urg meet
 

In message , Anne Jackson
writes
The message from June Hughes contains
these words:

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.

Can they be 'genuine urglers' if they don't post...?

I suppose not.
--
June Hughes

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.

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.

I have to admit that keeping a dignified silence is not at all Sacha's
way. What have you done to her to make her keep so quiet?
--
June Hughes

urg meet
 

June Hughes wrote:

Can they be 'genuine urglers' if they don't post...?

I suppose not.


Lurglers?

pk

urg meet
 

On 28 Feb, 20:02, Anne Jackson wrote:

YOU may be bored with it, I'm just getting into third gear....and if certain
people are excluded then it ISN'T a meet, no matter what Sacha might call it!

--
AnneJ -


Anne, call it what you like, the name is not important. You may enjoy
getting into third gear, I don't, keep on, both of you, it's not nice
and you both look silly, I thought more of you than this.

Judith

urg meet
 

On 28 Feb, 20:02, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "
contains these words:





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.

YOU may be bored with it, I'm just getting into third gear....and if certain
people are excluded then it ISN'T a meet, no matter what Sacha might call it!

--
AnneJ - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Anne, you should stop this, you are losing face.

Judith

urg meet
 

On 28 Feb, 20:08, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "
contains these words:





On 28 Feb, 16:59, June Hughes wrote:
In message . com,
" writes

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.

Not necessarily, Judith. Two people were specifically excluded from the
invitation. If you want to make someone feel uncomfortable, that is the
way to do it. She could just as well have invited people by email and
left it out of urg altogether. That way, those who were excluded didn't
have to know about it and those she wanted to attend would. Instead of
that, she broadcast it for all to see. Would you like it if it were you
who were excluded?

Why on earth should she invite by email, it is an urg meet and if
certain people have offended her, then it is her right not to invite
them.
I will be having an urg meet and again, there is a person that I
would not like to see in my home. I have been to meets where an
individual would not be welcome, this is life, we invite into our
sitting rooms members of a group and if one or two are excluded, then
too bad.
If I had insulted anyone the way Sacha has been insulted, then I would
be very surprised indeed if I were invited. This is my last word on
the subject as all genuine urglers are sick to the teeth of this.

Are you and Sacha the only 'genuine urglers' then? Seems so, since
you are the only two to make any adverse comments! How exceedingly
presumptuous of you!

--
AnneJ - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you saying that because I would not wish to see a person ,who
disgusts me ,in my home, that it is not an urg meet? Are you saying
that I have to invite low life into my home and if I exclude them,
then it's not a meet? Don't be daft!

Judith

urg meet
 

On 28/2/07 22:06, in article , "p.k."
wrote:

June Hughes wrote:

Can they be 'genuine urglers' if they don't post...?

I suppose not.


Lurglers?

pk


I feel I should point out at this juncture that any concerns expressed about
me posting this message for the benefit of lurkers and their real identity
are misplaced, to put it mildly. The nursery and garden are open 50 weeks
of the year to the general public, without charge for entry. We never know
who is here or is going to arrive or who has just left. If the weather is
fine, we'll be urgling in the garden; it's it's foul, we'll be urgling in
the tea room and if we move into the house, I feel sure I can trust my urg
friends to collar anyone who shows an undue amount of interest in the
silver!
Having strangers around here is simply not a worry because it's normal for
us, so it's a pretty feeble reason to have a dig at me for posting and not
emailing, as a little forethought would have shown.

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

urg meet
 

On 28 Feb, 23:52, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:38:06 +0000, Sacha
wrote:





On 28/2/07 18:09, in article
.com, "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....... ;-))

It wouldn't be much of a candle lit supper. :o)
--

Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Martin,no candles, we are all going out to supper. It would be good
to meet you and I hope that you will be able to make it. I'm like a
child, looking forward to meeting old and new urglers.

Judith

urg meet
 

On 28/2/07 23:52, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:38:06 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

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....... ;-))

It wouldn't be much of a candle lit supper. :o)

?

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

urg meet
 

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

On 28/2/07 17:28, in article , "Janet
Galpin" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

I'm still hoping to have an urg meet here on 7th July with the option of
going down to Charlie's nursery on the 8th - people could probably
take in
the Eden Project that day, too but Charlie will give timings and
directions
for that!
snip

It sounds great and I would very much like to come. I wonder whether you
have a small piece of ground I could camp on or whether you could
recommend a camp-site nearby.

You'd be very welcome to camp on our field, as long as it's not too rain
sodden for you. Do you mean tent or van because for a van there's a car
park? It will be lovely to meet you, Janet and I'm so glad you're coming.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

Many thanks for your welcome. It's a tent that I have in mind so a small
corner of your field would be excellent.

Janet G

urg meet
 

Maurice & Doreen Larcombe wrote:
[Sacha:]
He's a menace with the captions and Maurice with the camera!

What? Me?
Love to come down and can we park the camper overnight please?

You've not got another interesting Hippy seedling that you fancy
swapping for an interesting Clivia seedling have you Maurice?

urg meet
 

In message , Anne Jackson
writes
The message from June Hughes contains
these words:

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?

Is this something else I'm to be left out of? I object, most strongly!!

Still don't know whether or not she has excluded me. She won't say.
Nice one Sacha. She got it very wrong when she accused me of 'cosying
up' to Puce (her expression, not mine). Then on top of that, in ukfd,
she accused me of getting all sorts of personal information out of her
during an email exchange in order that I could 'use it' against her.
What a lot of old rot!

As for Judith, - it was she who insisted she was not reading the thread
where Sacha was having a go at me about being two-faced because it upset
her too much. I give up. They deserve each other.
--
June Hughes

urg meet
 

On 1/3/07 01:05, in article , "Janet
Galpin" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

On 28/2/07 17:28, in article , "Janet
Galpin" wrote:

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

I'm still hoping to have an urg meet here on 7th July with the option of
going down to Charlie's nursery on the 8th - people could probably
take in
the Eden Project that day, too but Charlie will give timings and
directions
for that!
snip

It sounds great and I would very much like to come. I wonder whether you
have a small piece of ground I could camp on or whether you could
recommend a camp-site nearby.

You'd be very welcome to camp on our field, as long as it's not too rain
sodden for you. Do you mean tent or van because for a van there's a car
park? It will be lovely to meet you, Janet and I'm so glad you're coming.
--

Many thanks for your welcome. It's a tent that I have in mind so a small
corner of your field would be excellent.

Janet G
No problem at all. You might be better off on one of the lawns near the
house though. But we can sort that out at the time.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

urg meet
 

In article , Sue
writes

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.


Not to mention the fact that if you can't exclude some people from a
meet on your own property then no one would feel happy about holding
them! After all it's not a public Meeting in a Park or Gardens which
would be something completely different.
I didn't know that 'Meet' had a rigid definition! After all (to be
pedantic) an Annual General Meeting excludes all but those on a fully
paid up Membership List.

If people have an objection to a Meeting's venue or Guest List then
perhaps another Meeting could be arranged by someone else to include
those that feel excluded?


--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

urg meet
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On 28 Feb, 20:08, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "
contains these words:





On 28 Feb, 16:59, June Hughes wrote:
In message . com,
" writes

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.

Not necessarily, Judith. Two people were specifically excluded from
the
invitation. If you want to make someone feel uncomfortable, that is
the
way to do it. She could just as well have invited people by email
and
left it out of urg altogether. That way, those who were excluded
didn't
have to know about it and those she wanted to attend would. Instead
of
that, she broadcast it for all to see. Would you like it if it were
you
who were excluded?

Why on earth should she invite by email, it is an urg meet and if
certain people have offended her, then it is her right not to invite
them.
I will be having an urg meet and again, there is a person that I
would not like to see in my home. I have been to meets where an
individual would not be welcome, this is life, we invite into our
sitting rooms members of a group and if one or two are excluded, then
too bad.
If I had insulted anyone the way Sacha has been insulted, then I would
be very surprised indeed if I were invited. This is my last word on
the subject as all genuine urglers are sick to the teeth of this.

Are you and Sacha the only 'genuine urglers' then? Seems so, since
you are the only two to make any adverse comments! How exceedingly
presumptuous of you!

--
AnneJ - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you saying that because I would not wish to see a person ,who
disgusts me ,in my home, that it is not an urg meet? Are you saying
that I have to invite low life into my home and if I exclude them,
then it's not a meet? Don't be daft!


Surely that depends on what one understands by the term 'urg meet'? If it is
taken to mean an open meeting for 'urglers' (similar to a general meeting of
a club or of shareholders), then it seems implied that the organiser is
willing to admit all and any 'urglers'.

OTOH, if it is taken to mean a gathering of friends who happen to be
urglers, then, of course, the host has the right to restrict admittance to
his or her friends, or, at least, to 'non-enemies'.

In this instance, it seems to me the organiser is extending a personal
invitation to her premises, and is not acting on behalf of the group, and
therefore retains every right to exclude 'unwelcome guests', whoever they
may be, whatever one may think of the manner of the announcement of the
exclusions.