Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
"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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
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.' |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
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) |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
"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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
"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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
"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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
"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! |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
"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". |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
"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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
"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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
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.' |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
:-((Off we go again :-((
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.' |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Again rain, again! | United Kingdom | |||
Tomatoes (Again) - Capillary Matting? - Again | United Kingdom | |||
Little Black Ants, Again & Again | North Carolina | |||
Bloody VERMIN Cats again, and again, and again, and again....:-(((( | United Kingdom | |||
Steveo Spanked Again - Was: rat does the tard dance...again | Lawns |