On 2/12/05 12:08 pm, in article , "Rupert"
wrote:


"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"Judith Lea" wrote in message
...
In article .com, La
puce writes
I don't care what your son, mathew, john or jack is to you or your
great grand mother's fig tree. The fact remains that you are a vicious
old cow and waited to accuse me of accrediting something to myself when
in fact it wasn't my intention. You were jealous that I was conversing
with Sacha. I'll scrutinised everything you say from now on. You've
hoped for some attention. Now you have it. My complete and entire
attention.

You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad
as this - I will deal with this in the only way I can by now not
downloading anything more with your name on it - this is the first time
I have ever done this on usenet.

I'm going to join you, I feel it was an insult, and totally unneccessary.

Alan

--
Judith Lea


Make that three (ish) --although I might read I will never write.


Four.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

--
..
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message .com
from "La puce" contains these words:

The fact remains that you(abuse edited) waited to accuse me of
accrediting something to myself when
in fact it wasn't my intention.

You've already said it's your policy not to accredit. That means it's
intentional.

Ist December, "silver lining" thread

The message .com
from "La puce" contains these words:

I don' t accredit anything. I'm perfectly safe in the knowledge of my
knowledge.

You appear to have an attention deficit disorder. Doesn't bode well
for the RHS exam.


Janet



:-((

mmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww wwwwwwww

Can you not give it a rest Barrowcloth?

Do you HAVE to have the last word????

:-((

Janet Baraclough wrote:
You've already said it's your policy not to accredit. That means it's
intentional.

Janet. First, my colleague pointed out that one of your link wasn't
even the one we used for our project. The facts that I came out with
are lifted from all our notes regarding pollution, and I'm affraid that
you confused one statement of mine with one of your link which we
didn't know about.

Futhermore, there is 7,000 people employed in the seaweed business in
Scotland and the Hebrides, perhaps the business has declined, but the
ORGANIC ones haven't, the EU is investing huge sum of money to make
sure the ecosystem is not damage and are now sprouting everywhere.
That's a fact. You beleive me or you don't. Simple.

I don't have any deficit, attention wise or not. I've done very well at
my mock exam, thank you for your concerns. I am again very safe in my
knowledge - I do rely on a lot of writings, but from now on I'll make
damn sure I explain everything, where my facts come from and will
scrutinise everything from yours.

"Mike" wrote in message
...


--
.
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message .com
from "La puce" contains these words:

The fact remains that you(abuse edited) waited to accuse me of
accrediting something to myself when
in fact it wasn't my intention.

You've already said it's your policy not to accredit. That means it's
intentional.

Ist December, "silver lining" thread

The message .com
from "La puce" contains these words:

I don' t accredit anything. I'm perfectly safe in the knowledge of my
knowledge.

You appear to have an attention deficit disorder. Doesn't bode well
for the RHS exam.


Janet



:-((

mmmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww wwwwwwww

Can you not give it a rest Barrowcloth?

Do you HAVE to have the last word????

Am with you on this one Mike me boy...it was only the other day I thought I
read that Barrow had had enuff....apologies Barrow for that error of mine

:-((

martin wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 07:35:41 -0800, "La puce" wrote:

Nick Maclaren wrote:
No. The recent outbreak of Dutch elm disease was from timber
with bark on, not plants. Nobody knows what the cause of the
similar decline in paleo/meso/neo-lithic times was.
I have heard, sometimes last year, that they have recently found, 60
years later, a disease coming from the wood which made the american's
soldiers canteen box? This is apparently keeling many trees in Provence
- and spreading.

Dutch horse chestnut disease next. 30% of Dutch horse chestnuts are
sick.

A lot, if not most from my observations, of horse chestnut trees round
here (London and suburbs) have been suffering badly from the horse
chestnut leaf mining moth for the last couple of years. Hopefully the
rather colder winter may kill off some of the overwintering pupae???

Is Dutch horse chestnut disease something else again? It doesn't seem to
be mentioned in Pests, Diseases & Disorders of Garden Plants. Perhaps
because it hasn't reached us yet.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...

The importers are the people who may or may not be introducing
new pathogens into their country. Who may or may not wish to impose
controls.

The exporting country already hosts any pathogens if such exist.

Oh, come on! You said it didn't take place, I showed that it did.

...

Nope. You quite happily quoted Professor Brasier as saying it didn't!

Here's what you posted -

a) as has Professor Brasier of Forest Research and Imperial
College. He reckons "We don't move large numbers of animals around
the world for disease reasons, and we shouldn't do it for plants
either."


According to Brasier (and you) we don't move large numbers of animals
around the world for disease reasons.

I claimed we don't do it, but for other reasons.

You then turned round and claimed b)

we do in fact move large numbers of animals around the world, namely
NZ lamb to the Middle East.

Which I claim is for religious reasons and so not relevant.

So which is it? Which of your previous claims do you still agree
with, a) or b)

Do we, or don't we, move large numbers of animals around the world?

...

It seems unlikely to me that Professors Brasier and Ingram, and
perhaps even the editor of _The Plantsman_, have base motives; but if
you suggest it, you should be prepared to prove it. Your evidence?

--

So Brazier, a mycologist I believe, isn't pitching for the job of
"Fungus Czar" then ?

A straight yes or no will do.

"Tough on fungus tough on the causes of fungus" - imported plant material

Nobody cares about fungi - who wants to know about athletes foot,
potato blight, or black spot on roses. Clearly Brazier has been
facing an uphill struggle throughout his entire career.

Now his moment is come. The country faces invasion by foreign
pathogens. (All of a sudden)

It's quite obvious to me, if not to you the game Brazier is playing
here.



michael adams

....







Mike.

In message .com, La
puce writes

Judith Lea wrote:
You have gone too far - urg has never been subjected to anything as bad
as this

HO COME ON!!! Janet calls me all kind of names, she is abusive, she has
suddenly jumped on me regarding a discussion I was having and you don't
say anything because you're a coward but you prefer to email me tons of
emails from your dental surgery a few weeks ago because you didn't have
the guts to show you talked to me on the forum, describing Janet, Sacha
and even Mike. I'm glad you feel this way because frankly I can't be
dealing with people like you. You are an hypocrite.


Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making) are a step
beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly innocent of
namecalling yourself.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making) are a step
beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly innocent of
namecalling yourself.

Do you want to see the emails she has sent me?

In message . com, La
puce writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making) are a step
beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly innocent of
namecalling yourself.

Do you want to see the emails she has sent me?


No.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

The message
from Stewart Robert Hinsley contains these words:

In message . com, La
puce writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making) are a step
beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly innocent of
namecalling yourself.

Do you want to see the emails she has sent me?


No.

To clear up any misconceptions, I have never sent email to Puce.

Janet

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message . com, La puce
writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making) are a step
beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly innocent of
namecalling yourself.

Do you want to see the emails she has sent me?


No.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Thanks for saying that on my behalf as well, cos I only read and never reply
to some posters.

On 5/12/05 19:07, in article , "Janet
Baraclough" wrote:

The message
from Stewart Robert Hinsley contains these words:

In message . com, La
puce writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making) are a step
beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly innocent of
namecalling yourself.

Do you want to see the emails she has sent me?


No.

To clear up any misconceptions, I have never sent email to Puce.

I'm wondering how much lower Puce is going to go. There's can't be many
more rungs, surely?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"La puce" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sacha wrote:
I'm wondering how much lower Puce is going to go. There's can't be many
more rungs, surely?

Sacha, you wonder too much. You personnal vendetta is getting tedious
as well. Just go and fry yourself an egg and give us all a holidays.

To: La Puce and Sacha........what realy gives between you two?

--
..
"La puce" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sacha wrote:
I'm wondering how much lower Puce is going to go. There's can't be many
more rungs, surely?

Sacha, you wonder too much. You personnal vendetta is getting tedious
as well. Just go and fry yourself an egg and give us all a holidays.


La Puce, don't bother with her, once L/Cpl Hubbard. S. Devon Battalion of
the Woman's Land Army gets her knife into you. That's it. Her next move will
be to call you a liar, but not produce the evidence. Leave her to serve her
cream teas and wash the dishes up.

Mike
the truth will prevail

Rupert wrote:
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in
message
...
In message . com,
La puce writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
Threats of stalking (which is what you appeared to be making)
are
a step beyond namecalling, never mind that you're hardly
innocent
of namecalling yourself.

Do you want to see the emails she has sent me?


No.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Thanks for saying that on my behalf as well, cos I only read and
never reply to some posters.

Thanks for the really productive discussion on what I had been naive
enough to imagine might have been an interesting subject, guys. I
believe our American cousins at this point say something like
"Sheesh!"

--
Mike.