On 30/8/07 13:38, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 30/8/07 10:23, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

Hence it is possible IMO that Helene may well have 'supporters' who
choose
to remain anonymous. It takes all sorts, you know, and the fact you
clearly
can't stand her doesn't mean everybody else does, too.


Whether she has supporters or not, she's caused lots of trouble and
suspicion in the past with her claims that people email her anti other
group
members.

Obviously, neither of us knows whether anyone e-mails her in connection with
other group members (unless we're in the Secret Police), my response was to
Fran's implied assertion that any such claims are false, which, speaking
from experience, is not necessarily the case.

Nonetheless, Fran has good grounds for saying what she did. Experience
teaches us that many people who claim to receive all these emails turn out
to be the people that most on a group avoid like the plague. There may well
be people who email Puce with support but considering how many people feel
she's in a fair way to wrecking this group (see fall out from her last
meltdown) they must be in a very small minority. These eruptions of fury
whenever she's corrected or found out to be less than truthful are now so
routine that most people just avoid her. The general impression is that she
thinks she must be left to give bad advice and that should never be
corrected - or else! I don't think many people here think her a congenial
cyber companion, judging by reactions to the current fit.

Then she threatens to disclose those emails if she has a fall out
with the 'supporters'! It's a tired old game we've seen from her far too
often and it's done deliberately to divide the group and create dissent.

If she does receive unsolicited e-mails of support, that's hardly her fault.

I don't think anyone has claimed it is. But it is such a well-worn tactic
of hers to claim these emails come flooding into her inbox that it would be
a joke if it wasn't a childish attempt to frighten or wound others.

Granted, if someone has e-mailed her privately, it's obvious he/she doesn't
want his/her views on the matter exposed on the group, and one would
normally respect that, I think. If she has been acting maliciously, as you
suggest (and I'm not in a position to say whether she has or has not)
wouldn't the most effective response be to simply ignore such remarks and
not rise to the bait?

Puce plants the seeds of suspicion in everyone's minds and that is not
possible to ignore because she knows/hopes it will nag away at all of us. A
lot of us chat about things other than gardening but by email - harmless
chatter about ourselves, our lives, our families etc. but Puce has worked
quite hard at conveying the impression that people pass these things on to
her. It does not make for a relaxed atmosphere in a group.

And if one of her supporters is a man who thinks hitting women is a good
idea, all I can say is they deserve each other.


I have no idea who or what you are referring to, there, so cannot comment,
except to say anyone advocating unmerited physical violence to anyone,
regardless of gender, is barking up the wrong tree, in my view. Unless doing
so humourously, as in quoting the old "Women, dogs and walnut trees, the
more you beats them, the better they be's" rhyme, perhaps :-)


She remarked that two men had emailed her and that one of them had said he
would like to hit me. As I say, she's entirely welcome to that kind of
support. I'd rather leave it in the gutter, where it belongs.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'