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

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?
--
June Hughes- Hide quoted text -

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.


Judith

In message .com,
" writes
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
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- Hide quoted text -

What do you mean by 'hide quoted text'? I had no quoted text.
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.

It is a meet of selected urg people, and therefore private. As already
said, this is Usenet.
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.

Yes, I expect they are. I can't understand why you insist on carrying
it on.
--
June Hughes

On Feb 28, 5:28 pm, June Hughes
wrote:
In message .com,
" writes


Would you like it if it were you
who were excluded?
--
June Hughes-

Yes, I expect they are. I can't understand why you insist on carrying
it on.
--
June Hughes-

That's a bit daft June as you asked me a question and I answered it!!!

Judith

"June Hughes" wrote in message
...
In message .com,
" writes
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 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- Hide quoted text -

What do you mean by 'hide quoted text'? I had no quoted text.
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.

It is a meet of selected urg people, and therefore private. As already
said, this is Usenet.
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.

Yes, I expect they are. I can't understand why you insist on carrying it
on.

So, why are you?


--
June Hughes

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

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.

"June Hughes" wrote in message
...
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?

It wouldn't bother me, if someone had been so offensive to me as you seem to
think Sacha has been to some, I would have killfiled them so I would not be
aware of anything they have said.

I am getting VERY tired of all this backbiting.

Please, all of you, let it rest.


Alan

--
June Hughes