In message , Trevor
writes

"June Hughes" wrote in message
...
In message , Trevor
writes
Flippin' 'eck what did I start here? I thought gardening was about the
plants and the bees!


It is, it is, Trevor. So long as it is about bees and not wasps, I am
happy. (OK, I know wasps do a lot of good but I am still very scared of
them. Someone who used to post here years ago and who is a very
well-respected gardener in urg is allergic to wasps and has to carry his
medication at all times).
--



Yes. I had a friend as a boy who went into a coma if he got stung. I
remember seeing him eat toast and jam in the street and a wasp landed on his
face. He stayed perfectly still for what seemed like an eternity. He
obviously listened well to his instructions on what to do if it happened.


Shudder!
--
June Hughes

On 10/3/06 14:47, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
id...
On 10/3/06 13:19, in article , "June
snip

Unfortunately, Puce's habit of naming people she emails with has led to
some
bad feeling on here and as Janet has been grossly insulted over and over
again, it's not hard to understand her indignation at someone who is
clearly
a Puce supporter and yet is urging the group towards harmony and good
conduct! Perhaps now that Puce appears to have taken a well-timed bow and
departed, we can get over the nastiness she and those who egged her on,
contributed to.

What about June's post makes you think she is clearly a 'Puce supporter'?

All she was doing, IMO, was criticising Rupert for what she clearly regarded
as an insensitive and ill timed wisecrack, not defending or supporting la
Puce.


I'm not getting into an argument over this because I hope it's over. I will
merely refer you to Puce's apparently 'departing' post. And I will remind
you that in all the abuse hurled at Janet there are some who have said not
one word of condemnation to Puce but now, at the final hour, attempt to
defend her. That's enough for me. My money was never in any danger.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
)

On 10/3/06 14:48, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes
On 10/3/06 13:19, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote:


As I have already said in a further reply to Rupert, which you seem to
have missed, we are trying to get back on to an even keel here. Remarks
like Rupert's do not help. He apologised and I thought that was the end
of it but as usual, you had to stick your oar in. Have you nothing else
to do? As for offensive and malicious remarks, I seem to recall you did
your share. I don't think I need say more and certainly don't intend
to justify myself to you. Now, please can we get on with the gardening
and stop scaring people off?

Your last sentence is a very good idea, in general. But it would be greatly
assisted if you play your part, too and stop dropping dark and leaden hints
about people you dislike on here and what real or imagined slights you feel
they have dealt you in the long-distant past. That way, we could *all* start
with a clean slate and hope the trolling past is behind us, too.
Unfortunately, Puce's habit of naming people she emails with has led to some
bad feeling on here and as Janet has been grossly insulted over and over
again, it's not hard to understand her indignation at someone who is clearly
a Puce supporter and yet is urging the group towards harmony and good
conduct! Perhaps now that Puce appears to have taken a well-timed bow and
departed, we can get over the nastiness she and those who egged her on,
contributed to.
And to think I had just started reading your posts again, after your
brief visit to uk f+d during the last couple of weeks, when you were all
sweetness and light. What sort of result do you think your above post
achieved except to display an attempt to irritate? The high-handed
attitude is all very well if you own something but you do not own this
ng and you certainly do not have any power over me. Perhaps we can now
settle down to gardening - yet again. As you suggested some time ago,
it would be better if you and I ignored each other and that suits me
fine.

June, do try not to make yourself more ridiculous than you can help. On one
day you told Puce that you have no trouble ignoring me and on the next you
sent at least four replies to my posts to the foodie group, one of which was
positively 'cosy'. Make up your mind as to how you choose to observe my
posts and stick to it, please. You have a very bad habit of not coming into
this group for a long time and then appearing out of the blue and telling
everyone how to behave. It's a recurring habit of yours. Please do not
think that this goes unobserved. You do it on group and you do it in email.
It's unattractive and untruthful, IMO.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
)

On 10/3/06 17:55, in article , "JennyC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote

Perhaps now that Puce appears to have taken a well-timed bow and
departed, we can get over the nastiness she and those who egged her on,
contributed to.

Pot calling the kettle black Sacha!!

I've tried not to get mixed up in this affair, but cannot be quiet any longer.

I'm sure and Janet are wonderful loving people but you don't show it much in
URG
:~((

I suppose because you are both long term participants, you seem to think you
own
the place. I wonder just how many people have been put of by the pair of you?

Pity as gardening should be a friendly relaxing thing...........

Jenny (ducking down behind the compost bin to avoid the flack)


I'm sorry to read this from you, Jenny but not entirely surprised as Puce
named you as one of her supporters. I think Janet and I object to people
posting bad information to boost their egos and that is what Puce does. If
you think that's okay, you are of course, at liberty to support her. I'm
sorry to say that I thought better of you than to make that 'long time
participants' crack but I was mistaken. The great interest of news groups
is surely that we all do have differing views. If you think Puce's form of
virulent and foulmouthed attacks on those who see her for what she is makes
us nasty people then somehow, we'll have to live with that, I suppose. I'm
sure we will agree that she's done a good job with this group, don¹t' you
think?
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
)

In message , Sacha
writes
On 10/3/06 14:48, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote:

Snip
And to think I had just started reading your posts again, after your
brief visit to uk f+d during the last couple of weeks, when you were all
sweetness and light. What sort of result do you think your above post
achieved except to display an attempt to irritate? The high-handed
attitude is all very well if you own something but you do not own this
ng and you certainly do not have any power over me. Perhaps we can now
settle down to gardening - yet again. As you suggested some time ago,
it would be better if you and I ignored each other and that suits me
fine.

June, do try not to make yourself more ridiculous than you can help. On one
day you told Puce that you have no trouble ignoring me and on the next you
sent at least four replies to my posts to the foodie group, one of which was
positively 'cosy'. Make up your mind as to how you choose to observe my
posts and stick to it, please. You have a very bad habit of not coming into
this group for a long time and then appearing out of the blue and telling
everyone how to behave. It's a recurring habit of yours. Please do not
think that this goes unobserved. You do it on group and you do it in email.
It's unattractive and untruthful, IMO.
Mendacity huh? You are very good at that, Sacha. I was friendly to you
on uk f+d because you behaved well there and you were a guest. I have
never stayed out of this group, although I didn't post for a very long
time as a result of coming up against your unfriendly and sometimes
nasty attitude. Now I am not interested in you. You can have the last
word. I shan't reply.
--
June Hughes

In message , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from June Hughes contains these words:

In message , Sacha
writes
You have a very bad habit of not coming into
this group for a long time and then appearing out of the blue and telling
everyone how to behave. It's a recurring habit of yours. Please do not
think that this goes unobserved. You do it on group and you do it in
email.
It's unattractive and untruthful, IMO.


Mendacity huh? You are very good at that, Sacha. I was friendly to you
on uk f+d because you behaved well there and you were a guest.

In what way is any poster a guest there? Does this mean you consider
yourself the hostess, graciously permitting people to post to your
group? How extraordinary.

No, I am not 'hostess', as you so 'intelligently' put it - we all are.
And so it should be here in urg. Instead of which you and Sacha seen to
be taking on the role of mistresses of all you survey. Even very
recently you have had a go at innocent new posters, forcing them to
apologise for their 'mis-behaviours'.
I have
never stayed out of this group,

That is regrettably true, but you have very often slammed out of it in
a temper tantrum vowing never to return because it's so howwible. So
often have you performed that trick on urg that your performances
acquired the name "June's Flounce Announcements" and I regret to say,
a certain gentlemen used to run a book on how long the latest Flounce
Announcement would last before you revoked it.

Yes, I have stopped posting here in the past, as a result of your and
Sacha's unfriendliness. That does not mean I have not been lurking here.
As for the name you assigned to me- acquired the name from whom? You
and Sacha?
You can have the last
word. I shan't reply.

Another familiar June-ism, which never lasts.

Oh Grow up, you silly woman. You may know a lot about gardening but you
surely are one of the most silly and bitchy persons here. Keep to what
you know - you will be better for it.
--
June Hughes

On 10/3/06 23:30, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote:

snip

Now I am not interested in you.

Untrue. You are interested enough to have dropped snide remarks and sulky
hints for weeks, clearly inviting others to enquire further. You're simply
in a snit because they didn't and because you've realised that Puce has
dropped you right in it with her revelations as to who has been egging her
on.

You can have the last
word. I shan't reply.

Why, thank you. In that case, I must say that my sense of humour has been
fully restored at watching two people who have privately encouraged Puce's
foul-mouthed tirades attempting to claw back the moral high ground! The
spectacle of you telling this group how to behave and play 'nice', when you
not only haven't been here for months and have almost nothing to say about
gardening, but have been one of those stirring up the trouble in emails is
genuinely hilarious. IMO, you've suddenly realised that Puce has pushed you
off your self-erected pedestal and have gone into a first class panic. I
may say that I didn't take the bet offered me that you were one of those
involved as a Puce email crony. I was quite sure of it.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
)

In message , Janet Baraclough
writes

snip diatribe

Oh no, and only days since you were assuring the readers that I have
the June Hughes Good Egg Certificate of Approval. Now they won't know
if they can believe a word you say.

I said someone else spoke highly of you, not me. My opinion of you is
that you are a nasty, vindictive, frustrated woman who think she is the
boss of all and sundry. Is that clear enough for you?

How many self-contradictions can you cram into one post, I wonder?


Janet
You should know. Now why don't you just crawl back under your stone?
You and Sacha can both post your ridiculous rubbish as much as you like.
You are only making fools of yourselves, not anyone else. You don't own
this or any other group, as much as you may think you do, despite your
frequent witch-hunts. Most of the old posters have left and I am not
surprised with you and your friend around. Between you, you have tried
very hard to ruin this group. It looks as though you are succeeding.
--
June Hughes

"June Hughes" wrote in message
...
In message , Janet Baraclough
writes

snip diatribe

Oh no, and only days since you were assuring the readers that I have
the June Hughes Good Egg Certificate of Approval. Now they won't know
if they can believe a word you say.

I said someone else spoke highly of you, not me. My opinion of you is
that you are a nasty, vindictive, frustrated woman who think she is
the boss of all and sundry. Is that clear enough for you?

How many self-contradictions can you cram into one post, I wonder?


Janet
You should know. Now why don't you just crawl back under your stone?
You and Sacha can both post your ridiculous rubbish as much as you
like. You are only making fools of yourselves, not anyone else. You
don't own this or any other group, as much as you may think you do,
despite your frequent witch-hunts. Most of the old posters have left
and I am not surprised with you and your friend around. Between you,
you have tried very hard to ruin this group. It looks as though you
are succeeding.

Oh my!!! Well I haven't been here for a while but I will accept June's
assessment. I know June and I both like her and respect her judgement.

O

"Sacha" wrote in message
id...
On 10/3/06 14:47, in article ,
"BAC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
id...
On 10/3/06 13:19, in article ,
"June
snip

Unfortunately, Puce's habit of naming people she emails with has led to
some
bad feeling on here and as Janet has been grossly insulted over and
over
again, it's not hard to understand her indignation at someone who is
clearly
a Puce supporter and yet is urging the group towards harmony and good
conduct! Perhaps now that Puce appears to have taken a well-timed bow
and
departed, we can get over the nastiness she and those who egged her on,
contributed to.

What about June's post makes you think she is clearly a 'Puce
supporter'?

All she was doing, IMO, was criticising Rupert for what she clearly
regarded
as an insensitive and ill timed wisecrack, not defending or supporting
la
Puce.


I'm not getting into an argument over this because I hope it's over. I
will
merely refer you to Puce's apparently 'departing' post. And I will remind
you that in all the abuse hurled at Janet there are some who have said not
one word of condemnation to Puce but now, at the final hour, attempt to
defend her.

I read June's post more as a criticism of its timing and its likelihood of
stirring matters up again than a defence of La Puce. If she had said
something along the lines that the remark was unfair, inaccurate and an
unwarranted slur on her good friend La Puce, that would be 'defence', IMO,
but she said nothing of the sort.


That's enough for me. My money was never in any danger.

Money?

On 12/3/06 20:53, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
id...
On 10/3/06 14:47, in article ,
"BAC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
id...
On 10/3/06 13:19, in article ,
"June
snip

Unfortunately, Puce's habit of naming people she emails with has led to
some
bad feeling on here and as Janet has been grossly insulted over and
over
again, it's not hard to understand her indignation at someone who is
clearly
a Puce supporter and yet is urging the group towards harmony and good
conduct! Perhaps now that Puce appears to have taken a well-timed bow
and
departed, we can get over the nastiness she and those who egged her on,
contributed to.

What about June's post makes you think she is clearly a 'Puce
supporter'?

All she was doing, IMO, was criticising Rupert for what she clearly
regarded
as an insensitive and ill timed wisecrack, not defending or supporting
la
Puce.


I'm not getting into an argument over this because I hope it's over. I
will
merely refer you to Puce's apparently 'departing' post. And I will remind
you that in all the abuse hurled at Janet there are some who have said not
one word of condemnation to Puce but now, at the final hour, attempt to
defend her.

I read June's post more as a criticism of its timing and its likelihood of
stirring matters up again than a defence of La Puce. If she had said
something along the lines that the remark was unfair, inaccurate and an
unwarranted slur on her good friend La Puce, that would be 'defence', IMO,
but she said nothing of the sort.

Of course not. June tries not to commit herself to anything that will
implicate her and put her in bad odour with a group. From personal
experience, I know that she works in the background wherever possible and
then whinges to a group about the person she has made into an enemy. It's
sly and dishonest, IMO.


That's enough for me. My money was never in any danger.

Money?


Someone bet me that June was one of those emailing Puce and stirring her up.
I wouldn't take the bet because I was absolutely certain June was doing just
that. I was right.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
)

In message , Sacha
writes

Of course not. June tries not to commit herself to anything that will
implicate her and put her in bad odour with a group. From personal
experience, I know that she works in the background wherever possible and
then whinges to a group about the person she has made into an enemy. It's
sly and dishonest, IMO.

Personal exerience, eh, Sacha? You never give up, do you? Sly and
dishonest? As you have never met me in person, that is a down and out
lie. Look at yourself very carefully before saying derogatory things
about someone else. Character assassination to someone's face is quite
different to writing things about them to a third party, or as you have
done here, to the public at large.

That's enough for me. My money was never in any danger.

Money?


Someone bet me that June was one of those emailing Puce and stirring her up.
I wouldn't take the bet because I was absolutely certain June was doing just
that. I was right.

Obviously, you do a lot of your tittle-tattle behind the scenes, doing
the same sort of stirring you take great pleasure in accusing me of.
You should be careful what you say on a public forum like this. There
are several people who may take issue with you..
--
June Hughes

June Hughes wrote:
Obviously, you do a lot of your tittle-tattle behind the scenes, doing
the same sort of stirring you take great pleasure in accusing me of.
You should be careful what you say on a public forum like this. There
are several people who may take issue with you..

June. She has ran out of things to say and started lying again. I've
given it time and what I read in the last 7 days is quite remarkable.
And it's obvious *to everyone*. So that in itself is enough of a releif
to just exit without responding to the woman. Just look at what she is
now claiming .. me and Mike Crowe supporting each others when in fact I
told Mike to just stop because he kept using me as ammunition. Poor
Mike. She drove him loopy! He is a typical example.

Please June we don't want to see you having to go as low as her. I
understand the frustration, believe me we all do, we've been talking
about it, and you just don't deserve any of this. You are too fair and
just June!!

Here, jump into another thread. Leave this place now. It's too dark and
'orrible. It's cosier over there, grab a cushion and I'll put the
kettle on ;o)

La Puce

On 13/3/06 8:04, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes

Of course not. June tries not to commit herself to anything that will
implicate her and put her in bad odour with a group. From personal
experience, I know that she works in the background wherever possible and
then whinges to a group about the person she has made into an enemy. It's
sly and dishonest, IMO.

Personal exerience, eh, Sacha? You never give up, do you? Sly and
dishonest? As you have never met me in person, that is a down and out
lie. Look at yourself very carefully before saying derogatory things
about someone else. Character assassination to someone's face is quite
different to writing things about them to a third party, or as you have
done here, to the public at large.

As you have done to Puce, you mean. She has told us some of the things you
and your ilk have been saying, remember and neither you, nor she, have met
me or Janet. (That's the Janet you were sucking up to about four days ago
when you suddenly realised the damage Puce has done to your already mired
reputation)
You are dishonest in that you - who are almost never here - pompously tell
this group how to behave while, in private, you are doing everything you can
to make matters worse. You are dishonest in that you have hinted that I
followed you into another newsgroup when, in fact, you had cross-posted one
of your habitual snide remarks in response to a comment of mine which had
nothing to do with you. You then panicked that your "good ol' June" persona
on that group was going to be tarnished and backtracked so fast it was
laughable.

That's enough for me. My money was never in any danger.

Money?


Someone bet me that June was one of those emailing Puce and stirring her up.
I wouldn't take the bet because I was absolutely certain June was doing just
that. I was right.

Obviously, you do a lot of your tittle-tattle behind the scenes, doing
the same sort of stirring you take great pleasure in accusing me of.

On the contrary, June. I have never exhorted anyone to write to you or
about you, calling you names and insulting your appearance, your age, your
family, your home, your life or your physical state. With one exception any
emails I've exchanged about you did not originate with me. And NONE of
them, not one, suggested a concerted campaign about you or against you. I
don't deal with people like that - that's your style. Until the last few
days, I have totally ignored your many slights, allusions and hints and it's
driven you half mad. Your ego really does NOT like to be ignored at all.
I don't think you realise just how much you get peoples' backs up with your
hypocrisy. Today, on this very group you have posted to one of those newbies
you're so concerned will be frightened away, that she should ignore the
postmenopausal women, just as you told Puce to ignore me, while doing
everything you could to pick a fight with me. You have been spoiling for a
fight here for at least three weeks and have done everything in your power
to provoke one.

You should be careful what you say on a public forum like this. There
are several people who may take issue with you..

Like you? I don't think you have a glimmer, do you? Are you *honestly* so
stupid or so arrogant as to think that I am going to worry myself over the
opinions of the sort of person you make friends with? I count it a relief
to be disliked by your sort. I don't think you have the first notion of the
contempt in which you are held, including by some of those 'old timers' you
keep yammering on about.
You had a fall out with me three or four years ago and have borne a grudge
ever since. There is nobody like you for dragging your whinging and sulking
on and on and bloody on. You've taken it into at least two other threads
just today! Having flounced out of this group more times than I can recall,
you always - but *always* - return to have yet more digs at me and try to
start another fight and then you whine that I or Janet or someone is so
nasty to you that you have to leave. Clearly, we're not nasty because you
always come creeping back and then your little hints and remarks and digs
start all over again. This time, not only have you done that, you have been
egging on a person as vulgar as yourself to do the same.
You can't even manage to treat us to one your threatened silences for more
than five minutes. What a real boon that would be! Now just shut up and
post on gardening or not at all. Given your contribution to gardening
subjects, that should ensure a lengthy period of peace and quiet.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
)

In message , Sacha
writes

snip most of wild rant.

Like you? I don't think you have a glimmer, do you? Are you *honestly* so
stupid or so arrogant as to think that I am going to worry myself over the
opinions of the sort of person you make friends with? I count it a relief
to be disliked by your sort. I don't think you have the first notion of the
contempt in which you are held, including by some of those 'old timers' you
keep yammering on about.
You had a fall out with me three or four years ago and have borne a grudge
ever since. There is nobody like you for dragging your whinging and sulking
on and on and bloody on. You've taken it into at least two other threads
just today! Having flounced out of this group more times than I can recall,
you always - but *always* - return to have yet more digs at me and try to
start another fight and then you whine that I or Janet or someone is so
nasty to you that you have to leave. Clearly, we're not nasty because you
always come creeping back and then your little hints and remarks and digs
start all over again. This time, not only have you done that, you have been
egging on a person as vulgar as yourself to do the same.
You can't even manage to treat us to one your threatened silences for more
than five minutes. What a real boon that would be! Now just shut up and
post on gardening or not at all. Given your contribution to gardening
subjects, that should ensure a lengthy period of peace and quiet.

Put what little there is of your brain into gear before typing, Sacha.
--
June Hughes