Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
la puce and Judith
In message om, La Puce writes stuff deleted:- Fourth and final - I'm going now. Thank goodness for that! Alan |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dendrobium Judith - Dendrobium Judith-a.jpg | Garden Photos | |||
La Puce | United Kingdom | |||
Saca "stalking" Puce (was Looking for Ways to Annoy the Neighbors) | United Kingdom | |||
Puce Again (was Looking for Ways to Annoy the Neighbors) | United Kingdom | |||
Re raised bed Jenny Le Puce & Mike | United Kingdom |