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

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.

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

On 28/2/07 18:01, in article
, "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

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

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)

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.

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.

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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