Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
After all that the gates are sold, Steve.
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
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) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
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? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
-- .. "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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
-- .. "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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
"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) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
"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? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
"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..... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
"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;-) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
gates.
"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.... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT- Open the gates darling | United Kingdom | |||
OT Email scam: Bill Gates giving away his fortune | Orchids | |||
Gates and Railing supplies? | United Kingdom |