On 30/8/07 10:23, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

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.


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'! It's a tired old game we've seen from her far too
often and it's done deliberately to divide the group and create dissent.
And if one of her supporters is a man who thinks hitting women is a good
idea, all I can say is they deserve each other.

--
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 30/8/07 10:23, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

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.


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.

Obviously, neither of us knows whether anyone e-mails her in connection with
other group members (unless we're in the Secret Police), my response was to
Fran's implied assertion that any such claims are false, which, speaking
from experience, is not necessarily the case.

Then she threatens to disclose those emails if she has a fall out
with the 'supporters'! It's a tired old game we've seen from her far too
often and it's done deliberately to divide the group and create dissent.

If she does receive unsolicited e-mails of support, that's hardly her fault.
Granted, if someone has e-mailed her privately, it's obvious he/she doesn't
want his/her views on the matter exposed on the group, and one would
normally respect that, I think. If she has been acting maliciously, as you
suggest (and I'm not in a position to say whether she has or has not)
wouldn't the most effective response be to simply ignore such remarks and
not rise to the bait?

And if one of her supporters is a man who thinks hitting women is a good
idea, all I can say is they deserve each other.


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 :-)

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





:-)

"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 ...

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.

--
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 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 ...

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.

"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.

On 30/8/07 13:38, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 30/8/07 10:23, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

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.


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.

Obviously, neither of us knows whether anyone e-mails her in connection with
other group members (unless we're in the Secret Police), my response was to
Fran's implied assertion that any such claims are false, which, speaking
from experience, is not necessarily the case.

Nonetheless, Fran has good grounds for saying what she did. Experience
teaches us that many people who claim to receive all these emails turn out
to be the people that most on a group avoid like the plague. There may well
be people who email Puce with support but considering how many people feel
she's in a fair way to wrecking this group (see fall out from her last
meltdown) they must be in a very small minority. These eruptions of fury
whenever she's corrected or found out to be less than truthful are now so
routine that most people just avoid her. The general impression is that she
thinks she must be left to give bad advice and that should never be
corrected - or else! I don't think many people here think her a congenial
cyber companion, judging by reactions to the current fit.

Then she threatens to disclose those emails if she has a fall out
with the 'supporters'! It's a tired old game we've seen from her far too
often and it's done deliberately to divide the group and create dissent.

If she does receive unsolicited e-mails of support, that's hardly her fault.

I don't think anyone has claimed it is. But it is such a well-worn tactic
of hers to claim these emails come flooding into her inbox that it would be
a joke if it wasn't a childish attempt to frighten or wound others.

Granted, if someone has e-mailed her privately, it's obvious he/she doesn't
want his/her views on the matter exposed on the group, and one would
normally respect that, I think. If she has been acting maliciously, as you
suggest (and I'm not in a position to say whether she has or has not)
wouldn't the most effective response be to simply ignore such remarks and
not rise to the bait?

Puce plants the seeds of suspicion in everyone's minds and that is not
possible to ignore because she knows/hopes it will nag away at all of us. A
lot of us chat about things other than gardening but by email - harmless
chatter about ourselves, our lives, our families etc. but Puce has worked
quite hard at conveying the impression that people pass these things on to
her. It does not make for a relaxed atmosphere in a group.

And if one of her supporters is a man who thinks hitting women is a good
idea, all I can say is they deserve each other.


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 :-)


She remarked that two men had emailed her and that one of them had said he
would like to hit me. As I say, she's entirely welcome to that kind of
support. I'd rather leave it in the gutter, where it belongs.

--
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, 14:18, Sacha wrote:
Puce plants the seeds of suspicion in everyone's minds

Only in your mind Sacha, only in your mind. It's no use. You've got a
problem, clearly. And please stop relying on the ozzy loon. She's
depressive for crying out loud, even perhaps on prozac!! Please go
back to talking of flowers. I'd rather you did that then encourage
even more fools!!! Talk about trolls ....!

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.

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?!

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.


--
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, 16:05, Sacha wrote:
Bravo, Puce. An excellent demonstration of your refinement and good taste.

Thank you. My reputation is indeed quite amazing )

Just be quiet, you tiresome little woman.

Such observation. Indeed I'm little and slim, not fat and red faced
like you.

You do this every time you don't
get away with posting garbage that would kill off peoples' plants.

Like when yesterday you told a poster to let sheep on their meadow so
that their pooh would fertilise the soil, for a wild flower meadow?!?!
YES?! You have some nerve to criticise others, you really do.

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.

I wasn't proved wrong at all. What you didn't like is that I was right
well before you could even get your red face around the question and
answer for Judith. The interesting thing here is that I've shown
Judith post to a few people (because her english and style of sentence
was quite weird on that post) and saying 'not common to be more than
below minus 20' means nothing at all. Again, sadly, nor Ray or Edward
could help either of you LOL!!!

You can never keep a still tongue and just *learn*
something.

Learn?! But you keep saying that my RHS course wasn't good enough, my
diploma wasn't good enough, and now I'm designing with the Chelsea
school of design, (got 97/100 for my last project HoooHooo!!!) I bet
you'd have something nasty to say about them too, wouldn't you?! The
fact is that you can't tolerate someone with a bit more energy than
you have - learn to live with it.

God help your family, it must be like living with a constipated
volcano.

))) See, learn to live with it.

"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!