Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
urg meet
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
urg meet
In message , Sacha
writes 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. ;-)) 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). -- June Hughes |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
urg meet
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) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
urg meet
June Hughes wrote:
Can they be 'genuine urglers' if they don't post...? I suppose not. Lurglers? pk |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
urg meet
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? -- June Hughes |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Devon urg meet | United Kingdom | |||
misinformation about urg meet here | United Kingdom | |||
URG meet 2007? | United Kingdom | |||
Parallel lines in agriculture do meet? | sci.agriculture | |||
++ Meet More Women Easily With Pheromones ++ | Ponds |