"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.