After all that the gates are sold, Steve.

On 9/12/05 20:20, in article
, "landscapeadvice"
wrote:

After all that the gates are sold, Steve.


Good for you!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

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

Janet, I'm sure, meant
well. I hope she will forgive me if I say she has a habit of .. er ..
coming to the point :-). Many of us do that and, indeed, there are
worse
crimes.

Here's two points you may have missed.

You have been here long enough to know that trolls here constantly,
deliberately post misleading trash fantasy to confuse and deter newbies.
Particularly, about the group, it's charter, permitted advertising, etc.

One of the "worse crimes" you mention, must be aiding and abetting the
agendas of troll disrupters. Either deliberately, or out of dim
thoughtlessness.

Janet

Hi Janet,

I'm afraid I have no idea who you are calling a troll in this thread, so
perhaps I am dim and thoughtless. If you think I am a troll, you must say
so, and I will leave the group. I certainly never intended to either
mislead or offend. Thankfully, La Puce read my post in the way I intended
it and I sincerely hope others did, too.

In saying that there are "worse crimes" than "coming to the point" I
certainly wasn't being rude to you (or about you) - rather playing down the
"rudeness" tag that La Puce levelled at you in her kind defence of me. I
actually respect bluntness and "coming to the pointedness". Coming from
Yorkshire - the Bluntness Capital of Britain - I have often been 'accused'
of the same trait. I have also been accused of being a diplomat, being easy
to live with, teaching without patronising, and having the patience of a
saint. I hope you will understand from this that I do not now, nor never
have gone out of my way to cause offence or make anyone uncomfortable - I
see little point in it and it gives me no pleasure or satisfaction.

I hope I have satisfied any concerns you may have. I would be grateful for
your response so that I may quit the group or continue within in it.

Spider

That's it Barrowcloth, you put your foot down and tell 'em. Your the Boss
and let them tell you otherwise. Well, with your partner in arms of course.


--
..
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Spider" contains these words:


If you think I am a troll, you must say
so and I will leave the group. (snip) I would be grateful for
your response so that I may quit the group or continue within in it.

First, you misinform a newbie. Then you claim innocent ignorance of
this group's well publicised views on advertising. Then you feign
ignorance of a longterm well-publicised troll agenda to do exactly that.
Then you pretend that I control your presence on this group; which is
another lie on the troll agenda here, and demand a reply, which is
another troll habit.

You're tying a noose round your own neck....just like Puce and Crowe.

Janet

Janet Baraclough wrote:
First, you misinform a newbie. Then you claim innocent ignorance of
this group's well publicised views on advertising. Then you feign
ignorance of a longterm well-publicised troll agenda to do exactly that.
Then you pretend that I control your presence on this group; which is
another lie on the troll agenda here, and demand a reply, which is
another troll habit.

You are a control freak with a definitive troll fixation Janet.

You're tying a noose round your own neck....just like Puce and Crowe.

Who is Crowe?! Are you refering to poor Mike that you have made mad by
your manipulative comments and your vendettas? Can you tell us once and
for all why Mike is so crazy about you?

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

Janet Baraclough wrote:
First, you misinform a newbie. Then you claim innocent ignorance of
this group's well publicised views on advertising. Then you feign
ignorance of a longterm well-publicised troll agenda to do exactly that.
Then you pretend that I control your presence on this group; which is
another lie on the troll agenda here, and demand a reply, which is
another troll habit.

You are a control freak with a definitive troll fixation Janet.

You're tying a noose round your own neck....just like Puce and Crowe.

Who is Crowe?! Are you refering to poor Mike that you have made mad by
your manipulative comments and your vendettas? Can you tell us once and
for all why Mike is so crazy about you?

That is one of the crosses I have to bear:-)) Her and L/cpl Hubbard.S. of
the Devon Battallion of the Woman's Land Army has had a fixation on me for
years ;-((

My magnetic attraction for the female sex.

Mike Crowe

"Mike" wrote in message
...


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

Janet Baraclough wrote:
First, you misinform a newbie. Then you claim innocent ignorance of
this group's well publicised views on advertising. Then you feign
ignorance of a longterm well-publicised troll agenda to do exactly
that.
Then you pretend that I control your presence on this group; which is
another lie on the troll agenda here, and demand a reply, which is
another troll habit.

You are a control freak with a definitive troll fixation Janet.

You're tying a noose round your own neck....just like Puce and
Crowe.

Who is Crowe?! Are you refering to poor Mike that you have made mad by
your manipulative comments and your vendettas? Can you tell us once and
for all why Mike is so crazy about you?

That is one of the crosses I have to bear:-)) Her and L/cpl Hubbard.S. of
the Devon Battallion of the Woman's Land Army has had a fixation on me for
years ;-((

My magnetic attraction for the female sex.

Mike Crowe

Do they 'turn you on' Mike C.

--
..
"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

"Mike" wrote in message
...


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

Janet Baraclough wrote:
First, you misinform a newbie. Then you claim innocent ignorance of
this group's well publicised views on advertising. Then you feign
ignorance of a longterm well-publicised troll agenda to do exactly
that.
Then you pretend that I control your presence on this group; which is
another lie on the troll agenda here, and demand a reply, which is
another troll habit.

You are a control freak with a definitive troll fixation Janet.

You're tying a noose round your own neck....just like Puce and
Crowe.

Who is Crowe?! Are you refering to poor Mike that you have made mad by
your manipulative comments and your vendettas? Can you tell us once and
for all why Mike is so crazy about you?

That is one of the crosses I have to bear:-)) Her and L/cpl Hubbard.S.
of
the Devon Battallion of the Woman's Land Army has had a fixation on me
for
years ;-((

My magnetic attraction for the female sex.

Mike Crowe

Do they 'turn you on' Mike C.



Old hat now :-)

Been there. done that, etc etc

"Mike" wrote in message
...


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

Janet Baraclough wrote:
First, you misinform a newbie. Then you claim innocent ignorance of
this group's well publicised views on advertising. Then you feign
ignorance of a longterm well-publicised troll agenda to do exactly
that.
Then you pretend that I control your presence on this group; which is
another lie on the troll agenda here, and demand a reply, which is
another troll habit.

You are a control freak with a definitive troll fixation Janet.

You're tying a noose round your own neck....just like Puce and
Crowe.

Who is Crowe?! Are you refering to poor Mike that you have made mad by
your manipulative comments and your vendettas? Can you tell us once and
for all why Mike is so crazy about you?

That is one of the crosses I have to bear:-)) Her and L/cpl Hubbard.S. of
the Devon Battallion of the Woman's Land Army has had a fixation on me for
years ;-((

My magnetic attraction for the female sex.

Don't you mean 'revultion'?


Mike Crowe

Alan Holmes wrote:

Don't you mean 'revultion'?

Alan!! Language! You're missing a 'o' somewhere in that word. You are a
decent innocent amongst this er... nonsense. What is going on between
Mike and Janet?! We must be told. Is this going back when this forum
started? I feel that anyone sympathising with Mike gets the 'Janet
treatment', you know the usual 'troll this troll that'. Deja vue for
most of us but dead boring and very very annoying. I don't dislike
Janet, just that she's got this thing in her head that anyone
responding to Mike must be a ... ennemy?! She did say so herself after
all. Also do we need to get an 'invitation' to stay around here beside
the 'newbies' as she call them or are we all doomed to be newbies?!
That is for the newbies?. (Hope you follow).

I know it's going back to some whatever discussion we've had, but it's
obvious that she'll have a go at anyone responding to Mike, or agreeing
with him, and with me for that matter and I've only been here 2
months!! And Mike is visibly going loopy with this on going rubbish.

deep sigh

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

Alan Holmes wrote:

Don't you mean 'revultion'?

snip
I know it's going back to some whatever discussion we've had, but it's
obvious that she'll have a go at anyone responding to Mike, or agreeing
with him, and with me for that matter and I've only been here 2
months!! And Mike is visibly going loopy with this on going rubbish.

deep sigh

will give Janet an opportunity to revile me.....Mike, like most of us have
our own peculiarities....and, in all probablity, recognise them for what
they are....frankly I like Mike's style of 'telling it as it is'....a lot of
the folk I know have ceased asking me questions of the type...."well, the
type of 'what do you think' and are hoping for a specific
answer....example...'what do you think of my new hat'....I am no longer
asked those questions as my answer reflect my true thoughts and in many many
case are not what the asker really wishes to hear....so, to Mike and all
those who wish to 'tell it as it is' and speak the truth as they know it to
be then .........please, pretty please do not change....it is those that
revile the truth sayers that should 'reconsider'......live and let live
sayeth I......a Yorkshireman (still)

"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

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

Alan Holmes wrote:

Don't you mean 'revultion'?

snip
I know it's going back to some whatever discussion we've had, but it's
obvious that she'll have a go at anyone responding to Mike, or agreeing
with him, and with me for that matter and I've only been here 2
months!! And Mike is visibly going loopy with this on going rubbish.

deep sigh

will give Janet an opportunity to revile me.....Mike, like most of us have
our own peculiarities....and, in all probablity, recognise them for what
they are....frankly I like Mike's style of 'telling it as it is'....a lot
of the folk I know have ceased asking me questions of the type...."well,
the type of 'what do you think' and are hoping for a specific
answer....example...'what do you think of my new hat'....I am no longer
asked those questions as my answer reflect my true thoughts and in many
many case are not what the asker really wishes to hear....so, to Mike and
all those who wish to 'tell it as it is' and speak the truth as they know
it to be then .........please, pretty please do not change....it is those
that revile the truth sayers that should 'reconsider'......live and let
live sayeth I......a Yorkshireman (still)

O.K a fellow Yorkshireman agrees with the sentiment of your post, however,
there are limits to plain speaking .
If someone constantly makes vitriolic comments for no particular reason then
that's just plain stupid and daft.
In the case of "Mike" -he makes racist, homophobic and totally puerile
comments both on this newsgroup and others.
On occasions he does make a sensible contribution but that's a very rare
event.
I think it may have been in this newsgroup "I wished him dead".
Is that plain enough?

"Rupert" wrote in message
...

"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

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

Alan Holmes wrote:

Don't you mean 'revultion'?

snip
I know it's going back to some whatever discussion we've had, but it's
obvious that she'll have a go at anyone responding to Mike, or agreeing
with him, and with me for that matter and I've only been here 2
months!! And Mike is visibly going loopy with this on going rubbish.

deep sigh

will give Janet an opportunity to revile me.....Mike, like most of us
have our own peculiarities....and, in all probablity, recognise them for
what they are....frankly I like Mike's style of 'telling it as it
is'....a lot of the folk I know have ceased asking me questions of the
type...."well, the type of 'what do you think' and are hoping for a
specific answer....example...'what do you think of my new hat'....I am no
longer asked those questions as my answer reflect my true thoughts and in
many many case are not what the asker really wishes to hear....so, to
Mike and all those who wish to 'tell it as it is' and speak the truth as
they know it to be then .........please, pretty please do not
change....it is those that revile the truth sayers that should
'reconsider'......live and let live sayeth I......a Yorkshireman (still)

O.K a fellow Yorkshireman agrees with the sentiment of your post, however,
there are limits to plain speaking .
If someone constantly makes vitriolic comments for no particular reason
then that's just plain stupid and daft.
In the case of "Mike" -he makes racist, homophobic and totally puerile
comments both on this newsgroup and others.
On occasions he does make a sensible contribution but that's a very rare
event.
I think it may have been in this newsgroup "I wished him dead".
Is that plain enough?

Plain enough fellow Yorkshireman......plus.....also in my belief there is no
room for vitriolic comments that are unwarrented...."plain, stupid and daft"
are not exactly the words I wood use but in respect for this site will not
use.....

"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote in message
...

"middleton.walker" wrote in message
...

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

Alan Holmes wrote:

Don't you mean 'revultion'?

snip
I know it's going back to some whatever discussion we've had, but it's
obvious that she'll have a go at anyone responding to Mike, or agreeing
with him, and with me for that matter and I've only been here 2
months!! And Mike is visibly going loopy with this on going rubbish.

deep sigh

will give Janet an opportunity to revile me.....Mike, like most of us
have our own peculiarities....and, in all probablity, recognise them for
what they are....frankly I like Mike's style of 'telling it as it
is'....a lot of the folk I know have ceased asking me questions of the
type...."well, the type of 'what do you think' and are hoping for a
specific answer....example...'what do you think of my new hat'....I am
no longer asked those questions as my answer reflect my true thoughts
and in many many case are not what the asker really wishes to
hear....so, to Mike and all those who wish to 'tell it as it is' and
speak the truth as they know it to be then .........please, pretty
please do not change....it is those that revile the truth sayers that
should 'reconsider'......live and let live sayeth I......a Yorkshireman
(still)

O.K a fellow Yorkshireman agrees with the sentiment of your post,
however, there are limits to plain speaking .
If someone constantly makes vitriolic comments for no particular reason
then that's just plain stupid and daft.
In the case of "Mike" -he makes racist, homophobic and totally puerile
comments both on this newsgroup and others.
On occasions he does make a sensible contribution but that's a very rare
event.
I think it may have been in this newsgroup "I wished him dead".
Is that plain enough?

Plain enough fellow Yorkshireman......plus.....also in my belief there is
no room for vitriolic comments that are unwarrented...."plain, stupid and
daft" are not exactly the words I wood use but in respect for this site
will not use.....


wood ? you mean wud lad
esezearntgorritburibereas
lerragerracotof
lerruzgerruzimbux
-just testing your credentials;-)

"Rupert" wrote in message
...

Alan Holmes wrote:

Don't you mean 'revultion'?

snip
I know it's going back to some whatever discussion we've had, but it's
obvious that she'll have a go at anyone responding to Mike, or
agreeing
with him, and with me for that matter and I've only been here 2
months!! And Mike is visibly going loopy with this on going rubbish.

deep sigh

will give Janet an opportunity to revile me.....Mike, like most of us
have our own peculiarities....and, in all probablity, recognise them
for what they are....frankly I like Mike's style of 'telling it as it
is'....a lot of the folk I know have ceased asking me questions of the
type...."well, the type of 'what do you think' and are hoping for a
specific answer....example...'what do you think of my new hat'....I am
no longer asked those questions as my answer reflect my true thoughts
and in many many case are not what the asker really wishes to
hear....so, to Mike and all those who wish to 'tell it as it is' and
speak the truth as they know it to be then .........please, pretty
please do not change....it is those that revile the truth sayers that
should 'reconsider'......live and let live sayeth I......a Yorkshireman
(still)

O.K a fellow Yorkshireman agrees with the sentiment of your post,
however, there are limits to plain speaking .
If someone constantly makes vitriolic comments for no particular reason
then that's just plain stupid and daft.
In the case of "Mike" -he makes racist, homophobic and totally puerile
comments both on this newsgroup and others.
On occasions he does make a sensible contribution but that's a very rare
event.
I think it may have been in this newsgroup "I wished him dead".
Is that plain enough?

Plain enough fellow Yorkshireman......plus.....also in my belief there is
no room for vitriolic comments that are unwarrented...."plain, stupid and
daft" are not exactly the words I wood use but in respect for this site
will not use.....


wood ? you mean wud lad
esezearntgorritburibereas
lerragerracotof
lerruzgerruzimbux
-just testing your credentials;-)
aye ba gum lad...tha is right....but if the truth be known then I am
interloper when I say I am a Yorkshireman.....born in Bishop Aukland and did
not start living in Yorkshire (York) until I was 5 days old....