"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:29:14 +0000, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article , Sue
writes

Hardly. It was just bitchy and silly. Obviously anyone hosting a meet on
their own property is at liberty to include or exclude anyone they wish.


Not to mention the fact that if you can't exclude some people from a
meet on your own property then no one would feel happy about holding
them! After all it's not a public Meeting in a Park or Gardens which
would be something completely different.
I didn't know that 'Meet' had a rigid definition! After all (to be
pedantic) an Annual General Meeting excludes all but those on a fully
paid up Membership List.

If people have an objection to a Meeting's venue or Guest List then
perhaps another Meeting could be arranged by someone else to include
those that feel excluded?

or even to exclude those that are at present included?

A completely unneccessary comment.

Alan

--

Martin