urg meet
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:10:59 +0000, June Hughes wrote
(in article ): In message , Sacha writes snip Imagine the cheek of me thinking it was my right to invite who I wish to our house. ;-)) This is Usenet. You specifically said there were two people you were not inviting out of all those who read and write here. That makes people feel uncomfortable but you must have known that. It is like the child at school announcing in front of the whole class, 'I am having a birthday party for everyone in the class, except for two people'. It would surely have been better if you had emailed those you were inviting. You can do that in one email addressed to many, as I am sure you are aware. You have mentioned since how you have heard from people about others trying to sabotage your party. If you had restricted your announcements to email, that would not have happened, would it? (And before you start, no, it was not me who attempted to sabotage your do). But June, there is a practical difficulty apart from anything else. There are plenty of lurkers here who might like to go to the meet but whose email addresses Sacha doesn't necessarily have. Many others do not give reply-to email addresses on usenet. If Sacha Or anyone else) wishes to exclude two particular people, then I am quite sure that everyone reading or participating in this group knows who they are, and I agree that she has every right to exclude them specifically. I wouldn't want them in my house either. -- 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 |
urg meet
On Feb 27, 11:20 pm, Anne Jackson wrote:
Given this caveat, you cannot actually call it a 'meet' Sacha, since NO-ONE can ever be excluded from a true meet. Oh so a 'meet' has to include absolutely everyone? I live and learn. Better call it 'a soiree' or some other such pretentious nonsense! Well you can call it what you like, the rest will continue to refer to it as a 'meet' irrespective of exclusions. |
urg meet
In message et, Sally
Thompson writes On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:10:59 +0000, June Hughes wrote (in article ): In message , Sacha writes snip Imagine the cheek of me thinking it was my right to invite who I wish to our house. ;-)) This is Usenet. You specifically said there were two people you were not inviting out of all those who read and write here. That makes people feel uncomfortable but you must have known that. It is like the child at school announcing in front of the whole class, 'I am having a birthday party for everyone in the class, except for two people'. It would surely have been better if you had emailed those you were inviting. You can do that in one email addressed to many, as I am sure you are aware. You have mentioned since how you have heard from people about others trying to sabotage your party. If you had restricted your announcements to email, that would not have happened, would it? (And before you start, no, it was not me who attempted to sabotage your do). But June, there is a practical difficulty apart from anything else. There are plenty of lurkers here who might like to go to the meet but whose email addresses Sacha doesn't necessarily have. Many others do not give reply-to email addresses on usenet. If Sacha Or anyone else) wishes to exclude two particular people, then I am quite sure that everyone reading or participating in this group knows who they are, and I agree that she has every right to exclude them specifically. I wouldn't want them in my house either. If they are lurkers, they may also be undesirable to Sacha. Also, if people do not give reply email addresses, they may also be undesirable. I would not like to deal with someone who gives a false email address, although plenty of people do and I have their real addresses. So, you case does not appear to hold water, Sally. -- June Hughes |
urg meet
On 28/2/07 18:09, in article
, "Dave Poole" wrote: On Feb 27, 11:20 pm, Anne Jackson wrote: Given this caveat, you cannot actually call it a 'meet' Sacha, since NO-ONE can ever be excluded from a true meet. Oh so a 'meet' has to include absolutely everyone? I live and learn. Better call it 'a soiree' or some other such pretentious nonsense! Well you can call it what you like, the rest will continue to refer to it as a 'meet' irrespective of exclusions. Well.....we could have it in the dark, I suppose....... ;-)) -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
urg meet
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:59:30 +0000, Sacha
wrote: On 28/2/07 16:49, in article . com, " wrote: On 28 Feb, 16:24, wrote: On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:20:54 GMT, Anne Jackson wrote: The message from Sacha contains these words: Unhappily, recent developments in this group mean that two people are not included in this open invitation and I feel quite sure they know who they are, so am going into that no further. It's something I regret *very* much having to say. Given this caveat, you cannot actually call it a 'meet' Sacha, since NO-ONE can ever be excluded from a true meet. Better call it 'a soiree' or some other such pretentious nonsense! Contact Puce for bookings for the urg summer holiday in Aran in the Big Red Bus. I see our resident troll is back - for goodness sake what started out as an invitation to a meet has turned into one or two people grinding their own particular axes, we are all bored to death with it - give it a rest. Judth Imagine the cheek of me thinking it was my right to invite who I wish to our house. ;-)) We'll probably turn up. I'm selling rave tickets as we speak. Best lock up grannies crystal, just in case. -- Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead! Disclaimer Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him were accurate on the date of publication or last modification. Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any basis of a contract with readers or users of it. It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is experimental or constantly changing, that information published may be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal opinion of the author. Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate authorities before relying on it. Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your newsreaders kill filter. |
urg meet
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:37:21 +0000, Sacha
wrote: On 28/2/07 18:01, in article et, "Sally Thompson" wrote: snip But June, there is a practical difficulty apart from anything else. There are plenty of lurkers here who might like to go to the meet but whose email addresses Sacha doesn't necessarily have. You've hit the nail on the head, Sally. At my two meets, two people came who do not post but lurk. That is precisely why email was not used. I *know* that some past members of urg pop in from time to time, some lurk and never post, others lurk and post occasionally We've all seen that in our time here. It IS an urg event and two people who I do not, in any case consider to be true urglers, are not welcome. snip Will acid be provided, or should we bring our own? -- Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead! Disclaimer Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him were accurate on the date of publication or last modification. Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any basis of a contract with readers or users of it. It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is experimental or constantly changing, that information published may be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal opinion of the author. Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate authorities before relying on it. Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your newsreaders kill filter. |
urg meet
"June Hughes" wrote " writes Anne Jackson wrote: Given this caveat, you cannot actually call it a 'meet' Sacha, since NO-ONE can ever be excluded from a true meet. Better call it 'a soiree' or some other such pretentious nonsense! Was that really necessary, why on earth did you make that nasty comment for - I am gobsmacked!!! Writing as one of the people Sacha loves to ostracise, I don't think it was nasty. Just a fair comment. Hardly. It was just bitchy and silly. Obviously anyone hosting a meet on their own property is at liberty to include or exclude anyone they wish. Really it'd be far pleasanter all round if you and Anne could try and resist dragging up old arguments and grudges at every turn. It's unnecessary, and verges on trolling. -- Sue |
urg meet
On 28 Feb, 19:55, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from " contains these words: On 27 Feb, 23:20, Anne Jackson wrote: The message from Sacha contains these words: Unhappily, recent developments in this group mean that two people are not included in this open invitation and I feel quite sure they know who they are, so am going into that no further. It's something I regret *very* much having to say. Given this caveat, you cannot actually call it a 'meet' Sacha, since NO-ONE can ever be excluded from a true meet. Better call it 'a soiree' or some other such pretentious nonsense! Was that really necessary, why on earth did you make that nasty comment for - I am gobsmacked!!! Judith, I have never, ever, in all my years on Usenet, seen anyone arranging a meet, and then saying that certain people aren't welcome! A meet is open to all, and if it _isn't_ then it's not a meet!! But does it matter Anne? there are some people who are deliberately baiting Sacha, it's not fair and it's unkind and I don't mean you, I have always found you to be generous in your comments to all. After all a meet is not official or otherwise, it is a collection of people of like minds, who have an interest in gardening and there are no rules about invitations etc. Lets just leave Sacha to enjoy people coming to her home who are happy to see her and I will be one of those. Kind regards Judith |
urg meet
Sacha wrote:
It IS an urg event and two people who I do not, in any case consider to be true urglers, are not welcome. snip A gentle suggestion, might it no have been better to state the names of those not invited, thus avoiding the deliberate and unnecessary stirring & raking of coals that followed? pk |
urg meet
On 28 Feb, 20:15, "p.k." wrote:
Sacha wrote: It IS an urg event and two people who I do not, in any case consider to be true urglers, are not welcome. snip A gentle suggestion, might it no have been better to state the names of those not invited, thus avoiding the deliberate and unnecessary stirring & raking of coals that followed? pk Hi pk, thank you for a gentle post which is refreshing. The two people that are not welcome at Sacha's and at most urglers homes, including mine, know who they are, they know very well who they are. They have insulted, lied, verbally battered and abused Sacha at every opportunity. Why, you might ask? I expect it is down to plain jealousy. The unnecessary stirring and raking of coals, which was quite deliberate, was not done by Sacha, that is evident as you can see, she has not retaliated but kept a dignified silence. I think she behaved very fairly by not naming the offenders, I'm not so sure that I would have been that generous. Judith |
urg meet
In message om,
" writes On 28 Feb, 19:55, Anne Jackson wrote: The message from " contains these words: On 27 Feb, 23:20, Anne Jackson wrote: The message from Sacha contains these words: Unhappily, recent developments in this group mean that two people are not included in this open invitation and I feel quite sure they know who they are, so am going into that no further. It's something I regret *very* much having to say. Given this caveat, you cannot actually call it a 'meet' Sacha, since NO-ONE can ever be excluded from a true meet. Better call it 'a soiree' or some other such pretentious nonsense! Was that really necessary, why on earth did you make that nasty comment for - I am gobsmacked!!! Judith, I have never, ever, in all my years on Usenet, seen anyone arranging a meet, and then saying that certain people aren't welcome! A meet is open to all, and if it _isn't_ then it's not a meet!! But does it matter Anne? there are some people who are deliberately baiting Sacha, it's not fair and it's unkind and I don't mean you, I have always found you to be generous in your comments to all. After all a meet is not official or otherwise, it is a collection of people of like minds, who have an interest in gardening and there are no rules about invitations etc. Lets just leave Sacha to enjoy people coming to her home who are happy to see her and I will be one of those. No-one is baiting Sacha. If anything, she is baiting them by announcing that they are not invited. -- June Hughes |
urg meet
In message , p.k.
writes Sacha wrote: It IS an urg event and two people who I do not, in any case consider to be true urglers, are not welcome. snip A gentle suggestion, might it no have been better to state the names of those not invited, thus avoiding the deliberate and unnecessary stirring & raking of coals that followed? Exactly. There is one law for Sacha and one for everyone else. She has had a go at me for not naming names. -- June Hughes |
urg meet
On Feb 28, 6:47Â*pm, "Pete ‹(•¿•)›"
wrote: Will acid be provided, or should we bring our own? Bad boy, but you can bring some acid as I never tried it in the 60's! Judith |
urg meet
In message . com,
" writes On 28 Feb, 20:15, "p.k." wrote: Sacha wrote: It IS an urg event and two people who I do not, in any case consider to be true urglers, are not welcome. snip A gentle suggestion, might it no have been better to state the names of those not invited, thus avoiding the deliberate and unnecessary stirring & raking of coals that followed? pk Hi pk, thank you for a gentle post which is refreshing. The two people that are not welcome at Sacha's and at most urglers homes, including mine, know who they are, they know very well who they are. They have insulted, lied, verbally battered and abused Sacha at every opportunity. Why, you might ask? I expect it is down to plain jealousy. Sacha has insulted, verbally battered me and tried to get me thrown out of another ng. My crime was in answering her back. I still don't know whether or not I am one of the two omitted from the urg meet. I suspect the others are Mike from the Isle of Wight, Puce and possible Jenny C, who Sacha accused of condoning something Sacha had accused Puce of (Sacha announced this when I welcomed Jenny to ukfd a few months ago). If that is the case, then there are four, and not two. How come? The unnecessary stirring and raking of coals, which was quite deliberate, was not done by Sacha, that is evident as you can see, she has not retaliated but kept a dignified silence. I think she behaved very fairly by not naming the offenders, I'm not so sure that I would have been that generous. It is not unnecessary at all if you are on the receiving end of the phrase containing 'two people have been omitted and they know who they are' - which clearly they don't. Sacha is all sweetness and light then suddenly gives people a pasting. That is her way. She did it to me in the autumn when I believed we were getting along well and then she thought I had something to do with the spat between you and Puce, which I had absolutely nothing to do with at all. So there you have it. -- June Hughes |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter