On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:32:02 +0000, Sacha wrote:

While we all accept the very great contribution made by Dave Poole, and
by Janet's knowledge, I'm sure you wouldn't want to dismiss the
contributions made by people like Charlie, Bob Hobden, Rupert, Stuart
Hinsley, Martin Brown and the very many contributors who are expert in
their own field.

I most specifically did not pick out any names, Kay, for the reason that
someone would be offended, as you are, clearly. But thank you for the
nitpick. I wish I could say it was unusual.

Your bitchy comment, however, is completely usual, as usual

Sacha, the constant spammer.bites again.
__________________________________________
Demann

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:15:40 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
wrote:


Perhaps we should publish a list of objectionable posters and recomend to
all newcomers that they should killfile them all.

What a good idea!

Can we run a ng with 7 contributors?

__________________________________________________ _
DEEmON

Sacha writes

Having said, when Judith and I left
the group and Janet stopped posting, that you felt you'd lost 3 friends,
you've said bugger all to any purpose to support that remark.

What I think I said, and certainly what I meant to say, was that 3
people I had regarded as friends turned out no longer to regard me in
the same way. I disagree with you on many things, one serious, most
trivial, but that is not a reason to break off a friendship, and I would
certainly not have tried to hurt you. But you made clear, so it seemed
to me, that anyone who disagreed with your approach to la Puce could not
be your friend, and I don't see any point in pursuing lost causes.
--
Kay

K wrote:

What I think I said, and certainly what I meant to say, was that 3
people I had regarded as friends turned out no longer to regard me in
the same way.
Kay

Really? I was unaware of that - What made you to come to that
conclusion Kay?

"D.Ment.or" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:15:40 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
wrote:


Perhaps we should publish a list of objectionable posters and recomend to
all newcomers that they should killfile them all.

What a good idea!

Can we run a ng with 7 contributors?

!PLONK!



__________________________________________________ _
DEEmON

"K" wrote in message
...
Sacha writes

Having said, when Judith and I left
the group and Janet stopped posting, that you felt you'd lost 3 friends,
you've said bugger all to any purpose to support that remark.

What I think I said, and certainly what I meant to say, was that 3 people
I had regarded as friends turned out no longer to regard me in the same
way. I disagree with you on many things, one serious, most trivial, but
that is not a reason to break off a friendship, and I would certainly not
have tried to hurt you. But you made clear, so it seemed to me, that
anyone who disagreed with your approach to la Puce could not be your
friend, and I don't see any point in pursuing lost causes.

Please, everyone, stop bickering amoungst ourselves, I was under the
impression that we all respected one anothers views even if we did not go
with them.

Can't we go back to the old group.

Alan

--
Kay

On 14/12/06 22:37, in article , "K"
wrote:

Sacha writes

Having said, when Judith and I left
the group and Janet stopped posting, that you felt you'd lost 3 friends,
you've said bugger all to any purpose to support that remark.

What I think I said, and certainly what I meant to say, was that 3
people I had regarded as friends turned out no longer to regard me in
the same way. I disagree with you on many things, one serious, most
trivial, but that is not a reason to break off a friendship, and I would
certainly not have tried to hurt you. But you made clear, so it seemed
to me, that anyone who disagreed with your approach to la Puce could not
be your friend, and I don't see any point in pursuing lost causes.

You were conspicuous by your absence in everything that followed the attacks
on Judith and then on me and Janet. Strenuous efforts were made to wreck the
life and job of one of your 'friends'. So yes, Kay, IF you had had the
power you hurt, you would have done so.
As for apparently no longer regarding you as a friend, I am totally
unaware of anything said or written that would encourage you to think that.
You were conspicuous by your absence from any form of moral support for your
'friends', in fact.
As far as I am aware, you were quite simply invisible in that ugliest of
moments in urg's history - the attack on Judith who you have entertained as
a house guest and who you know to be 100% straight and decent. You did and
said nothing to defend your 'friends' so for me, your lack of loyalty to
those who once befriended you remains the case and will be answered as it
deserves - indifference.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/

. Having said, when Judith and I left
the group and Janet stopped posting,

give it a rest Sacha please !

when you and others left it became quite peaceful !
would you like to do that again, please, cos thisall is getting
tedious,

I'm with Alan.

I frequently (used to) read your posts because you often had something
interesting/worthwhile/ useful in them, sadly now there is more noise
than signal
the same with JB, that also became a waste of time,, long ago

you've said bugger all

charming !

exasperated of (insert least fav. place)

Farm1 wrote:
Yes it IS usenet and we are all used to trolls. However, what does
one do when the headcases become one of the "regular contributors"

Well, actually, more to the point, what does one do when the regulars
become headcases ? !

Lots, recently, of those who I used to read, for interesting gardening
reading, have posted so much rubbish that now I take little notice of
their posts,,, is that my loss or theirs ? because nodoubt they still
put a lot of effort into their ontopic posts but if we are not reading
them because of their offtopic noise, what is the point all-round ?

Why am I making all these posts this morning,,, because i am waiting
for the clouds to clear in the hope of seeing the auroral activity !
(and Im bored !)

regarding advice offered and advice taken,
usenet = caveat emptor
all those wishing to police good and bad gardening advice here has a
TonyBlair syndrome and should go to a moderated forum, not usenet.

"WaltA" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:
Yes it IS usenet and we are all used to trolls. However, what does
one do when the headcases become one of the "regular contributors"

Well, actually, more to the point, what does one do when the
regulars
become headcases ? !

Are you serious? I simply cannot believe that you don't know the
history here!

The regulars who you seem to think have become those so called
"headcases" have become that way because of the action of ONE person
who has caused them severe and ongoing distress and whose actions are
what I consider simply beyond the bounds of any form of decent or
expected behaviour in a modern society. Obviously you don't agree
which makes me question your judgement.

I first had contact with that particular person in another forum when
she came stalking Janet B. She later claimed here, that she found
that other forum and started posting there because she thought it
would be interesting. I don't believe her. Her first and subsequent
posts in that other forum were not posted because of any "interest".
They were nasty posts aimed directly at Janet. She went stalking. My
immediate reaction on seeing the stalker's first post in that forum
was to post a response addressed to Janet to say "stalker
alert!!!!!!!" I wasn't the only one in that forum who thought exactly
the same thing.

That person has not only stalked Janet on usenet but has, it appears
had her photograph taken outside another regular urg poster's home.
Would any reasonable person call that sort of behaviour the act of a
"normal" person or a headcase? I know what I'd call it.

Another person who could also be described as a "headcase" made an
attempt to kill my husband. He didn't succeed and although I often
joke that if anyone ever kills my husband, I am the one who has earned
that privilege after 35 years of marriage, it was no joking matter.
That particular headcase was someone I also worked with at one stage
and would have said that he was highly intelligent and stable.
Obviously, one can never tell.

The attempted murderer will get out of gaol in 2 years time (he got 8
years) but I can tell you, I no longer consider headcases on usenet to
be benign. And I most particularly do NOT consider people who defend
themselves after significant provocation, to be "headcases".

Those who go stalking are potentially dangerous and it is because
stalkers are not just a nuisance but can be dangerous that most
countries now have legislation to deal with stalkers.

Lots, recently, of those who I used to read, for interesting
gardening
reading, have posted so much rubbish that now I take little notice
of
their posts,,, is that my loss or theirs ?

Your loss, but then given that you have just also posted that you also
"used to" read Sacha's posts I suspect that you still read all those
posts you purport not to.

because nodoubt they still
put a lot of effort into their ontopic posts but if we are not
reading
them because of their offtopic noise, what is the point all-round ?

regarding advice offered and advice taken,
usenet = caveat emptor
all those wishing to police good and bad gardening advice here has a
TonyBlair syndrome and should go to a moderated forum, not usenet.

You've missed the point. It's not just bad advice, its the behaviour
that goes along with it and includes stalking and abuse and sexism and
ageism and trolling and deliberately attempting to set the cat amongst
the pigeon. Yet you claim to be unable to identify who might be the
headcase!

I had thought it was time you got real, but, on reflection, I'm now
wondering if perhaps you are yet another sock puppet. I've noticed
that your posts seem to appear at the same time as we see the
re-emergence of the nasty naval person and his sock puppets.

Farm1 wrote:
(snip mostly unread)

You are not familiar with the term "signal-to-noise ratio" then ?

You've missed the point.

Not me I think.

that your posts seem to appear at the same time as we see the
re-emergence of the nasty naval person and his sock puppets.

Nasty nasty !
No I am not he, but perhaps he gets as exasperated as I and at about
the same time ?

Farm1 wrote:
The regulars who you seem to think have become those so called
"headcases" have become that way because of the action of ONE person
who has caused them severe and ongoing distress

What about my distress? If I hadn't been harrassed constantly to start
with, TO START WITH and CONSTANTLY, I would have never argued back and
gave as much as I got. This is indeed usenet but it seems that the
rules are not the same for everybody.

I first had contact with that particular person in another forum when
she came stalking Janet B. She later claimed here, that she found
that other forum and started posting there because she thought it
would be interesting.

Never posted in rural.farm because I'm an urban chick. So post your
proof there. Second I read hundreds of forums all over the world and
post in many too but not rural.farm. It's not my thing. Third I wanted
to see what Janet was posting elsewhere to see if she was as rude as in
urg. She was. After I released my frustration on her, a bloke came on
urg to say to Janet, and I quote "why don't you ask yourself why people
feel so angry about you to the point to come into another forum to vent
their frustration?". That was very reassuring indeed.

That person has not only stalked Janet on usenet but has, it appears
had her photograph taken outside another regular urg poster's home.

Yes, this one (see below). We were on our way back from the Lost
Gardens of Helligan (after spending a week in St Ives) and dropped by
the nursery. But my kids didn't want to go in because a) they were
totally 'gardened off' (2 boys of 11 and 16) and b) they didn't like
what they've heard about Sacha. So we took a picture - because we like
taking pictures )

http://cjoint.com/?mplWA2vhB2

Those who go stalking are potentially dangerous and it is because
stalkers are not just a nuisance but can be dangerous that most
countries now have legislation to deal with stalkers.

Indeed. But what I may ask did you do to that person for her/him to
want to kill your husband?!

I beleive I was stalked by Judith last week (see her post below). I was
in West Scotland most of the week as well. The woman lives in Norfolk.
That is very serious indeed.

judith lea wrote:
LOL
You are priceless - By the way, I saw you last week - LOL, now I know
why you hide behind the dogs. LOL................................
Judith

You've missed the point. It's not just bad advice, its the behaviour
that goes along

No. It's a 'class' thing in here dahling. Sacha told Jenny that she was
uneducated. Now I'm being told that my hair are dirty, that my clothe
are dirty and that my teeth are dirty too? If Judith has seen me, I was
in full public consultation and that Fran is very much my expertise and
one would argue that you need to be presentable for these kind of
activities, wouldn't you think?

Pathetic - the lot of you.

"WaltA" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:
(snip mostly unread)

Of course, just like you don't read Sacha's posts.

You are not familiar with the term "signal-to-noise ratio" then ?

You've missed the point.

Not me I think.

I like that. If, as you state, you didn't bother to read, then you
wouldn't know whether you missed the point or not would you?

that your posts seem to appear at the same time as we see the
re-emergence of the nasty naval person and his sock puppets.

Nasty nasty !

You think so? I think it's nasty to identify the regulars who you
used to read as being "headcases".

And I've noticed that when nasty naval and the sock puppets appear,
you post too, and often after long absence. Although their language
is different, the substance is the same. They support the trolling
stalker as do you in criticising those who you now call "headcases".

No I am not he, but perhaps he gets as exasperated as I and at about
the same time ?

"Exasperated" is such a very quaint way of putting it. Nasty naval
and the sock puppets are headcases too. But for the moment, I'll take
your word for it that you aren't nasty naval or a sock puppet.

Farm1 wrote:

If, as you state, you didn't bother to read, then you
wouldn't know whether you missed the point or not would you?

What part of _mostly_ did you not comprehend ?

But for the moment, I'll take
your word for it

So very kind of you I'm sure.

_signal-to-noise_ ummmm ?

Sacha writes

Snipped

I'm not bothering to defend against your unfair attack. The people who
matter most to me understand, and I doubt whether anyone else is
interested.
--
Kay