"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.

"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 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"?

"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 :-)

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.'

"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.'

"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.