| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
gates.
are we allowed to put items for sale on this disscussion group? steve
|
gates.
landscapeadvice wrote:
are we allowed to put items for sale on this disscussion group? steve Yes, provided they are related to gardening and the subject is clearly marked as AD or ADVERT, it may be a pointer towards a website or catalogue and can be no longer than four lines, this is only allowed once every three months. http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.gardening.html |
gates.
landscapeadvice wrote in message oups.com... are we allowed to put items for sale on this disscussion group? steve It's a moot point. Advertising isn't allowed. I'm sure someone will pop up and give a better definition. Spider |
gates.
-- .. "Spider" wrote in message ... landscapeadvice wrote in message oups.com... are we allowed to put items for sale on this disscussion group? steve It's a moot point. Advertising isn't allowed. I'm sure someone will pop up and give a better definition. Spider Enter plenty of discussions and make sure your advert is in the signature in the form of your web site, but no more than 4 lines :-)) Just take note of examples. Mike The truth will prevail |
gates.
ADVERT to Readers.
I have 2 gates that are treated softwood fitted with gulvaniized gate furniture and are pedestian size the overall entrance size excluding the posts is 6ft as the gates are 36 inches each.They stand 48 inches high. These are secound hand and are surplus to requirements.I have had them for two years.They are 5 bar and are little used. I live in the Bristol area and am willing to photo them and send e-mails to interested parties. I need some one to make me a sensible offer. |
gates.
"landscapeadvice" wrote in message oups.com... ADVERT to Readers. I have 2 gates that are treated softwood fitted with gulvaniized gate furniture and are pedestian size the overall entrance size excluding the posts is 6ft as the gates are 36 inches each.They stand 48 inches high. These are secound hand and are surplus to requirements.I have had them for two years.They are 5 bar and are little used. I live in the Bristol area and am willing to photo them and send e-mails to interested parties. I need some one to make me a sensible offer. Without wishing to appear unduly facetious, this NewsGroup attracts contributions and readers not only from throughout the U.K including the Highlands and Islands, but from abroad. Presumably the cost of postage or carriage on a pair of gates would negate any price advantage any purchaser would obtain by buying from you on a NewsGroup. Certainly when compared with what they would have to pay at a local garden centre. These items would seem to require local pickup. Or personal delivery for a small charge perhaps. For which a small ad in a local paper or Bristol free sheet if such exists, would seem the most the most suitable medium. Or maybe a local Bristol South West Newsgroup - if such exists. For similar reasons I doubt if eBay would be of much use to you. michael adams ..... |
gates.
The message
from "Spider" contains these words: landscapeadvice wrote in message oups.com... are we allowed to put items for sale on this disscussion group? steve It's a moot point. Advertising isn't allowed. Please don't post misleading information. The charter of this group (easy websearch) explains exactly what advertising is permitted, and when and how. Janet |
gates.
Janet Baraclough wrote: Please don't post misleading information. The charter of this group (easy websearch) explains exactly what advertising is permitted, and when and how. Please don't be so rude. You've misquoted Spider's post. She said 'I'm sure someone will pop up and give a better definition'. |
gates.
--
.. "La puce" wrote in message oups.com... Janet Baraclough wrote: Please don't post misleading information. The charter of this group (easy websearch) explains exactly what advertising is permitted, and when and how. Please don't be so rude. You've misquoted Spider's post. She said 'I'm sure someone will pop up and give a better definition'. Don't bother with her either :-(( |
gates.
La puce wrote in message oups.com... Janet Baraclough wrote: Please don't post misleading information. The charter of this group (easy websearch) explains exactly what advertising is permitted, and when and how. Please don't be so rude. You've misquoted Spider's post. She said 'I'm sure someone will pop up and give a better definition'. Thanks, La Puce, for politely intervening for me. I have been busy having a migraine, or I would have responded to you and Janet sooner. Obviously, I didn't intend to mislead, hence my subtle declaimer. 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. To err is human; to forgive,divine. Spider |
gates.
In article , Spider
writes Obviously, I didn't intend to mislead, hence my subtle declaimer. 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. Janet is a plain speaker and I for one respect that - she certainly does come to the point but with her I know exactly where I stand and I know, for a certainty, she would never mis-quote me nor would she ever infer a half-truth which in my book, is the same as lying. To err is human; to forgive,divine. She certainly does that too, as I found out when I was new to urg, I made the most stupid remarks, I did the most stupid things (yes, I still do) and she never berated me but only helped with good advice - I think if we, as posters, ask advice, then we should gracefully take that advice and not seek to be smart with the person giving the advice, after all, Janet and many others like her; go to the trouble of imparting their skills in gardening by replying to the postings and I am so grateful to them that they do. Keep up the good work and in particular Janet and Sacha, Kay and Jane and all of you who have given me sound advice too numerous to mention. -- Judith Lea |
gates.
On 9/12/05 15:28, in article ,
"Spider" wrote: La puce wrote in message oups.com... Janet Baraclough wrote: Please don't post misleading information. The charter of this group (easy websearch) explains exactly what advertising is permitted, and when and how. Please don't be so rude. You've misquoted Spider's post. She said 'I'm sure someone will pop up and give a better definition'. Thanks, La Puce, for politely intervening for me.snip I took Janet's comment to refer to the snarky remarks we've seen here from people who don't know - or perhaps don't care - what the advertising situation is. In truth, the charter makes it perfectly clear and it's worth looking at. It's in the abc for newcomers message which is posted weekly and is extremely helpful. That makes it clear what is and isn't permitted or welcomed on urg. I doubt the gates advert could upset anyone, however. But perhaps I'm wrong..... ;-) -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
gates.
But perhaps I'm wrong..... ;-)
-- Sacha WRONG ???????????????????????? Never |
gates.
-- .. "Mike" wrote in message ... But perhaps I'm wrong..... ;-) -- Sacha WRONG ???????????????????????? Never The moon is made of green cheese Pigs fly Water runs uphill Night does NOT follow day Never did I ever believe, that I would see the honourable Sacha even contemplate that she, of all people, could 'possibly' be wrong. What will become of urg if Sacha has the slightest element of doubt in her mind? Doooooooooooooom I tell you doooooooooom |
gates.
After all that the gates are sold, Steve.
|
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) |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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) |
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? |
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..... |
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;-) |
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.... |
gates.
"middleton.walker" wrote in message ... "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.... An "off-cumden" is what you a-) all because your Mum wouldn't hold on for a few days. |
gates.
" Don't you mean 'revultion'? 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.... An "off-cumden" is what you a-) all because your Mum wouldn't hold on for a few days. Naw...that wos not the case....mum wos living in York but went up north cos of convenience...home delivery and no one handy in York...the rest of the family lived up there....but an 'off-cumben' that I be....now I am a Cape Cod 'wash ashore' or a 'wannabe'.... |
gates.
In article , middleton.walker
writes Do they 'turn you on' Mike C. Its the attention that turns Mike on, he starts bleating if he's not the centre of it. -- David |
gates.
In article , Rupert
writes "middleton.walker" wrote in message ... 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? In plain language... he's just a stirring git -- David |
gates.
In article , Spider wrote:
I would be grateful for your response so that I may quit the group or continue within in it. A lurker asks why you are asking a single contributor whether you should leave or stay? This is a public forum - whether you leave or stay is entirely your own decision and you shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied either way. Kevin |
gates.
another lurker here - ask yourselves.... why do we lurk?
Sue "Kevin Weller" wrote in message ... In article , Spider wrote: I would be grateful for your response so that I may quit the group or continue within in it. A lurker asks why you are asking a single contributor whether you should leave or stay? This is a public forum - whether you leave or stay is entirely your own decision and you shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied either way. Kevin |
gates.
"Space" wrote in message ... another lurker here - ask yourselves.... why do we lurk? Cos you got spots? Your are ugly? You don't know nuthin? Cos you acquire info and give nowlt back? Perhaps you smell bad? I give in - You tell me why you lurk |
gates.
In article , Space
wrote: another lurker here - ask yourselves.... why do we lurk? In my case because I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to gardening and I'm here to learn. It's certainly not because I'm intimidated. If I think I can add value I post - that was my 5th post I think which gives you some idea of how much value I think I can add here! Kevin |
gates.
On 16/12/05 5:53 am, in article , "Kevin
Weller" wrote: In article , Space wrote: another lurker here - ask yourselves.... why do we lurk? In my case because I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to gardening and I'm here to learn. It's certainly not because I'm intimidated. If I think I can add value I post - that was my 5th post I think which gives you some idea of how much value I think I can add here! I think most people here think as I do - that *everyone*, including total novice gardeners has something to contribute to this group. Quite apart from the real meat of the answers to novices' questions, all of us can learn from what is asked, how best to help people by explaining things clearly and in straightforward language. Nobody objects to what some newbies call 'stupid questions' but I think that anyone has a right to object to rudeness by people who barge in, demanding answers or attention and become nasty and personally insulting when they don't get what they think they' should. I appreciate that in the seven years since I came here, things have changed in terms of much wider computer use and that this means general behaviour will change. But I do think that the 'old' idea of reading a group for a bit to see how it conducts itself before you join in, is a good one and is just good manners to the group, really. This is not directed at you, Kevin, BTW - your post was one that was thoughtful enough to allow me to say what I was thinking on the back of it! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
gates.
-- .. "Sacha" wrote in message .uk... On 16/12/05 5:53 am, in article , "Kevin Weller" wrote: In article , Space wrote: another lurker here - ask yourselves.... why do we lurk? In my case because I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to gardening and I'm here to learn. It's certainly not because I'm intimidated. If I think I can add value I post - that was my 5th post I think which gives you some idea of how much value I think I can add here! I think most people here think as I do - that *everyone*, including total novice gardeners has something to contribute to this group. Quite apart from the real meat of the answers to novices' questions, all of us can learn from what is asked, how best to help people by explaining things clearly and in straightforward language. Nobody objects to what some newbies call 'stupid questions' but I think that anyone has a right to object to rudeness by people who barge in, demanding answers or attention and become nasty and personally insulting when they don't get what they think they' should. I appreciate that in the seven years since I came here, things have changed in terms of much wider computer use and that this means general behaviour will change. But I do think that the 'old' idea of reading a group for a bit to see how it conducts itself before you join in, is a good one and is just good manners to the group, really. This is not directed at you, Kevin, BTW - your post was one that was thoughtful enough to allow me to say what I was thinking on the back of it! -- Sacha Does that mean that the past practice of telling newbies to read the FAQ's when they come up with a question which has 'Been done to death' will be dropped? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter