"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 30/8/07 15:04, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...
In reply to BAC ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I have no idea who or what you are referring to, there, so cannot
comment, except to say anyone advocating unmerited physical violence
to anyone, regardless of gender, is barking up the wrong tree, in my
view. Unless doing so humourously, as in quoting the old "Women, dogs
and walnut trees, the more you beats them, the better they be's"
rhyme, perhaps :-)

I don't think it works with dogs



I suspect it's equally ineffective with all three ...


Actually,, I've always wondered why it's supposed to work with walnut
trees.


So have I, and, personally, believe it belongs in the 'myths and fables'
category. However, I once heard old Bob Whatsit on Gardener's Question Time
claim that beating walnut trees was reserved for the timber producing
phenotype, not the nut producing one, and it was thought that bruising and
scarring the bark introduced distortions to the timber, which increased the
value of the grain pattern for gun-stocks and the like. Whether that's true
or not, I don't know.

I've just googled it and found a report from someone in France claiming that
beating their walnut trees increased the harvest.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0136203/2004/09/12.html

They could be right, of course, but OTOH the idea the conditions were simply
better for walnuts the following year seems much more likely to me.

I used to think that they beat walnut trees to make walnut whips, but that
was a very long time ago ...

"BAC" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
"La Puce" wrote in message
On 29 Aug, 00:26, Sacha wrote:
I'm the only person you've fallen out with here? Good lord
above.

snip


The rest are discussions. I've met many urglers too - I've
even answered to two emails today. Now, ask yourself why they don't
post on this forum but contact me via email?

No one would believe that. That comment is so overdone and old hat and
unbelievable that even cyber kiddies don't bother to use it any more.


Just because a comment may be misused and overdone, it doesn't follow that
it is always false.

True. Usenet is a funny place. I can still be surprised at times by the
number of nutters there are lurking on Usenet.

A few years back, when I was on the receiving end of the
rougher side of Janet's tongue, for having disagreed with her over
something (can't remember what), I received several unsolicited e-mails of
'support' from urglers, who chose to keep out of the discussion on the
open forum. I didn't mention it at the time, because, frankly, 'flames'
don't bother me, and I didn't want to embarrass them, but it's true
nonetheless.

Well I have also had online disagreements with Janet, and they have been
fairly robust ones. I have never considered Janet's comments to be in the
category of 'flames', merely robust and vigorous disagreements. But then I
don't run away from disagreements either. Janet has a good turn of phrase
that has a bite to it on occasions but I consider pitting wits against
someone of Janet's abilities is all part of life's experiences.

I do find it astounding however that anyone would feel the need to send off
e-mails of "support" to one side but then not be prepared to state their
views in the open. It says to me that such silent and hidden "supporters"
are inadaquate in a number of ways. But then perhaps that just reflects my
loathing for any form of sneakiness.

Hence it is possible IMO that Helene may well have 'supporters' who choose
to remain anonymous. It takes all sorts, you know, and the fact you
clearly can't stand her doesn't mean everybody else does, too.

It's true, I do loathe her. I can't stand stalkers or liars in real life
and I like them just as little on Usenet. It could be just possible that she
has the odd supporter. Clearly they could not be very fussy about the
company they keep and it is probably just the same strange ones we see here.

On 30/8/07 16:32, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 30/8/07 15:04, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...
In reply to BAC ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I have no idea who or what you are referring to, there, so cannot
comment, except to say anyone advocating unmerited physical violence
to anyone, regardless of gender, is barking up the wrong tree, in my
view. Unless doing so humourously, as in quoting the old "Women, dogs
and walnut trees, the more you beats them, the better they be's"
rhyme, perhaps :-)

I don't think it works with dogs



I suspect it's equally ineffective with all three ...


Actually,, I've always wondered why it's supposed to work with walnut
trees.


So have I, and, personally, believe it belongs in the 'myths and fables'
category. However, I once heard old Bob Whatsit on Gardener's Question Time
claim that beating walnut trees was reserved for the timber producing
phenotype, not the nut producing one, and it was thought that bruising and
scarring the bark introduced distortions to the timber, which increased the
value of the grain pattern for gun-stocks and the like. Whether that's true
or not, I don't know.

The nut tree is Juglans regia but I don't know what the other would be.
AIUI, the one we grow in UK is not considered as good for the timber because
we chose stock more for its fruiting.

I've just googled it and found a report from someone in France claiming that
beating their walnut trees increased the harvest.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0136203/2004/09/12.html

I'll go and give one of ours a quick bashing tonight and see if it helps.
It's finally produced at least 3!

They could be right, of course, but OTOH the idea the conditions were simply
better for walnuts the following year seems much more likely to me.

I used to think that they beat walnut trees to make walnut whips, but that
was a very long time ago ...


Aaaaaah! ;-)


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 30 Aug, 16:32, "BAC" wrote:

I used to think that they beat walnut trees to make walnut whips, but that
was a very long time ago ...

My oldest son used to think that choc bars grew on trees. What a
coincidence ) I had to burst his bubble and ask his childminder to
tell him that every time I used to pick him up she used to throw a
choc bar at the bottom of the tree saying it was my doing because he
had been a good boy, and I talked to trees ... Took him ages to
beleive us.

On Aug 30, 4:44 pm, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:


True. Usenet is a funny place. I can still be surprised at times by the
number of nutters there are lurking on Usenet.


Snip

So, why feed them?
The occasional bitch fests which errupt around these parts reflect
very poorly on *all* who partake. They are extraordinarily tiresome,
and are best kept out of and ignored. Certain combinations of people
turning up on a UKRG thread now cause me to stop reading - because I
know a row is afoot, and I don't come here for rows.
This is *only* usenet. The killfile is your best friend. And if
people must respond in the name of correcting misleading gardening
advice - lest a cataclysm might ensue if they don't - why can't they
address the incorrect advice, ignore the incorrect advice giver's
jibes, and pocket their own ad-hominems?

Cat(h)

On 30 Aug, 16:18, "JennyC" wrote:
"BAC" wrote
Hence it is possible IMO that Helene may well have 'supporters' who choose
to remain anonymous. It takes all sorts, you know, and the fact you
clearly can't stand her doesn't mean everybody else does, too.

And even some not anonymous ones :~))

I knew you were one from an 'all sorts' lot you ;o)) And why not ...
the world is made of all sorts indeed, wouldn't be going around if
there weren't, but thanks to Trevor, Uncle, John, Marilyn, Shazzbat,
Rusty, Alistair, Paul, Selene ... and others, you know who you are
innit, to have contributed to my sanity. Bless you for being from that
rare 'all sorts' lot. Sweet indeed.

"Cat(h)" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 30, 4:44 pm, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:


True. Usenet is a funny place. I can still be surprised at times by the
number of nutters there are lurking on Usenet.


Snip

So, why feed them?
The occasional bitch fests which errupt around these parts reflect
very poorly on *all* who partake. They are extraordinarily tiresome,
and are best kept out of and ignored. Certain combinations of people
turning up on a UKRG thread now cause me to stop reading - because I
know a row is afoot, and I don't come here for rows.
This is *only* usenet. The killfile is your best friend. And if
people must respond in the name of correcting misleading gardening
advice - lest a cataclysm might ensue if they don't - why can't they
address the incorrect advice, ignore the incorrect advice giver's
jibes, and pocket their own ad-hominems?

Cat(h)


Well said Cat(h)

Pigs will fly first though :-((

You see the response to your post to prove me right ....... again

Kindest regards

Mike


--
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
Reunion Bournemouth August/September 2007 FULL. WAIT LIST OPERATING
www.rneba.org.uk to find your ex-Greenie mess mates
www.iowtours.com for all ex-Service Reunions. More being added daily
"Navy Days" Portsmouth 25th - 27th July 2008. RN Shipmates will have a Stand

"La Puce" wrote in message

So please, don't you go piggy backing the ozzy loon who has endangered
the life of her husband for having assaulted some woman,

What a delightful capacity you have to get any and all facts mangled almost
beyond recognition.

If you want to refer to me then do try to spell it correctly. That should
be "Aussie loon", or, alternatively "Ozzie loon" (but the latter is more
often used by those who are less literate).

And just to set you straight on my husband - neither he (nor I) have ever
assaulted anyone in our lives, either male or female. I never put his life
in danger. He, solely because he knew the attempted murderer in an entirely
proper and correct work relationship, inadvertently and blamelessly put my
life and that of our offspring in danger. This endangerment to myself and
offspring was due solely to the means by which this person tried to murder
my husband. If the attempted murderer had chosen a more effective means of
attempting the murder, then only my husband's life would have been at risk.
The person who tried to murder my husband was initially just obssessively
fixated on certain individuals. He then began to become increasingly
vengeful and abusive and less and less grounded in reality. He then started
stalking a number of people including my husband and then he really tipped
over the edge. He is still in gaol. He has lost his career, his assets and
his family. His future is bleak as he will never be able to be employed
again in his chosen field as he would never pass the police records checks.
he will be forever doomed to wroking in low paid scut work. Poor, silly
sod.

It has all the elements needed to be a modern fable for those with sense
enough to learn from his destructive behaviour patterns.

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 30/8/07 15:04, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...
In reply to BAC ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I have no idea who or what you are referring to, there, so cannot
comment, except to say anyone advocating unmerited physical violence
to anyone, regardless of gender, is barking up the wrong tree, in my
view. Unless doing so humourously, as in quoting the old "Women, dogs
and walnut trees, the more you beats them, the better they be's"
rhyme, perhaps :-)

I don't think it works with dogs



I suspect it's equally ineffective with all three ...


Actually,, I've always wondered why it's supposed to work with walnut
trees.

I think it has something to do with trying to polinate the flowers.

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 30/8/07 14:29, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 30 Aug, 11:34, Sacha wrote:
Whether she has supporters or not, she's caused lots of trouble and
suspicion in the past with her claims that people email her anti other
group
members. Then she threatens to disclose those emails if she has a fall
out
with the 'supporters'!

What?! Judith wrote to me via email when I was having trouble with
Janet Barrowcloth. Then she 'turned' against me because she realised
that I wouldn't give a fig for her 'friendship' nor would I listen to
her patronising and boring rubbish. I'm quite peculiar with whom I let
into my life Mrs Hubbard.

You are indeed peculiar - barking mad, I'd think. A liar with a selective
memory is a very nasty thing.

So please, don't you go piggy backing the ozzy loon who has endangered
the life of her husband for having assaulted some woman, and PLEASE
stop encouraging any other worms currently crawling out from under
rocks. These are the people we never see gardening posts from but when
the shit hits the fan you can be sure they'll be there. Why do you
need that crap Sacha Hubbard?! Why do you need to fight and scheme and
be nasty on a regular basis. Do you take some meds or something?!
Surely you don't have pmt still, do you?!


Bravo, Puce. An excellent demonstration of your refinement and good
taste.
Just be quiet, you tiresome little woman. You do this every time you
don't
get away with posting garbage that would kill off peoples' plants. That
was
a perfectly rational discussion until you flew into one of your manic
states
because you were proved wrong not only by your own foolishness but by
Judith's neighbours. You can never keep a still tongue and just *learn*
something. God help your family, it must be like living with a
constipated
volcano.

Why don't you do as I have done, put La Puke in your killfile, I've not seen
anything from her for ages, only when someone responds to one of her posts!

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"BAC" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
snip

A few years back, when I was on the receiving end of the
rougher side of Janet's tongue, for having disagreed with her over
something (can't remember what), I received several unsolicited e-mails
of 'support' from urglers, who chose to keep out of the discussion on the
open forum. I didn't mention it at the time, because, frankly, 'flames'
don't bother me, and I didn't want to embarrass them, but it's true
nonetheless.

Well I have also had online disagreements with Janet, and they have been
fairly robust ones. I have never considered Janet's comments to be in the
category of 'flames', merely robust and vigorous disagreements.

I had a couple of disagreements with Janet, on this group and another, and
the occasion which prompted e-mails of support was when she made a crack
criticising my personality rather than my argument. I agree that was not her
usual MO, I must have got her on a bad day, nobody's perfect.

But then I
don't run away from disagreements either. Janet has a good turn of phrase
that has a bite to it on occasions but I consider pitting wits against
someone of Janet's abilities is all part of life's experiences.

I always enjoyed my discussions with Janet, and have great respect for her
intellect and her powers of expression. I thought she would have returned to
the group by now, but she must have found another outlet.


I do find it astounding however that anyone would feel the need to send
off e-mails of "support" to one side but then not be prepared to state
their views in the open. It says to me that such silent and hidden
"supporters" are inadaquate in a number of ways. But then perhaps that
just reflects my loathing for any form of sneakiness.

Some people have a fear/loathing of confrontation (perhaps that's one reason
why we have secret ballots), they just can't handle it - what more natural
than that they should empathise, privately, with someone they perceive as
being bullied, yet draw the line short of backing their 'friend' in public?
That's not being 'sneaky' if you ask me. Sending private e-mails supporting
one person whilst posting stuff designed to keep 'in' with the 'other side',
now that would be sneaky.


Hence it is possible IMO that Helene may well have 'supporters' who
choose to remain anonymous. It takes all sorts, you know, and the fact
you clearly can't stand her doesn't mean everybody else does, too.

It's true, I do loathe her. I can't stand stalkers or liars in real life
and I like them just as little on Usenet. It could be just possible that
she has the odd supporter. Clearly they could not be very fussy about the
company they keep and it is probably just the same strange ones we see
here.


Now I understand better why Burns said, " Oh what a gift, a gift to gie us,
to see ourselves as others see us".

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"BAC" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
"La Puce" wrote in message
On 29 Aug, 00:26, Sacha wrote:
I'm the only person you've fallen out with here? Good lord
above.

snip


The rest are discussions. I've met many urglers too - I've
even answered to two emails today. Now, ask yourself why they don't
post on this forum but contact me via email?

No one would believe that. That comment is so overdone and old hat and
unbelievable that even cyber kiddies don't bother to use it any more.


Just because a comment may be misused and overdone, it doesn't follow
that it is always false.

True. Usenet is a funny place. I can still be surprised at times by the
number of nutters there are lurking on Usenet.

I'm proud to be a Nutter, I was stationed on HMS Nuthatch for a year or so,
and very nice it was.

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"BAC" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
"La Puce" wrote in message
On 29 Aug, 00:26, Sacha wrote:
I'm the only person you've fallen out with here? Good lord
above.

snip


The rest are discussions. I've met many urglers too - I've
even answered to two emails today. Now, ask yourself why they don't
post on this forum but contact me via email?

No one would believe that. That comment is so overdone and old hat and
unbelievable that even cyber kiddies don't bother to use it any more.


Just because a comment may be misused and overdone, it doesn't follow
that it is always false.

True. Usenet is a funny place. I can still be surprised at times by the
number of nutters there are lurking on Usenet.

I'm proud to be a Nutter, I was stationed on HMS Nuthatch for a year or
so, and very nice it was.



Now that 'is' North ........ Cumberland ;-)

Mike

--
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
Reunion Bournemouth August/September 2007 FULL. WAIT LIST OPERATING
www.rneba.org.uk to find your ex-Greenie mess mates
www.iowtours.com for all ex-Service Reunions. More being added daily
"Navy Days" Portsmouth 25th - 27th July 2008. RN Shipmates will have a Stand

On 30/8/07 18:01, in article ,
"Alan Holmes" wrote:

snip

Why don't you do as I have done, put La Puke in your killfile, I've not seen
anything from her for ages, only when someone responds to one of her posts!


For the reasons given elsewhere, Alan. If she gives bad information nobody
would correct her. The person receiving it then thinks she must be right
because nobody corrects or contradicts her, not realising that it's actually
because she's in a dozen kill files.
Had Judith been a newbie asking how to over winter an oleander in a part of
France that has viciously harsh winter temperatures, she would have taken
Puce's advice to bung it in the ground and 'keep its feet wet' because
that's what they do in Bordeaux (where the climate is totally different)
and that the watering regime was what someone advised for such plants in
pots *in the summer*. Remember - Judith was asking what to do with it in
the winter.
Puce completely missed out the advice on the site which she copied from the
net and that was to keep this plant on the dry side in winter. She would
not believe that Judith's village in France is in high mountainous country
and gets extremely cold, even though Judith explained that to her. So,
Judith's plant, which is a present she very much wants to keep alive, would
then die and Judith would be upset but Puce would be happy, because nobody
had told the theoretically newbie Judith that Puce was wrong.
A few of us were having a calm and rational discussion on the matter until I
contradicted Puce - perfectly politely - and she erupted into one of her
furies and name-calling episodes. *That's* why I don't put her in my kill
file and why she has insulted me, my husband, my marriage, my friends, my
age, my hormones and my appearance.
She was caught out yet again, talking nonsense but she absolutely cannot
withdraw, admit it, apologise or just shut up. Believe me, kill filing Puce
is doing her a favour because she can then get away with so much nonsense
and a couple of disaffected-with-urg people cheer her on.
However, as she has now made the usual vulgar exhibition of herself with no
help from anyone else, I think we can safely say that she can be left to her
own devices until she does her thing again to some other poor soul.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'

On 30/8/07 18:02, in article , "BAC"
wrote:

snip

Sending private e-mails supporting
one person whilst posting stuff designed to keep 'in' with the 'other side',
now that would be sneaky.

Both have been done, believe me and vice versa.

snip

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'