'll find it very
similar to usenet. Much more efficient and not subject to the whims of
gardenBanter filters.

It *IS* Usenet - well, a tiny part of it...

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

Bowser wrote:

: Thanks Mike & Kay, this is (for me) an unusual set up for a forum, I
: remember the 'old days'! of usenet but everything seems to be UB
: nowadays!
: Thanks for the advice, the corner is indeed shaded by a fence.
: I really like the idea of Blackberry....I think I'll try that, do some
: reading first though.


Morello cherries are often recommended for growing against a north facing
wall, so may cope with the shade ok. Ditto for redcurrants/whitecurrants
Though I have no persoanl experience of the veracity of this advice.

Jim

The message
from J Jackson contains these words:
Bowser wrote:

: Thanks Mike & Kay, this is (for me) an unusual set up for a forum, I
: remember the 'old days'! of usenet but everything seems to be UB
: nowadays!
: Thanks for the advice, the corner is indeed shaded by a fence.
: I really like the idea of Blackberry....I think I'll try that, do some
: reading first though.


Morello cherries are often recommended for growing against a north facing
wall, so may cope with the shade ok. Ditto for redcurrants/whitecurrants
Though I have no persoanl experience of the veracity of this advice.

Gooseberries (being denizens of the sub-hedgerow environment) will also
grow in the shade, but prefer a bit of sun. You'll need to net the
morellos if you grow a tree - the blackbirds will have them, otherwise.

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

In article , Jaques
d'Alltrades writes
Gooseberries (being denizens of the sub-hedgerow environment) will also
grow in the shade, but prefer a bit of sun. You'll need to net the
morellos if you grow a tree - the blackbirds will have them, otherwise.

No they won't! They will try a red (unripe) one, shudder, move on to the
next red one, and so on until you have a single peck mark in every
cherry, and not a single one actually eaten.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"