On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:37:18 +0000, June Hughes
wrote:

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.

What's wrong with that? When you have a party, don't you choose who
to invite and who not to invite?
As I see it the only alternative would be to invite all comers, with
the risk that certain troublemakers might turn up to carry on their
argument in person.

As to identifying the people by name, that seems unnecessary and would
only cause more argument. If anyone has reason to think it might apply
to them, they will presumably choose to stay away.

I have never met Sacha, but in her place I would do just the same.

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 28/2/07 11:11, in article , "Charlie
Pridham" wrote:

snip


Just to let everyone know that whilst we can not offer anyone a bed for
the
night we shall as Sacha has indicated be home on both days and are happy
to
entertain you all either in dribs and drabs or on mass!
We know we are a long way down and most will not want to make the extra
journey. Any one who does want to make a short break of it we are within
half a mile of two camp sites and numerous B&Bs I will ask nearer the
time
who might be coming.

Charlie, how long would it take to drive from our meet to your meet, do
you
think? I'm just thinking it would help people to plan their weekend as
they
could decide whether to drive down to your area on the Saturday night or
the
Sunday morning.
I imagine being a Saturday meet here, it's going to be difficult for you
and
Liz to get away and come to lunch here? If you can make it, that would be
lovely!
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)


Liz says its about a 2 hour drive via Plymouth and if no one wants to come
down here (i.e. no takers!) then we may consider coming up on the Saturday
in order to meet people although its our only free weekend until end of
September so we may chicken out :~)
--
Charlie, gardening in Cornwall.
http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of National Plant Collections of Clematis viticella (cvs) and
Lapageria rosea

On 1/3/07 10:39, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On 28 Feb 2007 15:58:54 -0800, "
wrote:

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. )
--

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.

We are tempted.

Ferry to Plymouth?

Can anybody explain why Google groups inserts
"Hide quoted text -
Show quoted text -" ?

No, sorry!
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

On 1/3/07 10:40, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:13:30 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

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. )

?

in the dark.

Storm lanterns, torches in bamboo poles? The possibilities are endless but
as it's lunch, we should be okay unless I've inadvertently chosen the date
of an eclipse or something!
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

"Martin" wrote
Can anybody explain why Google groups inserts
"Hide quoted text -
Show quoted text -" ?

I don't post via Google but often use the archive to check for past
threads or particular answers. Isn't the hide/show just for choice? You
can click on the 'show' so it reveals the whole message as written, with
the parts of the previous message that the poster quoted, or hide the
quotes if you prefer. I think it's just to save screen space.

--
Sue

On 1/3/07 10:28, in article ,
"charles" wrote:
snip

I have never met Sacha, but in her place I would do just the same.

The thing that absolutely amazes me, is that two women who so often make
crystal clear their thorough dislike of me would even consider wanting to
come to our home and make this ridiculous foot-stamping fuss about doing
something they don't want to do with someone they don't like!
If people here can't figure out for themselves who the two banned people are
and why, they really have NOT been paying attention to this group for a
lonnnnng time. Naming them would simply have given them the attention they
desire but don't merit, IMO.

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

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
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

What ! A meeting of just two people. What a horrible thought if those two
bred:-)

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:36:40 +0000, Sacha

wrote:

On 1/3/07 10:28, in article ,
"charles" wrote:
snip

I have never met Sacha, but in her place I would do just the same.

The thing that absolutely amazes me, is that two women

Duh! Sacha. All this time I thought it was a man and a woman.

Me, too. Does that mean that Mike could cruise over from the IOW and attend?

Personally, I don't see a need to mention that some people might be
excluded, if it is made clear that people wishing to attend should contact
the organiser in advance, to request a 'ticket', and that entry will be
permitted to ticket holders only. That would allow the organiser to control
numbers and to exclude any known 'undesirables', if they were to apply,
which seems unlikely, with minimum of fuss and embarrassment all round.

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 1/3/07 10:28, in article ,
"charles" wrote:
snip

I have never met Sacha, but in her place I would do just the same.

The thing that absolutely amazes me, is that two women who so often make
crystal clear their thorough dislike of me would even consider wanting to
come to our home and make this ridiculous foot-stamping fuss about doing
something they don't want to do with someone they don't like!

If that's the case, then what's the point in going public on their banned
status?

"Anne Jackson" wrote

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

Q: How will the gatecrashers be kept out?

Jenny "~)

On 1/3/07 14:50, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 1/3/07 10:28, in article ,
"charles" wrote:
snip

I have never met Sacha, but in her place I would do just the same.

The thing that absolutely amazes me, is that two women who so often make
crystal clear their thorough dislike of me would even consider wanting to
come to our home and make this ridiculous foot-stamping fuss about doing
something they don't want to do with someone they don't like!

If that's the case, then what's the point in going public on their banned
status?

I'm surprised at this. June & Anne are not the people I will not have here,
though after this display both would need the hides of rhinos to imagine
they would be actually welcomed with open arms! As both of them dislike me
so intensely, I don't understand why they are making all this fuss, other
than the fact that both have made it clear that what they really want is a
fight. Pathetic! It would be much more to the point, if they were thinking
of the good of this group, if they deplored the behaviour in this group
which led to me having to do this. Common sense would dictate that I am not
having in our home, people who have sworn at me, insulted me, virtually
stalked me and in one case harassed me for years.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 17:03:41 +0100, "JennyC"
wrote:


"Anne Jackson" wrote

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

Q: How will the gatecrashers be kept out?

A: As a warning IOW man's head will be impaled on a spear over the main
gate,
boiling essential oils will be poured from the battlements.
memories of Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Martin

Beware of people lurking in the shrubbery..............nie nie nie
Jenny

On 1/3/07 14:26, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:36:40 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 1/3/07 10:28, in article ,
"charles" wrote:
snip

I have never met Sacha, but in her place I would do just the same.

The thing that absolutely amazes me, is that two women

Duh! Sacha. All this time I thought it was a man and a woman.

Dear Martin - that is probably what they want you to think. Surely you're
not falling for it?!

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

"BAC" wrote
"Martin" wrote
Duh! Sacha. All this time I thought it was a man and a woman.

Me, too. Does that mean that Mike could cruise over from the IOW and
attend?

LOL you two aren't paying attention.

The two women refers to the ones making the hoohah about who might or
might not be excluded. Everyone else knows exactly who was meant by the
exclusions, I should think.

--
Sue

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

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.
--

Thanks again. I'll be very happy to go wherever is convenient - but as
you say, it can be decided at the time.

Janet G