"BAC" wrote in message
"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.

No it's not her usual style but I dare say she like most of us has her
limits both online and offline.

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.

Perhaps. No-one could ever describe her as less than astute.

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.

I'm afraid I simply cannot bring myself to agree with that. I see it as
being amtter of principle. I can understand how someone would not like
confrontation but if they are so moved by something that they feel is so
wrong that they need to take some action then that action should reflect
their principles. The expression "All that is necessary for evil to triumph
is for good men to do nothing" comes to mind. If they think that something
is genuinely beyond the Pale then they should be prepared to stand up and be
counted.

I see it as totally unprincipled to do something in private that they are
not prepared to do in public. That falls into the sneaky category in my
personal lexicon.

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".

I've always preferred Betjeman myself. Much less censorious of human
frailty.

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

snip

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.

I'm afraid I simply cannot bring myself to agree with that. I see it as
being amtter of principle. I can understand how someone would not like
confrontation but if they are so moved by something that they feel is so
wrong that they need to take some action then that action should reflect
their principles. The expression "All that is necessary for evil to
triumph is for good men to do nothing" comes to mind. If they think that
something is genuinely beyond the Pale then they should be prepared to
stand up and be counted.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but there are those who prefer
to do good by stealth, and who do not see any contradiction in expressing
private support and encouragement, from the sidelines, to an individual
involved in a dispute, without themselves becoming embroiled in the dispute.


I see it as totally unprincipled to do something in private that they are
not prepared to do in public. That falls into the sneaky category in my
personal lexicon.

The mind boggles! I can think of many things I would be very reluctant to
say or do in public, which I have said and done without turning a hair in
private. I bet you can too.


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".

I've always preferred Betjeman myself. Much less censorious of human
frailty.


Burns also said 'a man's a man for a that' which was pretty understanding.

"Anne Jackson" wrote in message
...
The message from "BAC" contains these words:

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

No, Rabbie actually said
'O wad some Power the giftie gie us
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion:


A far more accurate rendition, no doot :-)

In reply to BAC ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

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


Wasn't it "the giftie gie us"?

I research Scottish dialect to write ridiculous kids' books in a Oor Wullie
stylee.

Sad, eh?

On 30 Aug, 17:33, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
What a delightful capacity you have to get any and all facts mangled almost
beyond recognition.

) See, if you can do it so can we. Now you know how it feels to have
the truth and the facts mangled up. You always rear up your ugly face
when there's a fight. How very very strange.

On 30 Aug, 18:59, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from La Puce contains these words:
I'm quite peculiar

Decidedly so!

) How is it going up there? Any sign of summer yet?! g

On 31 Aug, 09:35, Zhang DaWei wrote:
And she has also fallen out with me, over the taste of dog meat.

David, we talked about this and I had apologised to you twice - since
the first time you didn't seem to understand my apology nor would you
seem to accept it. You however quite enjoyed going on about facts
which frankly started to get thiner and thiner with each posts. But if
you want to be 'fallen out' with me, be my guest!

"La Puce" wrote in message
On 30 Aug, 17:33, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
What a delightful capacity you have to get any and all facts mangled
almost
beyond recognition.

) See, if you can do it so can we.

Nice try to try to include others in the mangling of facts by using "we".

The truth is that you are the only one who regularly, deliberately and
willfully mangles the facts and then chooses to lie about it.

You've lied at least twice in the last 2 days. Remember this:
La Puce" wrote in message
I've fallen out with nobody here Sacha. I've had quarells with you and
you alone. The rest are discussions

You claim has been refuted by myself and three others.

And this:
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,

I've refuted that by posting the facts and you don't even have the decency
to acknowledge that you have libelled my husband.

You really must think people are amazingly stupid to believe you when the
proof of your duplicity and lies and fact mangling is still right there on
the screen in the current thread.

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

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.

I'm afraid I simply cannot bring myself to agree with that. I see it as
being amtter of principle. I can understand how someone would not like
confrontation but if they are so moved by something that they feel is so
wrong that they need to take some action then that action should reflect
their principles. The expression "All that is necessary for evil to
triumph is for good men to do nothing" comes to mind. If they think that
something is genuinely beyond the Pale then they should be prepared to
stand up and be counted.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but there are those who prefer
to do good by stealth, and who do not see any contradiction in expressing
private support and encouragement, from the sidelines, to an individual
involved in a dispute, without themselves becoming embroiled in the
dispute.

Interesting description. If I was asked to define "do good by stealth", I'd
say it was those who chose to do charitable work by being prepared to work
behind the scenes for years without recogniton.

Like you said, I'm entitled to my opinion and I just can't reconcile
remaining silent in a public forum, which is by it's very nature a
community, when they see something occurring with which they don't agree.

I see it as totally unprincipled to do something in private that they are
not prepared to do in public. That falls into the sneaky category in my
personal lexicon.

The mind boggles! I can think of many things I would be very reluctant to
say or do in public, which I have said and done without turning a hair in
private. I bet you can too.

I'm not thinking of pubic scatching here or farting or some such similar
behaviour. We both know that we are writing about what those "supporters"
you mention who have identified something that they find offensive and which
they see in their own minds as being unacceptable behaviour.

Would they stand and do nothing if they saw a shoplifter or an assault? And
if they wouldn't, where do they draw the line in their sense of personal
responsibility?

I do recognise that what I see as being a matter of principle may not seen
that way by others.

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

I've always preferred Betjeman myself. Much less censorious of human
frailty.

Burns also said 'a man's a man for a that' which was pretty understanding.

Yeah but he doesn't have Betjeman's sense of whimsy or humour or skill with
words.

In reply to FarmI (ask@itshall be given) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say
:

Like you said, I'm entitled to my opinion and I just can't reconcile
remaining silent in a public forum, which is by it's very nature a
community, when they see something occurring with which they don't
agree.

And then ...

Yeah but he doesn't have Betjeman's sense of whimsy or humour or
skill with words.

So, I have to say that Betjeman's "Ode On The Marriage Of Charles And Diana"
is possibly the singularly most trite piece writing since the great
McGonegal wrote the "The Railway Bridge of the Silvery Tay".

Burns was a genius.

In reply to Uncle Marvo ) who wrote
this in , I, Marvo, say :

singularly most trite piece

which, clearly, meant "single most trite piece of"

So maybe Betjeman had an off day too :-)

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

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


Wasn't it "the giftie gie us"?

Quite possibly. In fact, I remembered it as 'the giftie gie us', but when I
googled it there were umpteen 'alternatives' and I chose one which I thought
looked a reasonable near standard English translation, not knowing what a
'giftie' is.


I research Scottish dialect to write ridiculous kids' books in a Oor
Wullie stylee.

Sad, eh?


Not at all, it sounds good to me.

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

snip

The mind boggles! I can think of many things I would be very reluctant to
say or do in public, which I have said and done without turning a hair in
private. I bet you can too.

I'm not thinking of pubic scatching here or farting or some such similar
behaviour. We both know that we are writing about what those "supporters"
you mention who have identified something that they find offensive and
which they see in their own minds as being unacceptable behaviour.

They have not necessarily seen something they find offensive or
unacceptable, since that may not be their motivation for contacting a poster
by private e-mail. They may well just empathise with a person for receiving
a tongue lashing they don't think was entirely deserved. Their support may
also be couched in terms of mitigation of the 'offence' of the 'bully', e.g.
'don't take it to heart, old so and so does go off on one every now and
again, but he/she means well and has been a great servant to the group,
etc.'.


Would they stand and do nothing if they saw a shoplifter or an assault?
And if they wouldn't, where do they draw the line in their sense of
personal responsibility?

We're not all fearless 'have a go heroes' willing to risk life and limb
regardless of the possible consequences. Sometimes, people won't even come
forward as witnesses, for fear of the possible consequences.


I do recognise that what I see as being a matter of principle may not seen
that way by others.

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

I've always preferred Betjeman myself. Much less censorious of human
frailty.

Burns also said 'a man's a man for a that' which was pretty
understanding.

Yeah but he doesn't have Betjeman's sense of whimsy or humour or skill
with words.


Betjeman was a great poet, IMO, unfairly looked own on by some as trite and
populist, rather than accessible and relevant to his period, but Burns was a
considerable genius. Fortunately, we don't have to 'rank' them, but can
enjoy them both as the mood takes us :-)

Sounds good to me too :-) I am thinking about moving to Scotland, maybe I
should read some of your books

kate



I research Scottish dialect to write ridiculous kids' books in a Oor
Wullie stylee.

Sad, eh?


Not at all, it sounds good to me.

On 31/8/07 14:33, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


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

snip

The mind boggles! I can think of many things I would be very reluctant to
say or do in public, which I have said and done without turning a hair in
private. I bet you can too.

I'm not thinking of pubic scatching here or farting or some such similar
behaviour. We both know that we are writing about what those "supporters"
you mention who have identified something that they find offensive and
which they see in their own minds as being unacceptable behaviour.

They have not necessarily seen something they find offensive or
unacceptable, since that may not be their motivation for contacting a poster
by private e-mail. They may well just empathise with a person for receiving
a tongue lashing they don't think was entirely deserved. Their support may
also be couched in terms of mitigation of the 'offence' of the 'bully', e.g.
'don't take it to heart, old so and so does go off on one every now and
again, but he/she means well and has been a great servant to the group,
etc.'.

The long and the short of it is that if people are allowed to scream, swear,
rant and rave because their gardening advice is corrected, then this group
will disintegrate.
If that sort of behaviour and the things that have been said to me and about
me over the matter of how to plant an oleander is to be tolerated and
considered reasonable as it proliferates - and it will - then we can kiss
urg goodbye because it's in its death throes. Already one outstandingly
valuable contributor no longer posts and another posts very rarely and it is
because of the way Puce has behaved here to people she dislikes. I have
been told that directly. Last time she started on this sort of mud throwing
I said she had brought this group to an all-time low and quite a few people
agreed. So it is up to those of us who want this group to continue to be
enjoyable and to offer help of a high standard, to see that it does so.
There isn't one other person on urg who flies into an outrageous tantrum
just because someone else disagrees with the advice they've given.
When I was corrected the other day for suggesting sheep should be put onto
land to be cleared, I took the correction instantly and didn't feel remotely
tempted to start calling the other posters by a whole raft of insulting
names, involving their age, appearance or families. There is only one
person here who behaves precisely like that and it should not be allowed to
snowball into "oh that's just how she is". Ignore her behaviour for fear of
her disgusting temper and we will get the group we have allowed urg to
become. I'm sorry to pontificate like this but the change in this group over
a year or so is really alarming. 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.'