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

Mustn't grumble, we've had three good days this week...the
weather isn't important any more, since I now have my gorgeous
summerhouse to sit in...and party in! ;-)

My invitation must have got lost in the post!

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
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.


it's bad enough when the trolls descend upon us!!

The correct way to deal with this is to offer the advice you believe to be
correct. it is up to the OP to look at the posts and to decide based on a
number of views which is the best cause of action to take. one would hope
that enough replies are received and therefore the OP can look at the the
replies to see consistency. Judith posts on a regular basis. if what is
said about La Puce is true then Judith is more than aware of this.

I do not believe it is right that these slagging off sessions continue at
every opportunity. let's all look after our own back gardens, give advice
where applicable and let people make their own minds up.

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 31/8/07 14:33, in article , "BAC"
wrote:

snip

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.

As you know, in an unmoderated group, people cannot be prevented from
posting whatever they like.

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.

The fact a person cannot be prevented from posting doesn't mean that readers
have to accept whatever is posted as reasonable, nor do they actually have
to read what has been posted from a source they dislike and distrust. A
constant 'tit for tat' feud between group contributors will probably kill
off the group for the purposes of sensible discussion, pretty quickly.

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.

And how do you suggest that should be done? You can't prevent Helene from
posting, the only actions you can influence are your own and those of people
of similar opinion. The way I see it, there are three possible strategies :-
(a) 'Jump' on her at every opportunity in an attempt to make posting here
so unp-leasant she desists.
(b) Ignore her.
(c) Make peace.

Strategy (a) probably wouldn't work - I can't see her folding her tents and
stealing away in the night because people have been unpleasant to her, it
would probably just attract retaliation.
Strategy (b) would eliminate direct tensions between the 'warring' parties,
a bit like the Cold War, and there would probably be two rival camps within
the group, each appearing to ignore the other.
Strategy (c) would be the best solution, in theory, but I fear that
particular horse bolted ages ago.

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

What sort of group do you think urg will become if it is characterised by a
continuous exchange of insults between two warring factions? I've seen a
group where virtually every post from any source is examined by each faction
for partiality to the other, or for 'ammunition' in the war, and it
eventually kills off 'normal' discussion entirely. I do hope you find a
solution, because the combined expertise of group members is a very valuable
and stimulating resource, and it would be a shame for it to be lost.

To digress, I knew a farmer who always used sheep as part of his hay meadow
management programme, in fact almost the only means of clearance he used
were sheep after the harvest, and mechanical removal of thistles. Sheep dung
and river flood were his only fertilisers, and his meadows were alive with a
huge variety of native flora, which he was convinced 'sweetened the hay' and
which he said his sheep sought out from the hay in winter. When he died in
his 80s, the land went to younger more modern farmers, and the usual grass
monoculture with silage and cattle was there within a year. The same chap
also loaned out sheep and goats to help maintain local orchards. A bygone
age, I'm afraid.

On 31/8/07 19:48, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

The fact a person cannot be prevented from posting doesn't mean that readers
have to accept whatever is posted as reasonable, nor do they actually have
to read what has been posted from a source they dislike and distrust. A
constant 'tit for tat' feud between group contributors will probably kill
off the group for the purposes of sensible discussion, pretty quickly.

But a group in which one person is able freely to post poor information will
flourish if he/she is unchecked or unquestioned because he or she is kill
filed or ignored for the sake of p&q?

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.

And how do you suggest that should be done? You can't prevent Helene from
posting, the only actions you can influence are your own and those of people
of similar opinion. The way I see it, there are three possible strategies :-
(a) 'Jump' on her at every opportunity in an attempt to make posting here
so unp-leasant she desists.
(b) Ignore her.
(c) Make peace.

Strategy (a) probably wouldn't work - I can't see her folding her tents and
stealing away in the night because people have been unpleasant to her, it
would probably just attract retaliation.
Strategy (b) would eliminate direct tensions between the 'warring' parties,
a bit like the Cold War, and there would probably be two rival camps within
the group, each appearing to ignore the other.
Strategy (c) would be the best solution, in theory, but I fear that
particular horse bolted ages ago.

None of the above should be necessary and that is something you consistently
overlook. If anyone - anyone at all - is mistaken is what they post here it
should be possible for anyone else to correct it without being the victim of
abuse.


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

What sort of group do you think urg will become if it is characterised by a
continuous exchange of insults between two warring factions? I've seen a
group where virtually every post from any source is examined by each faction
for partiality to the other, or for 'ammunition' in the war, and it
eventually kills off 'normal' discussion entirely. I do hope you find a
solution, because the combined expertise of group members is a very valuable
and stimulating resource, and it would be a shame for it to be lost.

I wonder what you think I've been saying or indeed, why I've bothered to say
it. I give up.
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.'

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

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".

I haven't read the "Ode to the Marriage....." but I wouldn't be surprised if
it was appalling. I thought that Elton's John's rendition of Candle in the
Wind as "England's Rose" (????) was mawkish. But then I was never a Di fan.
I thought she was a manipulator and not very stable.

Burns was a genius.

Each to his own said the old woman as she kissed the cow. Have you read
Betjeman's "On a Portrait of a Deaf Man"?

"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
"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.'.

???? But you think they are unable to post that in public? The mind
boggles.

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.

No wonder society is going to the dogs.

(snip)
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 :-)

I don't dislike Burns. I just don't read any of his poetry very often.
And if we did have to rank poets, I think I'd probably change my ranking
week (or month) about and put at top whoever I'd read most recently.

I'd think I'd do the same with authors.

On Aug 31, 7:47 pm, "Space" wrote:
"Sacha" wrote in message

. uk...





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.

it's bad enough when the trolls descend upon us!!

The correct way to deal with this is to offer the advice you believe to be
correct. it is up to the OP to look at the posts and to decide based on a
number of views which is the best cause of action to take. one would hope
that enough replies are received and therefore the OP can look at the the
replies to see consistency. Judith posts on a regular basis. if what is
said about La Puce is true then Judith is more than aware of this.

I do not believe it is right that these slagging off sessions continue at
every opportunity. let's all look after our own back gardens, give advice
where applicable and let people make their own minds up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Space, I only know that I post here to learn, my knowledge is
slight. What I do know is that without doubt I would trust the advice
of Sacha and most others. I won't comment on La Puce, Google has my
opinion of her, nothing can be gained by reposting and all I want to
do here, is to learn from those who are experts, I know who they are.
I will not contribute to a thread where my feelings are recorded and
noted, so I will bow out. However, I state, firmly that I
acknoweledge Sacha's expert advice - always.

Judith

On 1/9/07 17:52, in article
,
" wrote:
snip

Hi Space, I only know that I post here to learn, my knowledge is
slight. What I do know is that without doubt I would trust the advice
of Sacha and most others. I won't comment on La Puce, Google has my
opinion of her, nothing can be gained by reposting and all I want to
do here, is to learn from those who are experts, I know who they are.
I will not contribute to a thread where my feelings are recorded and
noted, so I will bow out. However, I state, firmly that I
acknoweledge Sacha's expert advice - always.

Judith

V. kind of you, Judith but I really don't see myself as an expert! I have
some experience and where mine doesn't cover a question here, I ask the real
experts, my husband or my step-son. But I do always say when I'm quoting
them.


--
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.'

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 1/9/07 17:52, in article
,
" wrote:
snip

Hi Space, I only know that I post here to learn, my knowledge is
slight. What I do know is that without doubt I would trust the advice
of Sacha and most others. I won't comment on La Puce, Google has my
opinion of her, nothing can be gained by reposting and all I want to
do here, is to learn from those who are experts, I know who they are.
I will not contribute to a thread where my feelings are recorded and
noted, so I will bow out. However, I state, firmly that I
acknoweledge Sacha's expert advice - always.

Judith

V. kind of you, Judith but I really don't see myself as an expert! I have
some experience and where mine doesn't cover a question here, I ask the
real
experts, my husband or my step-son. But I do always say when I'm quoting
them.

You may not see yourself as an expert, but you do have considerable
knowledge and access to others with knowledge, which we all find useful.

On 1/9/07 20:45, in article ,
"Alan Holmes" wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 1/9/07 17:52, in article
,
" wrote:
snip

Hi Space, I only know that I post here to learn, my knowledge is
slight. What I do know is that without doubt I would trust the advice
of Sacha and most others. I won't comment on La Puce, Google has my
opinion of her, nothing can be gained by reposting and all I want to
do here, is to learn from those who are experts, I know who they are.
I will not contribute to a thread where my feelings are recorded and
noted, so I will bow out. However, I state, firmly that I
acknoweledge Sacha's expert advice - always.

Judith

V. kind of you, Judith but I really don't see myself as an expert! I have
some experience and where mine doesn't cover a question here, I ask the
real
experts, my husband or my step-son. But I do always say when I'm quoting
them.

You may not see yourself as an expert, but you do have considerable
knowledge and access to others with knowledge, which we all find useful.



The 'access' bit is important as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to
claim for myself something I don't have. Thanks, Alan.
--
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 1/9/07 17:52, in article
,
" wrote:

On Aug 31, 7:47 pm, "Space" wrote:
"Sacha" wrote in message

. uk...





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.

it's bad enough when the trolls descend upon us!!

Sorry to answer this on the back of Judith's post but your original does not
appear on my screen. Do you, perhaps, normally post under some other name?

The correct way to deal with this is to offer the advice you believe to be
correct.

That's what I did. I said that the advice offered re oleanders in Bordeaux
was dangerous for someone planting in Judith's home's area and offered
advice I believed to be more relevant. All hell and a couple of
thunderbolts then descended on my head.

it is up to the OP to look at the posts and to decide based on a
number of views which is the best cause of action to take. one would hope
that enough replies are received and therefore the OP can look at the the
replies to see consistency. Judith posts on a regular basis. if what is
said about La Puce is true then Judith is more than aware of this.

It is up to urg and its collective individuals to make sure the advice it
offers is as good as it can be. If the OP is a total beginner with no
knowledge whatsoever and on his or her first visit to a gardening group, the
wrong advice could be lethal to their plants. It would be better for urg's
reputation if we avoid that. Judith's case was just an example and because
she's a regular she knows what to accept or discard. Newbies are not so
fortunate.

I do not believe it is right that these slagging off sessions continue at
every opportunity. let's all look after our own back gardens, give advice
where applicable and let people make their own minds up.

It would be nice not to be slagged off as old, ugly or insulted as to one's
marriage, family, husband etc. when contradicting bad advice but when that's
done to me I consider the source, as I did this time. However an OP cannot
make up their mind or consider the source, if starting from a position of
total ignorance and asking for advice the first time.

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.'

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
Sorry to answer this on the back of Judith's post but your original does
not
appear on my screen. Do you, perhaps, normally post under some other
name?

I only post under one name. I have always posted to newsgroups under the
name Space.


The correct way to deal with this is to offer the advice you believe to
be
correct.

That's what I did. I said that the advice offered re oleanders in
Bordeaux
was dangerous for someone planting in Judith's home's area and offered
advice I believed to be more relevant. All hell and a couple of
thunderbolts then descended on my head.

so you did. and yes all hell broke out however it broke out in a different
thread, and was not started by the discussion of an Oleander. It was
started/allowed to continue by La Puce offering an opinion on Mike.

but can we all learn something from this? don't answer back. let Judith
see your response, La Puce's response and then your reply to La Puce's.
anything else that comes your way - dodge! we all want the last word in a
debate. but it is sometimes better not to respond. let's not forget that we
are discussing this now under Mike's thread. His intention was to cause
trouble, and he got his own way. now - seeing as you and Mike don't get on
why did you let him get his way?

it is up to the OP to look at the posts and to decide based on a
number of views which is the best cause of action to take. one would
hope
that enough replies are received and therefore the OP can look at the
the
replies to see consistency. Judith posts on a regular basis. if what
is
said about La Puce is true then Judith is more than aware of this.

It is up to urg and its collective individuals to make sure the advice it
offers is as good as it can be. If the OP is a total beginner with no
knowledge whatsoever and on his or her first visit to a gardening group,
the
wrong advice could be lethal to their plants. It would be better for
urg's
reputation if we avoid that. Judith's case was just an example and
because
she's a regular she knows what to accept or discard. Newbies are not so
fortunate.

my point exactly. offer advice, where necessary/possible provide evidence
if you believe someone else to be incorrect. This can be done
constructively. at the end of the day it is Judith's and others
responsibility to ensure they have gathered enough information.


I do not believe it is right that these slagging off sessions continue
at
every opportunity. let's all look after our own back gardens, give
advice
where applicable and let people make their own minds up.

It would be nice not to be slagged off as old, ugly or insulted as to
one's
marriage, family, husband etc. when contradicting bad advice but when
that's
done to me I consider the source, as I did this time. However an OP
cannot
make up their mind or consider the source, if starting from a position of
total ignorance and asking for advice the first time.

yes- it would be nice to be treated with respect and not to be slagged off.
but don't provide any ammunition. and by that I mean if you don't
respond/retaliate the poster has nowhere to go.

Now, all that I have said is a reflection of how we should conduct
ourselves. Consider how this situation would be dealt with if it was
someone who frequented your local social club/pub etc. for me, I would fume
about the situation to my friends, not hire a microphone and announce it to
all and sundry.

I don't consider that my reflection warrants a response. to do so would
just drag out this horrid thread. Although it would seem that I am carrying
on this thread. I hope not. My intention is to stop this thread and more
importantly to stop similar threads in the future. it is boring !!!

"Space" wrote in message

yes- it would be nice to be treated with respect and not to be slagged
off. but don't provide any ammunition. and by that I mean if you don't
respond/retaliate the poster has nowhere to go.

That may be true if you are thinking of 'normal 'people but does not apply
when it comes to the resident troublemakers here. Both Puke and Mike simply
lie if they don't think they have the "ammunition".

I don't consider that my reflection warrants a response.

But then such a call is not up to you!

And, since I don't recall that you, or any member of your family, or your
friends have been lied about, libelled, insulted or abused on a regualar
basis why would you?

YOU try being abused in regard to your age, your gender, your medical
history, your 'reputed' hormonal status, your invented medical history, your
invented family situation, your imagined appearance and any other thing that
slips into the mind of these demented trolls.

Try that and then see if you want to give such sactimonious advice.

On 3/9/07 01:03, in article
, "FarmI"
ask@itshall be given wrote:

"Space" wrote in message

yes- it would be nice to be treated with respect and not to be slagged
off. but don't provide any ammunition. and by that I mean if you don't
respond/retaliate the poster has nowhere to go.

That may be true if you are thinking of 'normal 'people but does not apply
when it comes to the resident troublemakers here. Both Puke and Mike simply
lie if they don't think they have the "ammunition".

I don't consider that my reflection warrants a response.

But then such a call is not up to you!

And, since I don't recall that you, or any member of your family, or your
friends have been lied about, libelled, insulted or abused on a regualar
basis why would you?

YOU try being abused in regard to your age, your gender, your medical
history, your 'reputed' hormonal status, your invented medical history, your
invented family situation, your imagined appearance and any other thing that
slips into the mind of these demented trolls.

Try that and then see if you want to give such sactimonious advice.

I would just add to this by saying that while I think Space's intentions are
good, lying is a very hard thing to deal with if one is to remain honest
oneself. Crowe has lied about me with regard to my behaviour in my
husband's business and Puce has lied so often about so many people and her
own behaviour, that it's impossible to count. Crowe is in many kill files,
so people probably aren't aware of the degree of harassment I've received
from him. At one time I could barely post anything at all here or in
another group he followed me into, without some snide or insulting remark
from him. Knowing that he has twice been told he will not be welcome on
these premises, he has again and very recently, tried to trap me into
allowing him to come here. He will be thrown out if he does.
Farm1 is right, Space, in dealing with Puce and Crowe, we are not dealing
with people for whom the normal limitations apply. What you're asking us to
do is to deal with these situations with one hand tied behind our backs
because we follow some sort of imaginary 'rule' why they behave precisely as
they wish, whoever they hurt or harry. Both have the hides of rhinos and
they simply don't care what they say to or about others. No normal, decent
person can combat that.


--
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.'

"Space" wrote in message
...

snip

yes- it would be nice to be treated with respect and not to be slagged
off. but don't provide any ammunition. and by that I mean if you don't
respond/retaliate the poster has nowhere to go.

Now, all that I have said is a reflection of how we should conduct
ourselves. Consider how this situation would be dealt with if it was
someone who frequented your local social club/pub etc. for me, I would
fume about the situation to my friends, not hire a microphone and announce
it to all and sundry.

I don't consider that my reflection warrants a response. to do so would
just drag out this horrid thread. Although it would seem that I am
carrying on this thread. I hope not. My intention is to stop this thread
and more importantly to stop similar threads in the future. it is boring
!!!



Sound advice, IMO, but I fear it is unlikely to be heeded. When an
antagonistic poster learns how best to needle and manipulate a combative
opponent, that opponent finds it very difficult to ignore the 'barbs' and
sometimes even comes to think it is a sign of weakness to do so.