"David" wrote in message
...
In article , Alan Gould
writes
In article , Stan The Man
writes
I heard that North Sussex had imposed a hosepipe ban this week. Any
other areas similarly restricted? Can there really be a drought? Or are
the water companies just inefficient?

Anglian Water have announced that there will be no hosepipe bans in
their area in the forseeable future. We have had a lot of very dry
weather locally this year, though we've had some welcome rain in the
past few days.

Yes, they also said the reservoirs are 90% full for us Eastern Angles,
just as well I'm about to fill the pool with 2,500gallons
--
David

shakes the mothballs out of cozzie
Yay, everyone round to David's house for a pool party.

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "pammyT" fenlandfowl @talktalk.net contains these words:

shakes the mothballs out of cozzie
Yay, everyone round to David's house for a pool party.

Cozzie? ISTR David is a naturist.

That was another chap. Mike Berridge? Or is David one as well?
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

--"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "pammyT" fenlandfowl @talktalk.net contains these words:

shakes the mothballs out of cozzie
Yay, everyone round to David's house for a pool party.

Cozzie? ISTR David is a naturist.

That was another chap. Mike Berridge? Or is David one as well?

That's as maybe but I'm *not* and I ain't putting my wrinkles on show for
anyone.

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "pammyT" fenlandfowl @talktalk.net contains these words:

shakes the mothballs out of cozzie
Yay, everyone round to David's house for a pool party.

Cozzie? ISTR David is a naturist.

Janet

Beg pardon Janet, not *THIS* David but I don't have a problem with those
that do (as along as they don't bore the pants of the rest of us by
telling us how great it is!)
--
David

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "pammyT" fenlandfowl @talktalk.net contains these words:



--"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "pammyT" fenlandfowl @talktalk.net contains these words:

shakes the mothballs out of cozzie
Yay, everyone round to David's house for a pool party.

Cozzie? ISTR David is a naturist.

That was another chap. Mike Berridge? Or is David one as well?

You're right, I got them mixed up. David is fully clothed, afaik.

So was Mike when I met him ;-)
But fortunately there are one or two other distinguishing features, so
all was not lost!
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Kay
wrote:

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "pammyT" fenlandfowl @talktalk.net contains these words:

--"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "pammyT" fenlandfowl @talktalk.net contains these words:

shakes the mothballs out of cozzie
Yay, everyone round to David's house for a pool party.

Cozzie? ISTR David is a naturist.

That was another chap. Mike Berridge? Or is David one as well?

You're right, I got them mixed up. David is fully clothed, afaik.

So was Mike when I met him ;-)
But fortunately there are one or two other distinguishing features, so
all was not lost!

Quite a lot of threads in this newsgroup get taken miles off topic by a
certain group of people who presumably think that their banter is of
interest to the majority. Some of these same individuals are very quick
to criticise others who put a foot wrong so am I right in assuming
therefore that off-topic posts are permitted/encouraged in
uk.rec.gardening?

In article , Stan The Man
writes

Quite a lot of threads in this newsgroup get taken miles off topic by a
certain group of people who presumably think that their banter is of
interest to the majority. Some of these same individuals are very quick
to criticise others who put a foot wrong so am I right in assuming
therefore that off-topic posts are permitted/encouraged in
uk.rec.gardening?

If you were to list all those who have taken threads off topic, you
would get a very disparate group indeed (one that would include both
Janet Baraclough and Mike Crowe for a start).

I think you must therefore assume that OT posts are a widespread habit
in urg.

I certainly don't imagine that *any* of my posts, on or off topic, are
of interest to the *majority*. Is this how you view your posts?
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Stan The Man contains these words:


Quite a lot of threads in this newsgroup get taken miles off topic by a
certain group of people who presumably think that their banter is of
interest to the majority.

Pay closer attention. You will then observe, that there isn't "a
certain group of people" who keep wandering off topic. Most regular
posters do it occasionally, because that's the nature of normal social
conversation.

I was referring to the small number who do seem to delight in wandering
off-topic quite regularly and with such determination that some very
lengthy and totally off-topic threads have resulted. I believe that
usenet frowns on this in general, for very good reasons - primarily
consideration for others who may be wasting their time ploughing
through off-topic posts looking for one that bears some relation to the
subject - and I hope that the coterie of URG regulars would not
consider themselves to be above standard usenet etiquette.

I have no objection to a brief diversion but I do object when the
diversion takes over the thread and snowballs. I would therefore be
grateful if the extended in-chatting could be taken elsewhere.

(snip)

In article , Stan The Man
writes

and I hope that the coterie of URG regulars

Are you not one of these? You have been posting regularly for a
considerable time now.



--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from Stan The Man contains these words:


I have no objection to a brief diversion but I do object when the
diversion takes over the thread and snowballs. I would therefore be
grateful if the extended in-chatting could be taken elsewhere.

You started the thread with a somewhat off-topic-for-urg question
about the efficiency of waterboards. The thread contains 29 posts
divided as follows:

Water-related 16
Tennis 2
Strawberries and cream 1
Naturism 5
Posting/Netiquette 5

The last was an off-topic-for-the-thread diversion from your
offtopic-for-urg question about water board efficiency, but since you
introduced it you can't really complain.

A total of 21 posts were about the topics introduced by yourself.


If/when a thread goes off topic, I just lurk, or read without contributing,
or not even read, according to the level of interest the thread holds for
me. I never consider OT-ness a problem.

Steve

In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from Stan The Man contains these words:


I have no objection to a brief diversion but I do object when the
diversion takes over the thread and snowballs. I would therefore be
grateful if the extended in-chatting could be taken elsewhere.

You started the thread with a somewhat off-topic-for-urg question
about the efficiency of waterboards.

How mischievous and intentionally misleading of you. Try re-reading my
initial post which was quite obviously an enquiry about hosepipe bans -
a topic which is almost exclusively relevant to this newsgroup.

The thread contains 29 posts
divided as follows:

Water-related 16
Tennis 2
Strawberries and cream 1
Naturism 5
Posting/Netiquette 5

The last was an off-topic-for-the-thread diversion from your
offtopic-for-urg question about water board efficiency, but since you
introduced it you can't really complain.

A total of 21 posts were about the topics introduced by yourself.

I suggest you do a recount. There were 12 off-topic posts (tennis,
swimming costumes, etc) prior to my post about netiquette. At that time
therefore 50 percent of the posts were off-topic - including 100
percent of the recent posts.

But the details aren't very important. If people want to chatter on
about something off-topic, the polite thing to do is take it private
or, at worst, start a new thread, instead of hijacking other people's
threads.

You can try to be as smart-alec as you like but nothing you may say can
make bad netiquette good.

Stan The Man writes
Quite a lot of threads in this newsgroup get taken miles off topic by a
certain group of people who presumably think that their banter is of
interest to the majority.

Pay closer attention. You will then observe, that there isn't "a
certain group of people" who keep wandering off topic. Most regular
posters do it occasionally, because that's the nature of normal social
conversation.

I was referring to the small number who do seem to delight in wandering
off-topic quite regularly and with such determination that some very
lengthy and totally off-topic threads have resulted. I believe that
usenet frowns on this in general, for very good reasons - primarily
consideration for others who may be wasting their time ploughing
through off-topic posts looking for one that bears some relation to the
subject - and I hope that the coterie of URG regulars would not
consider themselves to be above standard usenet etiquette.

I have no objection to a brief diversion but I do object when the
diversion takes over the thread and snowballs. I would therefore be
grateful if the extended in-chatting could be taken elsewhere.

If the group as it stands is not to your liking then take yourself
elsewhere or don't read the posts that annoy you. If you follow a thread
and it starts to become OT then you have my permission to stop reading
at that point and mark it 'not interesting'. TBH I think this group is
no more likely to accede to your views than any other group, so if this
isn't a solution do go and find another medium for discussion. Usenet
itself is made from such wonderful dialogues and diversions, and many a
Useful Thing has come of it, including not a few friendships and even
the occasional marriage.

OTOH if you want to be treated as an adult and actually learn from
people who have a real life, have real views and are often extremely
funny as well as knowledgeable about gardening, then stick around, lurk
a bit more, get the flavour of this particular ng and contribute in like
fashion, and we'll be glad to correspond.
--
David

In article , Dave
wrote:

(snip)

If the group as it stands is not to your liking then take yourself
elsewhere or don't read the posts that annoy you.

That would be possible if those who perpetrate off-topic posts mark
them as such and show some common usenet courtesies. If you believe
that you should not be bound by these courtesies, I suggest that it is
you who should take yourself to another place.


If you follow a thread
and it starts to become OT then you have my permission to stop reading
at that point and mark it 'not interesting'.

You are being condescending - and it doesn't alter the fact that it is
your position which is untenable, not mine.

(snip)

OTOH if you want to be treated as an adult and actually learn from
people who have a real life, have real views and are often extremely
funny as well as knowledgeable about gardening, then stick around, lurk
a bit more, get the flavour of this particular ng and contribute in like
fashion, and we'll be glad to correspond.

Patronising self-glorifying drivel. And no excuse for poor netiquette.

In article , Stan The Man
writes

And no excuse for poor netiquette.


I use Turnpike Stan and that allows me to see which posts are being sent
in reply to which postings so if the thread goes off topic on one line I
can usually see if anyone posts in direct reply to the original enquiry
rather than responding to the off topic bits.
I don't know if OE can do this, but it is certainly useful in picking
out the main points and saves me time sometimes.

Sometimes I'm afraid I rather enjoy the discussion, off topic doesn't
necessarily mean NOT about gardening

I use this group as I would a social chat, if the discussion becomes
over my head or about something else entirely I drift away and look for
better topics

janet




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

In article , Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article , Stan The Man
writes

And no excuse for poor netiquette.


I use Turnpike Stan and that allows me to see which posts are being sent
in reply to which postings so if the thread goes off topic on one line I
can usually see if anyone posts in direct reply to the original enquiry
rather than responding to the off topic bits.
I don't know if OE can do this, but it is certainly useful in picking
out the main points and saves me time sometimes.

No, everything is very linear on Mac newsreaders: if following a
thread, every article has to be opened in order to determine its
content/relevance. But there are other advantages...

Sometimes I'm afraid I rather enjoy the discussion, off topic doesn't
necessarily mean NOT about gardening

All I ask is a compromise -- that someone pursuing an off-topic
discussion has the courtesy to start a new thread with an appropriate
subject, eg "OT: Naturism (was Hosepipe Ban)". This is the universally
adopted guideline for the rest of usenet and I can't see why it's such
an issue.

I use this group as I would a social chat, if the discussion becomes
over my head or about something else entirely I drift away and look for
better topics

janet