judith lea wrote:
Cat(h) wrote:

For the record. I am here to talk about gardening, and am utterly
unimpressed with two (for it does take two) supposedly adult people who
cannot have a difference of opinion without resorting to bitchy retorts
a 5-year old would find childish, and are patently devoid of the most
basic humility required to recognise when they get it wrong.
To me, this reflects equally poorly on both protagonists, and has
certainly influenced me in deciding whose comments to read, and whose
to ignore.
I felt I had to make this comment just so silence is not assimilated to
support for one or other equally unimpressive party.
FWIW

Cat(h)

You are quite right - I apologise for offending you.

You did not offend me, so no apology is required. This is usenet,
after all. However, my experience of URG is that it is an
exceptionally mature and really good newsgroup, with focussed
contributors generous with sharing their experience and expertise,
little feeding of trolls and practically no entertainment of the
occasional headcase who inevitably cross-posts or passes through.
Bickering in which regular contributors resort to calling each-other
names or commenting disparagingly on one-another's appearance (!!!!!)
just doesn't fit with what I expect from this newsgroup. Hence my
comment. I shall say no more on the topic.

Cat(h)

Cat(h) wrote:
You did not offend me, so no apology is required. This is usenet,
after all. However, my experience of URG is that it is an
exceptionally mature and really good newsgroup, with focussed
contributors generous with sharing their experience and expertise,
little feeding of trolls and practically no entertainment of the
occasional headcase who inevitably cross-posts or passes through.
Bickering in which regular contributors resort to calling each-other
names or commenting disparagingly on one-another's appearance (!!!!!)
just doesn't fit with what I expect from this newsgroup. Hence my
comment. I shall say no more on the topic.

It is good to read fair post and encouraging too. I have now washed my
hair, cleaned my clothes and brushed my teeth. Honest I did.

http://cjoint.com/?mnpPpxQyA8

"Cat(h)" wrote in message

This is usenet,
after all. However, my experience of URG is that it is an
exceptionally mature and really good newsgroup, with focussed
contributors generous with sharing their experience and expertise,
little feeding of trolls and practically no entertainment of the
occasional headcase who inevitably cross-posts or passes through.

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"
and that headcase gives bad advice or is mixes in trolling along with
some garden advice?

I've pondering this long and hard and I've decided to just killfile
but I do have some sympathy for those new to gardening who, through
lack of any reasoned/unreasoned response to that poor advice, may take
the info onboard and act upon it.

On 13/12/06 23:13, in article
, "Farm1"
please@askifyouwannaknow wrote:

snip

I've pondering this long and hard and I've decided to just killfile
but I do have some sympathy for those new to gardening who, through
lack of any reasoned/unreasoned response to that poor advice, may take
the info onboard and act upon it.

And that is *precisely* why a very few of us have taken issue with the
perpetrator. IMO, more should have done so. As I said some weeks ago,
urg's reputation for excellence has been dragged in the mire by this one
fool and as a consequence, we have lost the contributions of some excellent
and knowledgeable posters. It's very clear that the group has suffered as a
result. It is not the place it was, most certainly and it shows.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/

Sacha writes

It's very clear that the group has suffered as a
result. It is not the place it was, most certainly and it shows.

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.
--
Kay

On 14/12/06 17:10, in article , "K"
wrote:

Sacha writes

It's very clear that the group has suffered as a
result. It is not the place it was, most certainly and it shows.

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.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/

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

K wrote:
Sacha writes

It's very clear that the group has suffered as a
result. It is not the place it was, most certainly and it shows.

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.
--
Kay

Kay, Sacha was not doing that, she was paying tribute to those who have
left and I know she has enormous respect, as we all do, for the
contributors you mention above - you have met Sacha and stayed with her
and you know as I do, that she is a kind, gentle person who would not
mean to offend any of those who gainfully contribute to urg.

Judith Lea
At home

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...
"Cat(h)" wrote in message

This is usenet,
after all. However, my experience of URG is that it is an
exceptionally mature and really good newsgroup, with focussed
contributors generous with sharing their experience and expertise,
little feeding of trolls and practically no entertainment of the
occasional headcase who inevitably cross-posts or passes through.

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"
and that headcase gives bad advice or is mixes in trolling along with
some garden advice?

I've pondering this long and hard and I've decided to just killfile
but I do have some sympathy for those new to gardening who, through
lack of any reasoned/unreasoned response to that poor advice, may take
the info onboard and act upon it.

We covered this ground in a previous thread? and never reached a
satisfactory conclusion. If the regulars killfiled "the nuisance" then there
would be no one around to defend innocent new posters against bad advice or
threats. I think Mike Adams also covered the point "Why should newbies
believe me or you rather than someone else.
Perhaps the best solution is to just ignore a certain poster and never make
a direct reply.

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...
"Cat(h)" wrote in message

This is usenet,
after all. However, my experience of URG is that it is an
exceptionally mature and really good newsgroup, with focussed
contributors generous with sharing their experience and expertise,
little feeding of trolls and practically no entertainment of the
occasional headcase who inevitably cross-posts or passes through.

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"
and that headcase gives bad advice or is mixes in trolling along with
some garden advice?

I've pondering this long and hard and I've decided to just killfile
but I do have some sympathy for those new to gardening who, through
lack of any reasoned/unreasoned response to that poor advice, may take
the info onboard and act upon it.

We covered this ground in a previous thread? and never reached a
satisfactory conclusion. If the regulars killfiled "the nuisance" then there
would be no one around to defend innocent new posters against bad advice or
threats. I think Mike Adams also covered the point "Why should newbies
believe me or you rather than someone else.
Perhaps the best solution is to just ignore a certain poster and never make
a direct reply.


It is quite possible to challenge the bad advice someone gives without
engaging them in a slanging match, and that does a great deal less harm
to the credibility of the group. Do bear in mind that a newbie to the
group and/or someone who is not a proficient gardener must know to
exercise caution with any advice received on usenet. And how likely is
a newbie to feel they have just been put right by someone who gives
them the right advice, but then feels compelled to add "Don't listen to
her, she talks rubbish, and anyway, she's ugly" (?!!??)
FWIW
Cat(h)

Cat(h) wrote:
It is quite possible to challenge the bad advice someone gives without
engaging them in a slanging match, and that does a great deal less harm
to the credibility of the group.

To this day we have never ever seen any, not one, supposedly wrong
advice put right because I haven't given one bad advice. It's always
buried into the usual rubbish we've succomed to in recent months. It
has always been a terrible frustrating time to realise that at the end
it's not about the advice given or not given, but it's about a
personnal issue which eventually turns into an ugly debate with rancid
and bitter responses and nothing about the gardening issue.

I cannot understand why nobody, absolutely nobody, not see the need to
look for the answer when it's there nor defend the poster with his/her
advice, in my case this would be the KLC school answer, and respond
that in fact it is right and plain to see. Other events like these are
numerous, notably the 'sustainability' issue with Janet and the
constant attacks I've had about not knowing what I was talking about
and supposedly pretending to be working where I was etc. When I proved
I was actually working in Scotland - the nasty posts stopped. And when
I try to prove myself with facts, I'm told I'm boasting.

As for the prunning of apple trees, the answer given by Judith as 'I'm
not an expert but' and 'Autumn - like now' as now turned into 'Late
Autumn/winter' and into 'my gardener does it for me'. Mind boggles. The
answer was winter, as Charlie explained, more like end of January/Feb,
even though there's a 4 months window time, I will prune my trees,
along with many of my gardening friends at the end of January/Feb and
not 'Now' as suggested by Judith (especially in the recent warm
temperature we've had).

That, and only that, frustrate me. And I will defend myself until I
change colour too g

"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes


We covered this ground in a previous thread? and never reached a
satisfactory conclusion. If the regulars killfiled "the nuisance" then there
would be no one around to defend innocent new posters against bad advice or
threats. I think Mike Adams also covered the point "Why should newbies
believe me or you rather than someone else.

A feature of this affair is that protagonists on both sides are using
some (1) of the same techniques - name calling, personal insults, and
threats to inform employers. To the newcomer with no knowledge of the
history, it must be very difficult to know who to believe.

Perhaps the best solution is to just ignore a certain poster and never make
a direct reply.

If I were a newcomer, I would be swayed by correction of misinformation
backed up by objective argument, and evidence supporting the correct
information if it can be simply presented, rather than by a description
of a poster's character and motives.

But that is my opinion. Maybe others use different criteria.

(1) Please note I said "some". I am not saying "this person is just as
bad as that person"
--
Kay

On 14/12/06 17:11, in article , "K"
wrote:

"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes


We covered this ground in a previous thread? and never reached a
satisfactory conclusion. If the regulars killfiled "the nuisance" then there
would be no one around to defend innocent new posters against bad advice or
threats. I think Mike Adams also covered the point "Why should newbies
believe me or you rather than someone else.

A feature of this affair is that protagonists on both sides are using
some (1) of the same techniques - name calling, personal insults, and
threats to inform employers. To the newcomer with no knowledge of the
history, it must be very difficult to know who to believe.

Perhaps the best solution is to just ignore a certain poster and never make
a direct reply.

If I were a newcomer, I would be swayed by correction of misinformation
backed up by objective argument, and evidence supporting the correct
information if it can be simply presented, rather than by a description
of a poster's character and motives.

But that is my opinion. Maybe others use different criteria.

(1) Please note I said "some". I am not saying "this person is just as
bad as that person"

Actually, you're not saying anything. 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.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:33:07 +0000, Sacha wrote:

If I were a newcomer, I would be swayed by correction of misinformation
backed up by objective argument, and evidence supporting the correct
information if it can be simply presented, rather than by a description
of a poster's character and motives.

But that is my opinion. Maybe others use different criteria.

(1) Please note I said "some". I am not saying "this person is just as
bad as that person"

Actually, you're not saying anything. 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.

Twisted boot.

Anybody with you for a *friend would not be short of an enemy.

Are you on the right medication?

-----------------------
Demonator

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