la puce and Judith
 

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:32:35 +0100, "Mike" wrote:

They are the only two I have seen. As for your other ridiculous thread
posting headers, what exactly are you intending to prove? This must be
taking an awful lot of your time. Do you actually do any work at all, or
are you a kept woman?

Have you seen her posting record????? :-(( Toooooooooooooooooooo much time
on her hands.


BTW the people who said here that you would be back were right. Exactly
what you said about Puce.
--
June Hughes

The truth always prevails :-))

As I said, she is unable to leave it 'cos it's 'her newsgroup'

Do you really think she'll let herself be chased out of "her"
news-group by a few peasants and commoners with no respect for their
betters?

Anyway she'll be back alright, probably threatening legal action
against all traitors, rebels and dissenters, she's got nothing else to
do. Perhaps Jersey could be paid to take her back, or better still
Calcutta, where I'm sure she would be treasured.

Nemo

la puce and Judith
 

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:26:01 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 19/10/06 13:34, in article
om, "La Puce"
wrote:


A bientot.

Until the next sock pops up. I wonder how June knew to tell me last night
that Puce would be leaving urg soon.........

You are not authorised to access this information.
Please format:c:/and reboot.


--
Dementor

You are not alone

la puce and Judith
 

June Hughes wrote:
I have just received an email which suggests that Helene has said I
have emailed things to her about Judith. I have known Judith a very
long time on the internet and would not do such a thing. I have
sympathised with Helene in the past because I think people have got
at her unnecessarily but why bring Judith into it? If this is
untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary.

Who cares? - I, and I assume 99% of the other people who frequent this
froup, do so because they want to learn something or impart something
related to gardening. - what they definitely don't want is for online
catfights amongst fishwives thrust in their faces, most of which, it has to
be said are unfathomably bizzare to say the least, not making one iota of
sense to anyone but those involved.

Please take it to email.

la puce and Judith
 

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:06:04 GMT, "Phil L"
wrote:

why bring Judith into it? If this is
untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary.

Who cares? - I, and I assume 99% of the other people who frequent this
froup, do so because they want to learn something or impart something
related to gardening. - what they definitely don't want is for online
catfights amongst fishwives thrust in their faces, most of which, it has to
be said are unfathomably bizzare to say the least, not making one iota of
sense to anyone but those involved.

Well said, Sir. Bloody catty bitter old fishwives with their own
twisted agendas have no place in this arena.

--
Dementor

You are not alone

la puce and Judith
 

"Phil L" wrote in message news:MUQZg.38112

Please take it to email.


my thoughts were to block posters and e-mail correspondents if you don't
want to read what they say. this applies to all sorts of nonsense....inane
ramblings, unwanted SPAM, marketing updates etc.

just because someone sends you an e-mail it doesn't mean you have to read
it.

there are some intelligent people out there, I'm sure, who have the time to
spend on their computers but not the time to manage their time by using
their computers.

FILTER FILTER FILTER

la puce and Judith
 

Stan The Man writes
In article , June Hughes
wrote:

It is certainly possible to sue for e-mail libel (Norwich Union were
famously fined £450,000 a few years ago because an employee libelled a
competitor in an e-mail) -- but your adviser should be ditched if
he/she is telling you to go ahead and sue. The cost of bringing a libel
case would be huge and you have no guarantee of success, or that the
defendant can afford to pay your costs, let alone the damages (small as
they would be unless you are Norwich Union).

I thought emails were private correspondence? And that libel applied
only to published things, not for example, to comments you make in a
private letter, unless you or the recipient then publishes the letter?
--
Kay

la puce and Judith
 

"Sacha" wrote in message
...

Stuff deleted:-

So you have not left the newsgroup, I'm glad to see, I tried to send you an
email asking you not to abandon us, but I got the email address wrong, I do
have yur genuine email address, so do not worry about that.

Anyway, please continue to post, but I beg of you, do not get tempted into
answering bitter posts from nasty people.

Just ignore them.

Alan

la puce and Judith
 

In message om, La
Puce writes

stuff deleted:-

Fourth and final - I'm going now.

Thank goodness for that!

Alan

la puce and Judith
 

"Mike in Spain" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Oct 19, 4:15 pm, "Mike" wrote:
"June Hughes" wrote in
.. .



You are very boring and predictable. What's new?

--
June Hughesand bossy?

Mike

--
.................................................. ........
Royal Naval Electrical Branch
Associationwww.rnshipmates.co.ukwww.nsrafa.com

Incidentally, you complain about Sachas' posts containg her business
web sites, but, forgive me if I'm wrong, don't all yours, as above.

Mike (never in the Navy)

You are lucky, otherwise you might have met Mike and I wouldn't want to wish
that on anyone!

Except perhaps Puce!

Alan

la puce and Judith
 

"June Hughes" wrote in message
Stan The Man writes
June wrote:

I am unsure as to the ins
and outs of the laws of libel regarding email but am very unhappy
about
what appear to be several people - mainly ladies - with too much
time on
their hands writing derogatory things about me behind my back.
That is
not what urg is about. If I find out the contents of these emails
I
shall vigorously pursue whatever legal course of action is
available to
me if they are in any way libellous, which if the person advising
me of
them is correct, I think they may be.

It is certainly possible to sue for e-mail libel (Norwich Union
were
famously fined £450,000 a few years ago because an employee
libelled a
competitor in an e-mail) -- but your adviser should be ditched if
he/she is telling you to go ahead and sue. The cost of bringing a
libel
case would be huge and you have no guarantee of success, or that
the
defendant can afford to pay your costs, let alone the damages
(small as
they would be unless you are Norwich Union).

Thank-you. As I only have copies of two emails from Judith to Sacha
at
present, I really don't think that is enough.

Get a grip! E-mails are notoriously easy to fake!

la puce and Judith
 

In article ,
wrote:

Stan The Man writes
In article , June Hughes
wrote:

It is certainly possible to sue for e-mail libel (Norwich Union were
famously fined £450,000 a few years ago because an employee libelled a
competitor in an e-mail) -- but your adviser should be ditched if
he/she is telling you to go ahead and sue. The cost of bringing a libel
case would be huge and you have no guarantee of success, or that the
defendant can afford to pay your costs, let alone the damages (small as
they would be unless you are Norwich Union).

I thought emails were private correspondence? And that libel applied
only to published things, not for example, to comments you make in a
private letter, unless you or the recipient then publishes the letter?

Why not Google the Norwich Union case? That was a commercial matter of
course with high stakes. The notion that personal and private e-mail
could warrant a libel action is patently ludicrous, I agree.

la puce and Judith
 

"La Puce" wrote in message
ps.com...

snipe

As I've said to a few of you, I'm taking a break from urg.

Yes I heard that also . A wise decision by Urbed/Mr Rudlin

la puce and Judith
 

Stan The Man writes
In article ,
wrote:

Stan The Man writes
In article , June Hughes
wrote:

It is certainly possible to sue for e-mail libel (Norwich Union were
famously fined £450,000 a few years ago because an employee libelled a
competitor in an e-mail) -- but your adviser should be ditched if
he/she is telling you to go ahead and sue. The cost of bringing a libel
case would be huge and you have no guarantee of success, or that the
defendant can afford to pay your costs, let alone the damages (small as
they would be unless you are Norwich Union).

I thought emails were private correspondence? And that libel applied
only to published things, not for example, to comments you make in a
private letter, unless you or the recipient then publishes the letter?

Why not Google the Norwich Union case? That was a commercial matter of
course with high stakes. The notion that personal and private e-mail
could warrant a libel action is patently ludicrous, I agree.

Phew - that's a relief!

"out of court settlement in the sum of $450,000, as a result of
defamatory rumours present on the internet which were traced back to
Norwich Union employees using work emails"

http://tinyurl.co.uk/y764

This differs from private emails in two respects:

a) it was work email, and IIRC the principle of screening work emails is
established, therefore they are not private in the same way as private
emails are

b) the content had found its way on to the internet, ie it had been
published.
--
Kay

la puce and Judith
 

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:55:47 +0100, Anne Jackson
wrote:

The message from Nemo contains these words:

Sacha advertises.

As she is permitted to do, according to the group charter.

She also contributes to the common weal.

A very debatable proposition, Cat-fights centre around her, she
doesn't like competition or dissent.

What is your reason for being here, apart from stirring
as much shit as you possibly can?

This little cat-club doesn't need any of my help to stir the shit.
There's enough shit stirred, enough shit talked and enough arses
licked here without my help.

AnneJ
(If you don't like it, you can Foscar Oxtrot)

Wash your foul mouth out, woman.


Nemmo
--
Dementor

You are not alone

la puce and Judith
 

"Nemo" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:55:47 +0100, Anne Jackson
wrote:

The message from Nemo contains these words:

Sacha advertises.

As she is permitted to do, according to the group charter.

She also contributes to the common weal.

A very debatable proposition, Cat-fights centre around her, she
doesn't like competition or dissent.

What is your reason for being here, apart from stirring
as much shit as you possibly can?

This little cat-club doesn't need any of my help to stir the shit.
There's enough shit stirred, enough shit talked and enough arses
licked here without my help.


Have to agree. There is always aggression in this newsgroup and it is nearly
always centred on Hubbard. She feels free to call me a liar whenever the
fancy takes her without any evidence whatsoever and anyone posting via
Garden Banter has the Plague.

If this newsgroup is now allowed to settle down and she does not return,
then gardening matters can be discussed. Newcomers to gardening can come in
here without the 'That subject has been done to death. Why can't people read
the FAQ's before jumping in here? It's not good enough, people use this site
as if it is an information site without them doing any work'

You see if I am not right ......... again. If she returns, so will
aggression and 'ownership'

Mike
The truth ALWAYS prevails. Just watch.


--
.................................................. .........
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com