In message . com,
" writes
On 28 Feb, 20:15, "p.k." wrote:
Sacha wrote:
It IS an urg event and two people who I do not, in any case consider
to be true urglers, are not welcome.
snip

A gentle suggestion, might it no have been better to state the names of
those not invited, thus avoiding the deliberate and unnecessary stirring &
raking of coals that followed?

pk


Hi pk, thank you for a gentle post which is refreshing. The two
people that are not welcome at Sacha's and at most urglers homes,
including mine, know who they are, they know very well who they are.
They have insulted, lied, verbally battered and abused Sacha at every
opportunity. Why, you might ask? I expect it is down to plain
jealousy.

Sacha has insulted, verbally battered me and tried to get me thrown out
of another ng. My crime was in answering her back. I still don't know
whether or not I am one of the two omitted from the urg meet. I suspect
the others are Mike from the Isle of Wight, Puce and possible Jenny C,
who Sacha accused of condoning something Sacha had accused Puce of
(Sacha announced this when I welcomed Jenny to ukfd a few months ago).
If that is the case, then there are four, and not two. How come?
The unnecessary stirring and raking of coals, which was quite
deliberate, was not done by Sacha, that is evident as you can see, she
has not retaliated but kept a dignified silence. I think she behaved
very fairly by not naming the offenders, I'm not so sure that I would
have been that generous.

It is not unnecessary at all if you are on the receiving end of the
phrase containing 'two people have been omitted and they know who they
are' - which clearly they don't.

Sacha is all sweetness and light then suddenly gives people a pasting.
That is her way. She did it to me in the autumn when I believed we were
getting along well and then she thought I had something to do with the
spat between you and Puce, which I had absolutely nothing to do with at
all.
So there you have it.
--
June Hughes