"Sally Thompson" wrote in message
al.net...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:49:25 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) :

On 24/2/07 14:58, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 24 Feb, 14:43, Sacha wrote:
That would be because you are in many, many kill files.

You'd be surprised in how many killfiles you are as well! Not only
yesterday someone told me they didn't even read you anymore because
you were so controlling.

That would be a friend on the phone, eh?

But I don't believe
in kill filing because then I see what people like you are up to.

You mean 'controlling' again. Priceless.

I think you mean 'how inconvenient'. For you.
BTW, when you're ready to apologise for accusing me twice (this is the
second time) of calling you a French bitch, please go ahead. I have done
nothing of the sort and this is a perfect illustration of the confusions
you
spread around you and leave in your wake.


Whereas what she called Janet B, on the other hand, was far far worse.
Sorry, had vowed not to respond to any of these, and don't see her
postings
any more anyway unless they are quoted as here - better for the blood
pressure that way.




--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church:
http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk

When she wasn't busy calling Janet B foul names she was venting her spleen
on me. Surely there can't be many members of this group who have not
realised what a liability Puce has become.

On 24 Feb, 21:09, "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)"
wrote:
"Sally Thompson" wrote in message

al.net...



On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:49:25 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) :

On 24/2/07 14:58, in article
om, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 24 Feb, 14:43, Sacha wrote:
That would be because you are in many, many kill files.

You'd be surprised in how many killfiles you are as well! Not only
yesterday someone told me they didn't even read you anymore because
you were so controlling.

That would be a friend on the phone, eh?

But I don't believe
in kill filing because then I see what people like you are up to.

You mean 'controlling' again. Priceless.

I think you mean 'how inconvenient'. For you.
BTW, when you're ready to apologise for accusing me twice (this is the
second time) of calling you a French bitch, please go ahead. I have done
nothing of the sort and this is a perfect illustration of the confusions
you
spread around you and leave in your wake.

Whereas what she called Janet B, on the other hand, was far far worse.
Sorry, had vowed not to respond to any of these, and don't see her
postings
any more anyway unless they are quoted as here - better for the blood
pressure that way.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow:http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church:
http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk

When she wasn't busy calling Janet B foul names she was venting her spleen
on me. Surely there can't be many members of this group who have not
realised what a liability Puce has become.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In addition to the ones you all quote, my employer was contacted by
herby email, maliciously saying, and a total lie, that I was using my
employers' email address to post to newsgroups and in my employers'
time. Most of you know for which organisation I work and you can be
sure that the unmentioned person was told by my organisation that her
allegations were unfounded and untrue and that they would not
communicate with her further.

I have letters, from URBED London, lovely letters, confirming that the
unmentioned person was quite wrong in her accusations regarding me and
they wrote and then spoke to her husband. I have a copy of the letter
they sent to her husband and they made it quite clear that her claims
were untrue and if she says post that proof here, I will post all
three letters that I have received from Dr. Nicholas Falk to prove the
truth of the matter.

Only recently, she made a further threat on urg to contact, yet again,
my employers, I don't know why, but the legal epartment has a copy of
her latest posting on urg, urglers can check the truth of this by
taking a look and it may be that some kind soul will actually post it
for me to save anyone looking.

This woman is a menace and it's about time that she left urg, we don't
want her and it's about time she recognises that she has no place
here. Nobody who lies, bullies, abuses, making disgusting sexual
reference to a woman's body, i.e. what she said to Janet and the
filthy abuse she heaped on Rupert, has a place in any decent
newsgroup.

Believe me, she will takes on our lawyer if she posts lies about me,
enough is enough.

Judith at home

On 24 Feb, 21:40, "
wrote:

[snip]

You seem to be desperate for my attention, so now you have it.

Sadly you have not held the promise you've made to your employer and
to my colleague in London and a copy of your post has been sent to
Nick. He will in due course advise you to stop mentioning his name and
his organisation on this forum but this time will be the last time. He
is a friend of 20 years and a colleague - you don't seriously think
you are going to destroy this relationship now do you? As for my
husband, he frankly think you're nuts. As I've explained to you many
times, I am one of the directors of the northern office and the London
office is quite separate to us.

In the meantime if you hadn't wrote all these posts during your
employment you wouldn't now have to sign 'Judith at home', which you
need to do to show that you're not at work.

This Judith has got to stop, and it is going to stop now.

On 24 Feb, 21:40, "
wrote:
On 24 Feb, 21:09, "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)"
wrote:





"Sally Thompson" wrote in message

ual.net...

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:49:25 +0000, Sacha wrote
(in article ) :

On 24/2/07 14:58, in article
om, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 24 Feb, 14:43, Sacha wrote:
That would be because you are in many, many kill files.

You'd be surprised in how many killfiles you are as well! Not only
yesterday someone told me they didn't even read you anymore because
you were so controlling.

That would be a friend on the phone, eh?

But I don't believe
in kill filing because then I see what people like you are up to.

You mean 'controlling' again. Priceless.

I think you mean 'how inconvenient'. For you.
BTW, when you're ready to apologise for accusing me twice (this is the
second time) of calling you a French bitch, please go ahead. I have done
nothing of the sort and this is a perfect illustration of the confusions
you
spread around you and leave in your wake.

Whereas what she called Janet B, on the other hand, was far far worse.
Sorry, had vowed not to respond to any of these, and don't see her
postings
any more anyway unless they are quoted as here - better for the blood
pressure that way.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow:http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church:
http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk

When she wasn't busy calling Janet B foul names she was venting her spleen
on me. Surely there can't be many members of this group who have not
realised what a liability Puce has become.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In addition to the ones you all quote, my employer was contacted by
herby email, maliciously saying, and a total lie, that I was using my
employers' email address to post to newsgroups and in my employers'
time. Most of you know for which organisation I work and you can be
sure that the unmentioned person was told by my organisation that her
allegations were unfounded and untrue and that they would not
communicate with her further.

I have letters, from URBED London, lovely letters, confirming that the
unmentioned person was quite wrong in her accusations regarding me and
they wrote and then spoke to her husband. I have a copy of the letter
they sent to her husband and they made it quite clear that her claims
were untrue and if she says post that proof here, I will post all
three letters that I have received from Dr. Nicholas Falk to prove the
truth of the matter.

Only recently, she made a further threat on urg to contact, yet again,
my employers, I don't know why, but the legal epartment has a copy of
her latest posting on urg, urglers can check the truth of this by
taking a look and it may be that some kind soul will actually post it
for me to save anyone looking.

This woman is a menace and it's about time that she left urg, we don't
want her and it's about time she recognises that she has no place
here. Nobody who lies, bullies, abuses, making disgusting sexual
reference to a woman's body, i.e. what she said to Janet and the
filthy abuse she heaped on Rupert, has a place in any decent
newsgroup.

Believe me, she will takes on our lawyer if she posts lies about me,
enough is enough.

Judith at home- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As an addendum I should have said that Dr. Nicholas Falk is in India
and he will deal with the other persons lies when he returns as will
my employer.

Judith at home

On 25 Feb, 00:53, "
wrote:
As an addendum I should have said that Dr. Nicholas Falk is in India

Nick is back. I talked to him on Thursday you crazy woman. Stop
interfering into my life once and for all. You are ambarassing Nick
you know that?! He doesn't even know you, we don't know you, we have
nothing to do with you and will ever have. He's tried to just keep you
calm and quiet. You are scaring him and scaring my team. It was funny
at the beginning but now you're just insane. Just go away.

Please someone tell her to just leave me alone. Please somebody!!!!!

On 25/2/07 13:40, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 25 Feb, 00:53, "
wrote:
As an addendum I should have said that Dr. Nicholas Falk is in India

Nick is back. I talked to him on Thursday you crazy woman. Stop
interfering into my life once and for all. You are ambarassing Nick
you know that?! He doesn't even know you, we don't know you, we have
nothing to do with you and will ever have. He's tried to just keep you
calm and quiet. You are scaring him and scaring my team. It was funny
at the beginning but now you're just insane. Just go away.

Please someone tell her to just leave me alone. Please somebody!!!!!

Unfortunately, you seem to have started something that is now out of your
control and which you can't finish just because you want to.
Once you try to wreck the career of someone working for the NHS at a very
senior level AND try to lose them their job, certain legal and official
machinery swings into motion that you obviously hadn't bargained for when
you started that piece of viciousness.
And it's all down to you swearing at people, using filthy language and
losing your temper, something you appear not to have learned about even yet.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

On 25 Feb, 14:57, Sacha wrote:
On 25/2/07 13:40, in article
. com, "La Puce"

wrote:
On 25 Feb, 00:53, "
wrote:
As an addendum I should have said that Dr. Nicholas Falk is in India

Nick is back. I talked to him on Thursday you crazy woman. Stop
interfering into my life once and for all. You are ambarassing Nick
you know that?! He doesn't even know you, we don't know you, we have
nothing to do with you and will ever have. He's tried to just keep you
calm and quiet. You are scaring him and scaring my team. It was funny
at the beginning but now you're just insane. Just go away.

Please someone tell her to just leave me alone. Please somebody!!!!!

Unfortunately, you seem to have started something that is now out of your
control and which you can't finish just because you want to.
Once you try to wreck the career of someone working for the NHS at a very
senior level AND try to lose them their job, certain legal and official
machinery swings into motion that you obviously hadn't bargained for when
you started that piece of viciousness.
And it's all down to you swearing at people, using filthy language and
losing your temper, something you appear not to have learned about even yet.
--
Sachahttp://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devonhttp://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

Sacha, it seems that I have no option but to publish all of Dr. Falk's
communication with me here to put paid to lies. I will be speaking
with Dr. Falk before I do so out of courtesy to him.


Judith and from now on I will not be posting "at home" I think I have
made my point.

On Feb 24, 1:32 pm, "La Puce" wrote:

Lets go back to the begining. I've suggested Blue Rain, Corsican Blue,
Jackman's which are all prostate rosemaries. It's Sacha who made a
mistake not me.

No you failed to read the precise description that Sacha clearly gave.
You responded by offering 2 varieties that could not possibly have
matched her description and oe that is almost unknown, made worse by
your failure to give the full name.

She went googling around thinking it would be
reliable.

Oh I don't think it was Sacha who went googling. You came up with
wrong names, which suggests that you did the googling.

She never heard of Jackman's and clearly tried to make fun
of me saying nor her, nor her husband, nor google or her book knew
about it.

Because you failed to give the full name. Small wonder neither she
nor Ray had heard of it.

I then said it grew in Burncoose nursery and you suggested
to check it there. I've had no aknowledgement of this and now I don't
want any. It's too late for this.

It was Charlie Pridham who mentioned Burncoose not you. He knows
Burncoose, Sacha knows Burncoose, I know Burncoose and a whole lot of
other people here know Burncoose. In a very short time you were
claiming that the Burncoose plant had to be the one even though you
hadn't seen the plant and could not possibly have known whether the
one in their car park was the same as in their on-line catalogue. It's
odd that you couldn't get the nursery's name correct - a sure sign
that you've never had any contact with them. Furthermore, I most
certainly did not suggest checking it there. Follow the thread back
and read it correctly, without putting your own bewildering and
entirely misleading interpretation upon what others and I have
written.

I don't want to talk about individuals here.

Oh really, you've done far too much of that in the past. So what
makes you want to change now?

Looks like you are now
turning blue and life's too short.

Don't worry about me, I'm far from turning blue. But I'm not going to
let you get away with twisting the truth to the degree you have. It
is quite clear that you are hell-bent upon causing trouble and it's
about time folks stamped upon your malevolence.

On 25 Feb, 17:44, "Dave Poole" wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:32 pm, "La Puce" wrote:

Lets go back to the begining. I've suggested Blue Rain, Corsican Blue,
Jackman's which are all prostate rosemaries. It's Sacha who made a
mistake not me.

No you failed to read the precise description that Sacha clearly gave.
You responded by offering 2 varieties that could not possibly have
matched her description and oe that is almost unknown, made worse by
your failure to give the full name.

She went googling around thinking it would be
reliable.

Oh I don't think it was Sacha who went googling. You came up with
wrong names, which suggests that you did the googling.

She never heard of Jackman's and clearly tried to make fun
of me saying nor her, nor her husband, nor google or her book knew
about it.

Because you failed to give the full name. Small wonder neither she
nor Ray had heard of it.

I then said it grew in Burncoose nursery and you suggested
to check it there. I've had no aknowledgement of this and now I don't
want any. It's too late for this.

It was Charlie Pridham who mentioned Burncoose not you. He knows
Burncoose, Sacha knows Burncoose, I know Burncoose and a whole lot of
other people here know Burncoose. In a very short time you were
claiming that the Burncoose plant had to be the one even though you
hadn't seen the plant and could not possibly have known whether the
one in their car park was the same as in their on-line catalogue. It's
odd that you couldn't get the nursery's name correct - a sure sign
that you've never had any contact with them. Furthermore, I most
certainly did not suggest checking it there. Follow the thread back
and read it correctly, without putting your own bewildering and
entirely misleading interpretation upon what others and I have
written.

I don't want to talk about individuals here.

Oh really, you've done far too much of that in the past. So what
makes you want to change now?

Looks like you are now
turning blue and life's too short.

Don't worry about me, I'm far from turning blue. But I'm not going to
let you get away with twisting the truth to the degree you have. It
is quite clear that you are hell-bent upon causing trouble and it's
about time folks stamped upon your malevolence.

Well said. Copies of all the above, with the writers' permission
will be used with regard to malicious allegations made against me by
the unmentioned person. I have written permission from everyone in
the past 7 months to use their comments about her. If you would prefer
me not to use your posting, and, of course, I will respect that,
please let me know, privately, by email.

Judith

On 25 Feb, 17:44, "Dave Poole" wrote:
No you failed to read the precise description that Sacha clearly gave.
You responded by offering 2 varieties that could not possibly have
matched her description and oe that is almost unknown, made worse by
your failure to give the full name.

I'm sorry Dave but this is far too pedentic. On the 16th I wrote after
Sacha's post:

On 16 Feb, 17:40, Sacha wrote:
R. Jackman's is unknown to me or to Ray or the
Plant Finder or Google.
I knew I hadn't imagined it and would find it. Check this link to
find
Jackman's Prostrate which is so like the one you describe. I'll get
some pictures of it from a friend. The leaves are a bit broader and
waxy. The catalogue pdf gives you details of it.

I don't want to talk further about it. I know what I wrote, we all
know what I wrote. You cannot change that. And that is that.

It was Charlie Pridham who mentioned Burncoose not you. He knows
Burncoose, Sacha knows Burncoose, I know Burncoose and a whole lot of
other people here know Burncoose.

And I know Burncoose too. Amazing isn't it? And as for my mistake with
Bruncoose - it's all too silly. I am a foreigner and English is not my
first language. We could go on for ever with this. I have made lovely
friends on this forum. Just about to find about someone who I knew
before. Life goes on Dave. It really does. So I'll stop here if you
don't mind.

On 25/2/07 21:18, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 25 Feb, 17:44, "Dave Poole" wrote:
No you failed to read the precise description that Sacha clearly gave.
You responded by offering 2 varieties that could not possibly have
matched her description and oe that is almost unknown, made worse by
your failure to give the full name.

I'm sorry Dave but this is far too pedentic. On the 16th I wrote after
Sacha's post:

On 16 Feb, 17:40, Sacha wrote:
R. Jackman's is unknown to me or to Ray or the
Plant Finder or Google.
I knew I hadn't imagined it and would find it. Check this link to
find
Jackman's Prostrate which is so like the one you describe. I'll get
some pictures of it from a friend. The leaves are a bit broader and
waxy. The catalogue pdf gives you details of it.

You did not say Prostrate, which is what defines that rosemary. You use
this silly, childish, ridiculous excuse over and over again but the FACT is,
you did not name this plant correctly.

I don't want to talk further about it. I know what I wrote, we all
know what I wrote. You cannot change that. And that is that.

Yes indeed, we do all know what we/you wrote and the consensus of opinion is
that you wrote a lot of rubbish, lied and twisted about it and continue to
do so.

It was Charlie Pridham who mentioned Burncoose not you. He knows
Burncoose, Sacha knows Burncoose, I know Burncoose and a whole lot of
other people here know Burncoose.

And I know Burncoose too. Amazing isn't it?

If you did, it would be truly amazing. Do you know something? I don't
believe you. I don't believe you AT ALL. By knowing Burncoose I think your
twisted version of the truth is that you've looked it up on Google.

Because if you had been to Burncoose yourself and if you knew Burncoose you
would have said *immediately* that you had seen their rosemary and were able
either to be certain it is the one I'm trying to identify or it is not. The
very second Charlie mentioned it, you would have leaped into the discussion
to say you'd seen it too and to give your opinion on the rosemary both of
you had seen there. I can write your script for you "Ho yes, Charlie! I
saw that one, too!"

Your character would make it impossible for you to do otherwise. You would
have treated us to a long dissertation on the length and position of the one
at Burncoose, the soil it is grown in and how it does or does not resemble
one of the ones your grandfather had or some friend you've talked to on the
phone, which makes you the rosemary expert. It is *impossible* for anyone
with experience of you on this group to believe that you have been to
Burncoose for that simple reason - you just could not have kept your mouth
shut on the matter. Indeed, I actually asked you if you had seen the
Burncoose rosemary and YOU DID NOT ANSWER ME. So no, you have NOT been to
Burncoose because if you had, you couldn't possibly have resisted saying so.
Perhaps you better jump in your car and drive there right now to be
photographed looking at their sign - or do a bit of chicanery with
Photoshop. I don't think you'd even heard of Burncoose or its rosemary until
Charlie mentioned it and why? First you do not tell the truth, second you
have only just thought to say you 'know' Burncoose because David has raised
the matter most emphatically and third for all the reasons I give above.
And finally, in Manchester you couldn't possibly grow or use the majority of
the plants sold at Burncoose and nor could your URBED clients there or in
Scotland.


And as for my mistake with
Bruncoose - it's all too silly. I am a foreigner and English is not my
first language. We could go on for ever with this.

Isn't it funny that when it suits you, you're a foreigner among a load of
Francophobes? But didn't you say you had spent 25 years in this country?
I can spell Pepinière Filippi, having never lived in France and having
visited that nursery only once. But you can't spell Burncoose because
English isn't your first language. Quite. BUT, according to you, you KNOW
Burncoose and have been there, so will have seen all its signs, leaflets,
literature and plant labels and still can't spell it. All I can say to that
piece of garbage is - garbage.


I have made lovely
friends on this forum. Just about to find about someone who I knew
before. Life goes on Dave. It really does. So I'll stop here if you
don't mind.

Oh please do. Do stop. They have nothing to do with the lies you tell and
the insults you throw around you like confetti.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

YAWN!

The problem is there is some interestingly bits among the miles of dross
in these threads. It's a shame I've not got time to trail thru' and sort.

Obviously some people bring a load of past history and animosity and don't
have the willpower to restrain themselves. It really is boring.