| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
la puce and Judith
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. -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
June Hughes wrote: If this is untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary. June, can we take this via email please?! I haven't sent any emails. Ask her to send them to you as a proof. I honestly don't have any time for this woman any longer and that's what drives her mad. She only wish I'd do something that she could hang on to. She started talking about my company - I riposted about hers. Only fair. The problem is that she just doesn't want to stop. When I was having grief by Janet, she emailed me a nice email to put myself together and ignore her. It was nice, but I felt she was 'ordering' me about. When we had further rows, she emailed me again with a kind of maternal tone ... I didn't reply. I then felt she was a little strange .... She emailed me as you've seen - and that's that. I've forwarded her email last week to two people in here because frankly I thought it was really over the top. She rang my office many times June. I've had to informed everybody to ignore her. I even rang my old colleagues in London, just in case. Be friendly with her by no means, but let me out of this sinister drama. It's getting very silly. I've said lots of things and I don't regret a word, not a single word. The rude words that came out of Sacha are absolutely not in line with what I meant. I'm not like that. Never. And I'm sadden to see that it's gone so far actually. Sadden to see nice chaps like Dave Poole and others feeling a little at the deep end with the RIP title Janet gave to her thread. Honestly. Nobody has died. Lets move on. Please lets get on, simply lets get on.... Don't get involved please June. I'm done with this now. Truly I am. |
la puce and Judith
In message .com, La
Puce writes June Hughes wrote: If this is untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary. June, can we take this via email please?! I haven't sent any emails. Ask her to send them to you as a proof. Snip I am rather embarrassed to say, I can't find Judith's email address in my address book, which I can't understand. I notice from another thread that she appears to have left urg, so hope that some kind soul will forward this to her. -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
In message .com, La
Puce writes June Hughes wrote: If this is untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary. June, can we take this via email please?! I haven't sent any emails. Ask her to send them to you as a proof. I honestly don't have any time for this woman any longer and that's what drives her mad. She only wish I'd do something that she could hang on to. She started talking about my company - I riposted about hers. Only fair. The problem is that she just doesn't want to stop. When I was having grief by Janet, she emailed me a nice email to put myself together and ignore her. It was nice, but I felt she was 'ordering' me about. When we had further rows, she emailed me again with a kind of maternal tone ... I didn't reply. I then felt she was a little strange .... She emailed me as you've seen - and that's that. I've forwarded her email last week to two people in here because frankly I thought it was really over the top. She rang my office many times June. I've had to informed everybody to ignore her. I even rang my old colleagues in London, just in case. Be friendly with her by no means, but let me out of this sinister drama. It's getting very silly. I've said lots of things and I don't regret a word, not a single word. The rude words that came out of Sacha are absolutely not in line with what I meant. I'm not like that. Never. And I'm sadden to see that it's gone so far actually. Sadden to see nice chaps like Dave Poole and others feeling a little at the deep end with the RIP title Janet gave to her thread. Honestly. Nobody has died. Lets move on. Please lets get on, simply lets get on.... Don't get involved please June. I'm done with this now. Truly I am. I am now very confused. -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
June Hughes wrote: I am now very confused. But who emailed you that I've said things about Judith to you?! Who?! |
la puce and Judith
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:15:43 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ): In message .com, La Puce writes June Hughes wrote: If this is untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary. June, can we take this via email please?! I haven't sent any emails. Ask her to send them to you as a proof. Snip I am rather embarrassed to say, I can't find Judith's email address in my address book, which I can't understand. I notice from another thread that she appears to have left urg, so hope that some kind soul will forward this to her. I have Judith's email address (and I'm sure so have others), but I really don't want to upset her any further than she has already been upset by repeating the posting you are referring to. Is your email valid? If you like, I can email Judith and ask her to contact you direct. -- Sally in Shropshire, UK |
la puce and Judith
In message et, Sally
Thompson writes On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:15:43 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ): In message .com, La Puce writes June Hughes wrote: If this is untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary. June, can we take this via email please?! I haven't sent any emails. Ask her to send them to you as a proof. Snip I am rather embarrassed to say, I can't find Judith's email address in my address book, which I can't understand. I notice from another thread that she appears to have left urg, so hope that some kind soul will forward this to her. I have Judith's email address (and I'm sure so have others), but I really don't want to upset her any further than she has already been upset by repeating the posting you are referring to. Is your email valid? If you like, I can email Judith and ask her to contact you direct. Yes, of course my email address is valid. Judith already has it. I am given to understand that a series of emails have been circulated stating that I am 'in cahoots' (to use one person's phrase) with Puce. I have not had the advantage of seeing any of them. 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. -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
June Hughes wrote: In message et, Sally Thompson writes On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:15:43 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ): In message .com, La Puce writes June Hughes wrote: If this is untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary. June, can we take this via email please?! I haven't sent any emails. Ask her to send them to you as a proof. Snip I am rather embarrassed to say, I can't find Judith's email address in my address book, which I can't understand. I notice from another thread that she appears to have left urg, so hope that some kind soul will forward this to her. I have Judith's email address (and I'm sure so have others), but I really don't want to upset her any further than she has already been upset by repeating the posting you are referring to. Is your email valid? If you like, I can email Judith and ask her to contact you direct. Yes, of course my email address is valid. Judith already has it. I am given to understand that a series of emails have been circulated stating that I am 'in cahoots' (to use one person's phrase) with Puce. I have not had the advantage of seeing any of them. 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. The only thing to do with Helene is to completely ignore her. Please see demon.local subject "typoglycemia". She was a major contributor to the demise of sensible correspondence in that newsgroup. |
la puce and Judith
|
la puce and Judith
In message et, Sally
Thompson writes On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:15:43 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ): In message .com, La Puce writes June Hughes wrote: If this is untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary. June, can we take this via email please?! I haven't sent any emails. Ask her to send them to you as a proof. Snip I am rather embarrassed to say, I can't find Judith's email address in my address book, which I can't understand. I notice from another thread that she appears to have left urg, so hope that some kind soul will forward this to her. I have Judith's email address (and I'm sure so have others), but I really don't want to upset her any further than she has already been upset by repeating the posting you are referring to. Is your email valid? If you like, I can email Judith and ask her to contact you direct. I have now found Judith's email address on my system but am really now no longer interested in emailing her after I found out about the recent group of emails written about me. -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
In message , Sacha
writes There has been NO series of emails circulated about you. Quite the contrary! Only one person has contacted Judith about you - Puke. You sent me copies of two emails you had received from Judith - both about me. It is Puke who told Judith that several people have discussed Judith 'and others' by email with her. She has named those people to Judith and you are one of them. I TOLD YOU THAT PLAINLY. The ONLY person who has been emailing anyone else about you is Puke. There is no 'group' discussing you. Puke has betrayed your part in this entire saga to Judith. If you go after anyone, it should be Puke but I expect you're too scared she'll publish your emails here. Wriggle how you like, you and Puke and your other correspondents are responsible for what has happened to this group. But don't lie and pretend there has been a group discussing you. Look to Puke to see who has let you down. Good bye and good luck. You need it. I thought you had left? -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
In message , Stan The Man
writes In article , June Hughes 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. I am heartily sick of all this squabbling between these people and have been marking several threads here as read without opening them until yesterday evening when I returned home from work to find an email from Sacha enclosing a copy of the first email from Judith to her. -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
In article , June Hughes
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). |
la puce and Judith
On 19/10/06 11:16, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote: In message , Stan The Man writes In article , June Hughes 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. I am heartily sick of all this squabbling between these people and have been marking several threads here as read without opening them until yesterday evening when I returned home from work to find an email from Sacha enclosing a copy of the first email from Judith to her. Which Judith asked me to send you, telling you she would take no emails from you, as you have been working against her 'and others' behind her their backs and with Puke. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
la puce and Judith
On 19/10/06 11:13, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote: In message , Sacha writes There has been NO series of emails circulated about you. Quite the contrary! Only one person has contacted Judith about you - Puke. You sent me copies of two emails you had received from Judith - both about me. Yes, telling you that it is your friend, Puke, who has emailed Judith about you. Be careful, June, you're tying yourself in yet more knots. I still have all the emails to and from you and am filing them. You see, I don't trust you either. It is Puke who told Judith that several people have discussed Judith 'and others' by email with her. She has named those people to Judith and you are one of them. I TOLD YOU THAT PLAINLY. The ONLY person who has been emailing anyone else about you is Puke. There is no 'group' discussing you. Puke has betrayed your part in this entire saga to Judith. If you go after anyone, it should be Puke but I expect you're too scared she'll publish your emails here. Wriggle how you like, you and Puke and your other correspondents are responsible for what has happened to this group. But don't lie and pretend there has been a group discussing you. Look to Puke to see who has let you down. Good bye and good luck. You need it. I thought you had left? Oh, there's always room for an encore in the interests of honesty and urg. So, bad luck: From: Subject: June Hughes Date: 18 October 2006 22:11:09 BDT To: Return-Path: Received: from mwinf3106.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3106.me.freeserve.com) by mwinb3202 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:12:25 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3106.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BFBF11C00871 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:12:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by mwinf3106.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C506B1C00804 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:12:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from junehughes.demon.co.uk ([62.49.6.60] helo=theacct.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GaIi4-000D6H-3C for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:12:21 +0000 From: Subject: June Hughes Date: 18 October 2006 22:24:23 BDT To: Return-Path: Received: from mwinf3201.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3201.me.freeserve.com) by mwinb3202 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:24:52 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3201.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9579F1C03729 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:24:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by mwinf3201.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 88F291C03749 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:24:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from junehughes.demon.co.uk ([62.49.6.60] helo=theacct.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GaIuC-000APM-GM for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:24:52 +0000 From: Subject: June Hughes Date: 18 October 2006 22:33:50 BDT To: Return-Path: Received: from mwinf3012.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3012.me.freeserve.com) by mwinb3202 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:35:16 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3012.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A940F1C004F9 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:35:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by mwinf3012.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 946311C00509 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:35:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from junehughes.demon.co.uk ([62.49.6.60] helo=theacct.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GaJ4D-0004Oa-AD for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:35:13 +0000 From: Subject: June Hughes Date: 19 October 2006 08:42:32 BDT To: Return-Path: Received: from mwinf3113.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3113.me.freeserve.com) by mwinb3202 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:44:19 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3113.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 810F71C00941 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:44:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.85]) by mwinf3113.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 71E3B1C00960 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:44:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from junehughes.demon.co.uk ([62.49.6.60] helo=theacct.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GaSZe-000Kax-JC for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:44:19 +0000 From: Subject: June Hughes Date: 19 October 2006 10:02:14 BDT To: Return-Path: Received: from mwinf3113.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3113.me.freeserve.com) by mwinb3202 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:03:55 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3113.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 139BB1C00942 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:03:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by mwinf3113.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0121D1C0094A for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:03:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from junehughes.demon.co.uk ([62.49.6.60] helo=theacct.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GaTog-00080r-6a for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:03:54 +0000 From: Subject: June Hughes Date: 19 October 2006 11:09:09 BDT To: Return-Path: Received: from mwinf3002.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3002.me.freeserve.com) by mwinb3202 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:11:11 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3002.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 81D831C0313C for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:11:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anchor-fallback-95.mail.demon.net (anchor-fallback-95.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.82]) by mwinf3002.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 831FC1C03132 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:11:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.89]:4623 "EHLO anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net") by anchor-fallback-95.mail.demon.net with ESMTP id S465972AbWJSKKt (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:10:49 +0000 Received: from junehughes.demon.co.uk ([62.49.6.60] helo=theacct.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GaUrQ-0008hD-5v for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:10:49 +0000 From: Subject: June Hughes Date: 18 October 2006 22:42:19 BDT To: Return-Path: Received: from mwinf3203.me.freeserve.com (mwinf3203.me.freeserve.com) by mwinb3202 (SMTP Server) with LMTP; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:43:14 +0200 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf3203.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 41C9D1C011C2 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:43:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by mwinf3203.me.freeserve.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 35E691C01273 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:43:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from junehughes.demon.co.uk ([62.49.6.60] helo=theacct.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1GaJBx-000EGJ-68 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:43:13 +0000 -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
la puce and Judith
In message , Sacha
writes On 19/10/06 11:16, in article , "June Hughes" wrote: In message , Stan The Man writes Thank-you. As I only have copies of two emails from Judith to Sacha at present, I really don't think that is enough. I am heartily sick of all this squabbling between these people and have been marking several threads here as read without opening them until yesterday evening when I returned home from work to find an email from Sacha enclosing a copy of the first email from Judith to her. Which Judith asked me to send you, telling you she would take no emails from you, as you have been working against her 'and others' behind her their backs and with Puke. 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? BTW the people who said here that you would be back were right. Exactly what you said about Puce. -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
"Sacha" wrote in message
... On 19/10/06 08:30, in article , "June Hughes" wrote: In message et, Sally Thompson writes On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:15:43 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ): In message .com, La Puce writes June Hughes wrote: If this is untrue, I shall be pleased to hear from Helene to the contrary. June, can we take this via email please?! I haven't sent any emails. Ask her to send them to you as a proof. Snip I am rather embarrassed to say, I can't find Judith's email address in my address book, which I can't understand. I notice from another thread that she appears to have left urg, so hope that some kind soul will forward this to her. I have Judith's email address (and I'm sure so have others), but I really don't want to upset her any further than she has already been upset by repeating the posting you are referring to. Is your email valid? If you like, I can email Judith and ask her to contact you direct. Yes, of course my email address is valid. Judith already has it. I am given to understand that a series of emails have been circulated stating that I am 'in cahoots' (to use one person's phrase) with Puce. There has been NO series of emails circulated about you. Quite the contrary! Only one person has contacted Judith about you - Puke. It is Puke who told Judith that several people have discussed Judith 'and others' by email with her. She has named those people to Judith and you are one of them. I TOLD YOU THAT PLAINLY. The ONLY person who has been emailing anyone else about you is Puke. There is no 'group' discussing you. Puke has betrayed your part in this entire saga to Judith. If you go after anyone, it should be Puke but I expect you're too scared she'll publish your emails here. YOU have emailed ME at leas 6 times, asking me to pass on messages to Judith and I have, at her request, sent you Judith's replies. I told you, as I have told one other co-conspirator of yours and Puke's, that Judith will not receive or send emails to any of the people Puke has named to her. She is very shaken and distressed by the slurs Puke has put upon her and wants nothing to do with the sort of people that make a friend out of something like Puke. I can't blame her. snip Wriggle how you like, you and Puke and your other correspondents are responsible for what has happened to this group. But don't lie and pretend there has been a group discussing you. Look to Puke to see who has let you down. Good bye and good luck. You need it. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ Well goodness gracious me. Just as I said, here's Hubbard back :-)) Mike right again :-) The truth ALWAYS prevails :-)) |
la puce and Judith
"June Hughes" wrote in message
... In message , Sacha 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' Mike -- .................................................. ......... Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association www.rnshipmates.co.uk www.nsrafa.com |
la puce and Judith
Sacha wrote: Yes, telling you that it is your friend, Puke, who has emailed Judith about you. Be careful, June, you're tying yourself in yet more knots. I still have all the emails to and from you and am filing them. You see, I don't trust you either. It is Puke who told Judith that several people have discussed Judith 'and others' by email with her. First I haven't emailed Judith about June beside responding to her crazy email. Post them. Go on, I dare you to post them. You're tying yourself in knots here Hubbard. Why would I write to Judith about June? What for? To achieve what? When and why? Please post your proof. We're waiting. Second you are trying to confuse June who's sweet, but not stupid. I'm not sure if you have realised that you've solely posted her emails to you to ask what is happening, with no contents as well, but you haven't posted any emails you got from Judith. That should be seen too, if you want your story to stand. Third I have never wrote to Judith, beside responding to her. I'd rather have a lobotomy. The woman is spooky and I knew that months ago. We're not meant to be friends - she's a world appart. She doesn't garden as we know it. She just potters and asks stupid questions to stay in touch with her friends here and organise meets and gold sleepers evenings. So don't you even try this one on me. Fourth and final - I'm going now. I am quite upset to see decent folks being attacked by you. Some lovely chaps and chappettes on here are the back bones of this group. You are not. You've poked at June before and you know that she cannot handle things like this. You're cruel Hubbard and a manipulative cow if I may add. See, no mention of labias, sorry there. What I've realised whilst you've been gone for a couple of errr .... hours, it's that who I've missed the most is Ray, your husband :o)) As I've said to a few of you, I'm taking a break from urg. See you all in the spring where I'm sure I'll enjoy reading some of you folks again. And Hubbard, don't be a bullie. Post your proofs. Some are waiting to find out the truth. A bientot. |
la puce and Judith
In message om, La
Puce writes Sacha wrote: Yes, telling you that it is your friend, Puke, who has emailed Judith about you. Be careful, June, you're tying yourself in yet more knots. I still have all the emails to and from you and am filing them. You see, I don't trust you either. It is Puke who told Judith that several people have discussed Judith 'and others' by email with her. First I haven't emailed Judith about June beside responding to her crazy email. Post them. Go on, I dare you to post them. You're tying yourself in knots here Hubbard. Why would I write to Judith about June? What for? To achieve what? When and why? Please post your proof. We're waiting. Second you are trying to confuse June who's sweet, but not stupid. I'm not sure if you have realised that you've solely posted her emails to you to ask what is happening, with no contents as well, but you haven't posted any emails you got from Judith. That should be seen too, if you want your story to stand. Third I have never wrote to Judith, beside responding to her. I'd rather have a lobotomy. The woman is spooky and I knew that months ago. We're not meant to be friends - she's a world appart. She doesn't garden as we know it. She just potters and asks stupid questions to stay in touch with her friends here and organise meets and gold sleepers evenings. So don't you even try this one on me. Fourth and final - I'm going now. I am quite upset to see decent folks being attacked by you. Some lovely chaps and chappettes on here are the back bones of this group. You are not. You've poked at June before and you know that she cannot handle things like this. That is where you are wrong. snip -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
On 19/10/06 13:20, in article , "June
Hughes" wrote: In message , Sacha writes On 19/10/06 11:16, in article , "June Hughes" wrote: In message , Stan The Man writes Thank-you. As I only have copies of two emails from Judith to Sacha at present, I really don't think that is enough. I am heartily sick of all this squabbling between these people and have been marking several threads here as read without opening them until yesterday evening when I returned home from work to find an email from Sacha enclosing a copy of the first email from Judith to her. Which Judith asked me to send you, telling you she would take no emails from you, as you have been working against her 'and others' behind her their backs and with Puke. They are the only two I have seen. Do you think twisting the truth is going to get you out of this? I forwarded to you every email Judith asked me to send. But you know and I know that I have received god alone knows how many from you, clearly panicking and twisting in the wind and hoping to use me as a conduit to Judith. This morning your tone changed 100% from regret and a hope to make things better to your usual belligerence when you can't get your own way and are shown up as you are. IOW, your computer and Puke's must have been white hot last night and early this morning, while you were instructed on what to say and how to wiggle out of your part in the vicious behaviour meted out to me, Judith and Janet. You're in this up to your neck and you know it. 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? Nobody keeps me, June. Let's just say there's no need for that. But how seriously common of you - a qualified accountant, I believe - to query how other people fund their lives. Unethical too, I shouldn't wonder, especially on a public newsgroup. I wonder what your professional body would think of such things - breaches of confidence aren't smiled upon in your job, are they? BTW the people who said here that you would be back were right. Exactly what you said about Puce. Amazing. No wonder you told me in email that you wouldn't repudiate what Puke has said on here - you can't. She really has got you over a barrel. Puke came back to lie and swear to at and about someone I respect and like very much. So I'm here only to make sure you don't get away with your lie that you are the victim of an email conspiracy and that Judith is turned, by you, into a villain. There is no such conspiracy because to be honest, you're just not that important. It's amazing how you always have to portray yourself that way and take the starring role - unsuccessfully. Your reputation for starting email correspondences with people, working your way from conciliatory to belligerent and thus to "don't speak to me again" is absolutely legendary - and here we are, you're doing it again. Perhaps you've been instructed to draw the flak away from Puke....... Don't worry, I'll leave the giving of gardening advice to you and Puke. Should be worth a ringside seat. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ |
la puce and Judith
|
la puce and Judith
In message , Sacha
writes On 19/10/06 13:20, in article , "June Hughes" wrote: In message , Sacha writes On 19/10/06 11:16, in article , "June Hughes" wrote: In message , Stan The Man writes Thank-you. As I only have copies of two emails from Judith to Sacha at present, I really don't think that is enough. I am heartily sick of all this squabbling between these people and have been marking several threads here as read without opening them until yesterday evening when I returned home from work to find an email from Sacha enclosing a copy of the first email from Judith to her. Which Judith asked me to send you, telling you she would take no emails from you, as you have been working against her 'and others' behind her their backs and with Puke. They are the only two I have seen. Do you think twisting the truth is going to get you out of this? I forwarded to you every email Judith asked me to send. I have received only two containing Judith's mails to you. So you are lying, aren't you? But you know and I know that I have received god alone knows how many from you, clearly panicking and twisting in the wind and hoping to use me as a conduit to Judith. This morning your tone changed 100% from regret I regret and have regretted nothing. and a hope to make things better to your usual belligerence when you can't get your own way and are shown up as you are. Excuse me? The only person who is being shown up is you. You came over to uk.food+drink.misc last week being all friendly and asked for a recipe. I gave one to you and you were still friendly. What a fool I was to think you would continue in that vein. IOW, your computer and Puke's must have been white hot last night and early this morning, On the contrary, I turned off my computer and went out, just as I told you I was going to. while you were instructed on what to say No-one instructs me what to say. Can't you see what a fool you are making of yourself? and how to wiggle out of your part in the vicious behaviour meted out to me, Judith and Janet. You're in this up to your neck and you know it. I am not. I have done nothing to, and emailed nothing about Judith to anyone except you last evening. There has been no reason for me to do so. 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? Nobody keeps me, June. Let's just say there's no need for that. But how seriously common of you - a qualified accountant, I believe - to query how other people fund their lives. Unethical too, I shouldn't wonder, especially on a public newsgroup. Not at all. I wonder what your professional body would think of such things - breaches of confidence aren't smiled upon in your job, are they? You are now on very dangerous ground. I have breached no confidences at all. Are you really as unintelligent as you make out? My professional body has ways of dealing with people like you. BTW the people who said here that you would be back were right. Exactly what you said about Puce. Amazing. No wonder you told me in email that you wouldn't repudiate what Puke has said on here - you can't. She really has got you over a barrel. Grow up! You are a bitter and twisted , moaning nag. I can just imagine your blood pressure boiling over as you type. You had better calm down a bit for the sake of your health. As for your sanity, I think there is no hope of any improvement. Puke came back to lie and swear to at and about someone I respect and like very much. So I'm here only to make sure you don't get away with your lie that you are the victim of an email conspiracy and that Judith is turned, by you, into a villain. I am very disappointed and hurt that Judith would even think I would say anything about her to Puce or anyone else. I emailed Judith this morning and told her that. There is no such conspiracy because to be honest, you're just not that important. And you are? That is incredible. Mrs Big! It's amazing how you always have to portray yourself that way and take the starring role - unsuccessfully. G Aren't you talking about yourself there? You have always had a penchant for being a drama queen on urg. Your reputation for starting email correspondences with people, working your way from conciliatory to belligerent and thus to "don't speak to me again" is absolutely legendary - and here we are, you're doing it again. Perhaps you've been instructed to draw the flak away from Puke...... I understand Puce has left the group. She wrote in another thread asking for me to divulge who the first person to write to me was. I don't think there is any need for me to reply, do you? . Don't worry, I'll leave the giving of gardening advice to you and Puke. Should be worth a ringside seat. You are very boring and predictable. What's new? -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:53:07 +0100, Sacha wrote:
Nobody keeps me, June. Let's just say there's no need for that. But how seriously common of you - a qualified accountant, I believe - to query how other people fund their lives. Unethical too, I shouldn't wonder, especially on a public newsgroup. I wonder what your professional body would think of such things - breaches of confidence aren't smiled upon in your job, are they? Watch it, June, she's serious (and seriously weird) I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that she is quite capable, out of sheer frustrated malice, of trying to destroy you or anyone else that crosses her but it might be advisable not to turn your back on her in a Tesco car park/ |
la puce and Judith
"June Hughes" wrote in message
... You are very boring and predictable. What's new? -- June Hughes and bossy? Mike -- .................................................. ......... Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association www.rnshipmates.co.uk www.nsrafa.com |
la puce and Judith
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) |
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) I don't post with the aim of making money. I am retired and do this as a hobby which actually COSTS me money, but I do give others pleasure when they find their old friends and shipmates AND, now, because I am involved with the RAF (ask Hubbard all about that. She has it wrong but to her that is of no consequence), I am giving them the chance to find those they served with as well. Now if you see that as something wrong. I feel very very sorry for you. If you live in Eastbourne, watch your local press to see how I stand up for the ex Service people. Making money? I already pay tax on my pension so do not wish to 'make more'. Ask Hubbard why she posts with her Market Garden advert is in her sig time after time after time after time after time etc etc etc And then come back and explain :-((( Anything else to say? Mike -- .................................................. ......... Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association www.rnshipmates.co.uk www.nsrafa.com |
la puce and Judith
In message , Mike
writes I don't post with the aim of making money. I am retired and do this as a hobby which actually COSTS me money, but I do give others pleasure when they find their old friends and shipmates AND, now, because I am involved with the RAF (ask Hubbard all about that. She has it wrong but to her that is of no consequence), I am giving them the chance to find those they served with as well. Now if you see that as something wrong. I feel very very sorry for you. If you live in Eastbourne, watch your local press to see how I stand up for the ex Service people. Making money? I already pay tax on my pension so do not wish to 'make more'. Ask Hubbard why she posts with her Market Garden advert is in her sig time after time after time after time after time etc etc etc I thought the charter said you can post your website, business email address etc in your sig.? I know Sacha has been nasty to me lately but am sure that in this case, she has done nothing wrong. I remember many years ago Sacha having the Garden Pharmacy in her sig but that is different and was a long time ago. Just like when Puce claimed to be a company director and turned out to be just that. -- June Hughes |
la puce and Judith
On 19 Oct 2006 08:10:40 -0700, "Mike in Spain"
wrote: 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) Forgive me, have I missed something? Or have you? Is the website you cite trying to get you to buy something? Sacha advertises. Mike (in the Navy) seems merely to be sharing a non-commercial site with anyone of like interest. Does the difference escape you? or is everything the sainted Sacha does automatically handed down as inscriptions on stone tablets by the ancients? Nemo |
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! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter