On 22/2/07 10:35, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 21 Feb, 18:36, "Dave Poole" wrote:
In that case why didn't you say so? I only know of R. lavandulaceus
'de Noe', which doesn't wholly fit the bill in terms of the plant in
question. However, it is not the plant we are discussing, so we move
on....

Because Bruncoose, as you've suggested, could have giving it a name.

But a few posts ago you were insisting that the plant at Burncoose is R.
Jackman's Prostrate - now you're saying it could be another plant
altogether! But when I suggested it might misnamed, you simply wouldn't
have it.

I
don't know R.lavandulaceus 'de noe' but 'Noe' I do. It is indeed
interesting to see how the names change from country to country. On a
french gardening forum I've contacted a chap who I have met in France
and he has never heard of 'de noe' but knows 'noe'. When I gave him
the description he was certain that this could indeed fit the bill.

de noe and noe are not different names, they're different ways of writing
the same name, giving it the particule and it doesn't take a genius in any
language to figure that one out. But having variously insisted that the
Salcombe garden has either R. Jackman's Prostrate, or a little later betting
it will turn out to be R. Blue Rain, now you describe a plant to him and you
and he apparently decide this could be the plant that *neither* of you have
seen. How credible does that sound if you were in my place?
The descriptions of R. Noe online do not fit the size of this plant's
shoots.

The only 'clinging climbing' rosemary I have seen in England is the
rosmarinus prostratus either named Blue Rain or Jackman's. Indeed
these have been named by someone, but the plant is still the same one
I have seen.

Erm ... 'Blue Rain' is *not* the same as 'Jackman's Prostrate'. 'Blue
Rain' is comparatively compact and does not expand to the degree that
the plant in Sacha's pic suggests.

Giving it the right situation it does. Mine did climb over a wall and
went down the other side. I am indeed looking forward to finding out
what it is.

This was pointed out before, so
why do you persist in this nonsense?

It is not nonsense and you know it. You could have certainly pointed
out that Sacha was rude at my first responce especially when I was
right regarding Jackman's. You however will never admit to this since
she's a pal of yours. I very much understand even though I wouldn't do
the same.

You were not 'right' about Jackman's. Firstly, you not only left out the
Prostrate part of its name and secondly you did not and do not know that is
the one in Salcombe, about which you appear to have changed your mind three
times. YOU are declaring you are right, nobody else believes that you are
in a position to know that at all.
Having known David rather longer than you have, I can assure you that if he
sees the need he can be just as trenchant and brusque as you might wish. So
far, I'd say you've got off lightly because you are presenting yourself as
an expert on plants you haven't seen in gardens you don't know, which does
not go down too well on urg. I think it's fair to say David is an expert on
many, many plants and he would not attempt as definite an ID as you're
attempting to force upon me, just from a photo and a sighting of another,
maybe similar, maybe not, plant in a different place altogether. You really
are not helping your own credibility cause, Puce because quite apart from
anything else you've now given us three names for this plant which, each
time, you've insisted will be correct. And you still haven't actually seen
the plant, the location in which it grows or anything other than a photo
which shows its considerable length.
snip
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

On 22 Feb, 20:08, Sacha wrote:
But a few posts ago you were insisting that the plant at Burncoose is R.
Jackman's Prostrate - now you're saying it could be another plant
altogether! But when I suggested it might misnamed, you simply wouldn't
have it.

As Dave Poole has suggested:-

"I think it is fair to assume that any plant sporting the Jackmans
name, must be an old or fairly old English variety due to the
association with Jackmans of Woking. That said, it is virtually
unknown apart from the plants offered by Burncoose and therefore its
true identity must be highly suspect. There's a lot of difference
between a plant originally acquired from Jackmans (that they may have
acquired from another nursery/customer/friend etc.) and a variety
raised by Jackmans and given their name. The chances are it is
probably a recognised variety (in S. Europe) and that the correct
name
has been forgotten or lost along the way. As a result it may have
spent a short time as 'prostrate rosemary from Jackmans' and it
doesn't take a great leap for it to become Rosemarinus 'Jackman's
Prostrate'. It happens quite a lot in the trade resulting in one
plant having several names".

Do you understand what David is explaining or are you going to give us
yet another lesson using Y Z and X? You have never suggested it had
been renamed - you've suggested Jackman's didn't exists after I first
mentioned it because you never heard of it, Ray never heard of it,
Google never heard of it and your book didn't mention it. There's a
wide world out there Sacha, and it doesn't only revolves around Sacha
and Ray and Hillhouse Nursery. I then tell you that in Bruncoose they
have a Jackman's in their carpark. You still didn't acknowledged this.
Then you tell us that they've told you so. Then you apologise about
making a mistake to where you had seen this plant, only to recomfirm
that it was where you thought it be. Confused? Tell me about it. Then
you give us a latin name lesson as if you are the only bearer of such
knowledge. Yes, I beleived from your description it is a Jackman's or
a Blue Rain, in France we call it Noe, not 'de noe' just 'Noe'. It is
therefore possilbe that it is a Noe, changed to Jackman's. However it
could also be a Blue Rain.

With that I can only say that your persistance with this is key to the
way you think and you control. You are determined and as Anne Jackson
put it, there's no way any body else's will get the last word. I will
make this Rosemary mystery my next project - it is far too interesting
to give up now.

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

With that I can only say that your persistance with this is key to the
way you think and you control. You are determined and as Anne Jackson
put it, there's no way any body else's will get the last word. I will
make this Rosemary mystery my next project - it is far too interesting
to give up now.


La Puce, please remember you are dealing with a person with a very serious
superiority complex. You are 'lower' than her and she is always right. She
should really go and see someone about it, but is not the sort of person to
admit it. 'She' is always right.

Sorry, but there it is.

:-)) Best wishes

Mike


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

On 22/2/07 22:57, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 22 Feb, 20:08, Sacha wrote:
But a few posts ago you were insisting that the plant at Burncoose is R.
Jackman's Prostrate - now you're saying it could be another plant
altogether! But when I suggested it might misnamed, you simply wouldn't
have it.

As Dave Poole has suggested:-

"I think it is fair to assume that any plant sporting the Jackmans
name, must be an old or fairly old English variety due to the
association with Jackmans of Woking. That said, it is virtually
unknown apart from the plants offered by Burncoose and therefore its
true identity must be highly suspect. There's a lot of difference
between a plant originally acquired from Jackmans (that they may have
acquired from another nursery/customer/friend etc.) and a variety
raised by Jackmans and given their name. The chances are it is
probably a recognised variety (in S. Europe) and that the correct
name
has been forgotten or lost along the way. As a result it may have
spent a short time as 'prostrate rosemary from Jackmans' and it
doesn't take a great leap for it to become Rosemarinus 'Jackman's
Prostrate'. It happens quite a lot in the trade resulting in one
plant having several names".

I give up. If there is anyone that is your equal for twisting and turning
and changing the meaning of her own, original posts, I have yet to meet her,
thank god. Right from the get-go of this 'debate' I have said that this
plant might have another name. Might. I have said over and over again that
it might turn out to be Jackman's Prostrate or it might not. Might. I have
said that I find it strange that if that's its proper name, only one nursery
now has it in England. I have said that its origins are lost, apparently
and according to Burncoose from whom I requested its provenance. What does
it take to make you read what others write and understand it?

Do you understand what David is explaining or are you going to give us
yet another lesson using Y Z and X? You have never suggested it had
been renamed

This is quite simply unreal. I don't know what to say or where to start.
You can't read. That is the only possible explanation.

- you've suggested Jackman's didn't exists after I first
mentioned it because you never heard of it, Ray never heard of it,
Google never heard of it and your book didn't mention it. There's a
wide world out there Sacha, and it doesn't only revolves around Sacha
and Ray and Hillhouse Nursery. I then tell you that in Bruncoose

It's Burncoose, Puce. And it's Hill House Nursery. You know that. You
stalked us here so as to be photographed in front of the signs. You posted
a link to yourself doing that. Remember?

they
have a Jackman's in their carpark. You still didn't acknowledged this.

No, you did NOT tell me that. Charlie suggested the possibility that the
two rosemaries were the same and suggested that we look at the one at
Burncoose. You mentioned Jackman's, not Jackman's Prostrate. Charlie
mentioned Burncoose originally. You latched onto that like a drowning man
looking for a lifebelt.

Then you tell us that they've told you so.

No, I did not. I told you that they could not certainly identify the
Salcombe one from a photo but that the one in their car park is Jackman's
Prostrate. Do not try to make a bad situation worse, Helene.


Then you apologise about
making a mistake to where you had seen this plant, only to recomfirm
that it was where you thought it be. Confused? Tell me about it.

If you read posts properly, you would not be confused. I said that I had
seen another rosemary in another garden, as it turns out and that it might
be the same one or a different one. I made my confusion clear *immediately*
and have not attempted to trade on it in any way and I have not referred to
it again. I cannot do anything about that one because its owners are out of
the country and I don't know how to contact them. It's another garden in
Salcombe. I dropped discussion of that one altogether and have made it
abundantly clear that I am continuing to talk about the one we photographed
and put onto our web site.
Quite clearly, you don't have a notion as to what it is but you're going to
keep trying to bamboozle us into thinking you do.


Then
you give us a latin name lesson as if you are the only bearer of such
knowledge. Yes, I beleived from your description it is a Jackman's or
a Blue Rain, in France we call it Noe, not 'de noe' just 'Noe'. It is
therefore possilbe that it is a Noe, changed to Jackman's. However it
could also be a Blue Rain.

You are something that couldn't even be written into a sitcom. Nobody would
believe it. First it's Jackman's, then that's Jackman's Prostrate (among
various other unsuitable suggestions) then it becomes Blue Rain, of which
you are *quite certain* and now it's Noe, not de Noe which it is possible
has been changed to Jackman's - that is Jackman's Prostrate - because you
say so. When I suggested the idea that R. Jackman's Prostrate was not this
plant's real and original name because changes in naming occur accidentally,
you were scornful. You were even insulting about this nursery and to me
personally. But now that you say it is R. Noe, you must be correct. Puce
has spoken. It's like some hideous joke when you keep waiting for Candid
Camera to turn up. You have not seen the plant in Salcombe and if you've
seen the plant at Burncoose, you're keeping extremely quiet about it. IOW,
you have no point of comparison or identification for either of these
plants.

With that I can only say that your persistance with this is key to the
way you think and you control. You are determined and as Anne Jackson
put it, there's no way any body else's will get the last word. I will
make this Rosemary mystery my next project - it is far too interesting
to give up now.

Please don't return to your unpleasant dragging of others into your ambit of
contention. You've done it with both David and Anne today; it's a very ugly
habit.
The reality is this: You have no idea what this plant is. You might be
right about one name or the other of the very many you have now *declared*
it to be. Or you might be wrong about all of them. That's why this is a
discussion group. I did not post my question saying only Puce is allowed to
ID this plant, you know!

As I keep saying you haven't even seen it. What IS it about you that you
have to be an expert on things you don't know about and have never seen?
Why can you not say "it might be", "perhaps it is", "had you thought of" -
why do you have to thump the table and do this awful, overwhelming "I know
best" act of yours? You do yourself no favours.
This makes no sense and all you're doing is damaging yourself over and over
again - how is it that you don't see what you're doing to your credibility?
The floor is yours, Puce. I really don't think I can say one more word that
will do more to show up your integrity than you do yourself.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

Sacha & La Puce

You really would both do a great service to urg if you would take your
interminable disagreements to email.

--
Robert

On 22 Feb, 23:34, Sacha wrote:

I give up.

Doesn't look like it. Unless off course it means something else in
Sacha's language.

What does
it take to make you read what others write and understand it?

You are ignoring what I write and take others posts as your own words.
When you are corrected, just like poppy seeds thread, like the
evergreen climber proposing a plant with flowers when you think
there's no flowers etc. you do your usual twisting and go on a
diversion and end up talking about sleepers. You're priceless but I
will not stand there and let you walk all over me. I will not.

This is quite simply unreal. I don't know what to say or where to start.
You can't read. That is the only possible explanation.

You have decided that I will never be right - you have decided this a
long time ago. You think that people who come and visit you are
stalkers? Do you think yourself *that* important? My kids didn't want
to see you because you scared them when they heard me talking about
you. They don't like people who doesn't like their mother. See.

they
have a Jackman's in their carpark. You still didn't acknowledged this.

No, you did NOT tell me that.

Yes, I wrote in on the 17 Feb on the 'clinging rosemary' thread, and
you ignored me. Here the proof and everybody else can follow
conversations but you it seems is too blinded by your own remarks and
arguments and control.

On 17 Feb, 16:43, Sacha wrote:
Charlie did not advise me to see that variety at Burncoose, he advised me to
ask which they have in their car park. That remark is extremely misleading.

You said you've never heard of Jackmans', that your husband Ray has
never heard of it, that google don't show it and that your books
don't
have it. That means you think I'm talking bollox again. I've found
the
Jackman's at Burncoose because they sell it and that's the one they
have in their carpark. But that is not even sufficient for you.


Charlie suggested the possibility that the
two rosemaries were the same and suggested that we look at the one at
Burncoose. You mentioned Jackman's, not Jackman's Prostrate.

You are now trying to get away with just missing out words. You're
pathetic Sacha, you know that?

No, I did not. I told you that they could not certainly identify the
Salcombe one from a photo but that the one in their car park is Jackman's
Prostrate. Do not try to make a bad situation worse, Helene.

It's Helene now is it? I told you it was Jackman's and you ignored me.
I told you it was in Bruncoose carpark and you ignored me.

Snip a lot of blablbabla which brings to nothing again.

On 23 Feb, 00:11, Robert wrote:
Sacha & La Puce
You really would both do a great service to urg if you would take your
interminable disagreements to email.

AAaaaarrghhhh but the woman's driving me mad!! Why does she think I'm
writing in the tone she thinks I write?! Does she know me?! NO! I'm
nice I am! And she twist, and change, and confuse, and forgets. Can't
anybody see this?!?!?!? It's all in the posts!

Sorry sorry sorry ...

On 23/2/07 00:11, in article , "Robert"
wrote:


Sacha & La Puce

You really would both do a great service to urg if you would take your
interminable disagreements to email.

Robert, the last thing in this world that I will do is go to email with
Puce. And why? Because when people email her, she threatens to post their
emails. And then? Any fool can forge an email if they have the original
headers.
This debate/disagreement concerns the entire group because it's a question
of simple truths or being forced to bow to the word of someone who hasn't
seen the plant she unequivocally identifies.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

"Robert" wrote in message
...

Sacha & La Puce

You really would both do a great service to urg if you would take your
interminable disagreements to email.

--
Robert

I don't mind at all but if there is a thread that annoys me I can just mark
it to be ignored. You should be able to do the same with Turnpike?

On 23/2/07 00:40, in article , "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)"
wrote:


"Robert" wrote in message
...

Sacha & La Puce

You really would both do a great service to urg if you would take your
interminable disagreements to email.

--
Robert

I don't mind at all but if there is a thread that annoys me I can just mark
it to be ignored. You should be able to do the same with Turnpike?

As far as I'm concerned, this matter is closed. It's impossible to discuss
anything with Puce because she's twists and turns with every post. Those
who have asked for pieces of this plant when it's rooted will get them and
that's the end of the matter here for me.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

"La Puce" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 22 Feb, 23:34, Sacha wrote:

I give up.

Doesn't look like it. Unless off course it means something else in
Sacha's language.


She's a liar. She's proved that before

Mike

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

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...


The floor is yours, Puce.


You've said that before. You even left, but you are back.

You're a liar.

Mike


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

'Mike' wrote:
"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...


The floor is yours, Puce.


You've said that before. You even left, but you are back.

You're a liar.

And you are an arsehole.

pk

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:12:12 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:


"La Puce" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 22 Feb, 23:34, Sacha wrote:

I give up.

Doesn't look like it. Unless off course it means something else in
Sacha's language.


She's a liar. She's proved that before

Mike

What a miserable little excuse for a man you are, that you have to
insult women from the security of your own home, and encourage fights
between them.
Is it just a mental problem that you have, or a physical inadequacy as
well?
Do us all a favour Mike. Go and buy a top shelf magazine, lock
yourself in the lavatory with it, and leave us all to get on with real
life.

"charles" wrote in message
...


Might I respectfully suggest that your rather disgusting posting has no
place on urg. Might I also respectfully suggest that in future you direct
your attention to the 'more aggressive' member of urg who is always at the
middle of fights and disruption?

Sacha Hubbard has a very severe 'Superiority Complex' which really needs
treatment. There is no place on these newsgroups for such an attitude. She
would do wise to take a leaf from my book, "Equal to all, superior to none".
That way you treat and talk to everyone as an equal.

Kind regards

Mike


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