On 4/3/07 17:43, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 4 Mar, 17:32, Sacha wrote:
No Mrs Rudlin, née Delguel, formerly of Ecole St. Marthe, Perigueux (pic
attached to your entry). I did not post that my 'kids' had ancestors who
owned land. I said *one* ancestor gave some land for allotments.

Sick. You're sick!

Shall I get your
children's names from the Census and post them here with birthdates etc.?
Shall I find photos of them and post links to them here? I have your
marriage date to David J Rudlin so all else is the work of mere minutes.

I don't threaten you. But you are clearly threatening me to do this.
Your ISP is now aware of this. My god! What have I done for such a
reaction from you?!! You're totally mad! I will never ever reply to
you ever. You're a frightening woman!!

You use my children and you'll find out what frightening is. Frightening is
ALL your trustees hearing from me, plus your MP and anyone who is giving or
getting money to or from URBED Manchester. You mess with my family and
you'll get everything legal that comes your way.
Good idea re the ISP - I'll gather up all your posts, the swearing ones, the
insulting ones, the threatening ones and send them on to your ISP and
URBED's, too. And what is more, Helene, I will enlist the assistance of
every single person here who has suffered at your hands. You have NO idea
of what you have aroused in me by using my children. But by God you're going
to find out.
You 'just Googled' to find out about me! Why? If you mean me and mine no
harm, why bother? You're an ill-intentioned distortion of a woman and I'm
going to put a halt in your gallop.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

On 4 Mar, 17:59, Sacha wrote:
You use my children and you'll find out what frightening is.

But you've posted details of them. You've posted a link of the last
meet with pictures of your house and the nursery of your husband.
You're for ever posting details to your house from every route
imaginable. You've just posted about the 6th birthday of your grand
daughter. You've posted about the christening of the other grand
daughter. You tell us when you go on holidays, when you come back,
what you eat, smells and feel. You tell us every details imaginable.
In fact we cannot turn on urg without knowing about Sacha Hubbard's
life. You just don't stop posting stuff and details. Your signatures
has all the details of your house, your work place, the name of your
son, your husband etc...

We don't need to google for you. You're there, plastered on this forum
for all to admire. Don't threaten my own kids and my husband and my
work place and my colleagues. They have nothing to do with this.

This is simply unfair and terribly vicious but then not surprising.

On 4/3/07 18:07, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 4 Mar, 17:59, Sacha wrote:
You use my children and you'll find out what frightening is.

But you've posted details of them. You've posted a link of the last
meet with pictures of your house and the nursery of your husband.
You're for ever posting details to your house from every route
imaginable. You've just posted about the 6th birthday of your grand
daughter. You've posted about the christening of the other grand
daughter. You tell us when you go on holidays, when you come back,
what you eat, smells and feel. You tell us every details imaginable.
In fact we cannot turn on urg without knowing about Sacha Hubbard's
life. You just don't stop posting stuff and details. Your signatures
has all the details of your house, your work place, the name of your
son, your husband etc...

We don't need to google for you. You're there, plastered on this forum
for all to admire. Don't threaten my own kids and my husband and my
work place and my colleagues. They have nothing to do with this.

This is simply unfair and terribly vicious but then not surprising.

Nothing I have *ever* posted here has assisted you to do that 'lady
daughter' thing over my children. That was one BIG mistake on your part.
All of us, including you talk about our families at times without naming
names. You've talked often of yours; you've talked about your holidays in
France and Cornwall; you've asked me for information on holiday
accommodation involving dates; you've told us you were booked into the
Minack Theatre; you've told us you were off to Scotland on the big red bus;
you've told us you never knew your mother; you've told us your family come
from Perigueux and been quite explicit about that; you've posted a photo of
yourself outside my home on the internet; you've insulted me, sworn at me,
called me derogatory names and insulted me on the grounds of my age, gender
and appearance. You've insulted my husband's business and have suggested
incompetence on his part.
I do assure you that all this is archived and copied and will give my
solicitor plenty of material to work on with regard to your intentions
towards me on this group.

It's to be hoped that when my solicitor asks to examine your computer - home
and office, of course - there is no correspondence on either of them between
you and the person who brought my children into your ambit. You are making
capital out of the fact that someone dragged my children in here, names and
all - every detail. Don't play the 'innocent act' with me, it's worn out.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

On 4 Mar, 18:55, Sacha wrote:
Nothing I have *ever* posted here has assisted you to do that 'lady
daughter' thing over my children.

It's all over the place Sacha. Here just a few of them. You started
talking about your kids ancestors. I deducted very quickly. You are
the fool not me.

http://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/showth...=109458&page=6

in article , Michael
Rhodes
at wrote on 2/5/03 1:37 pm:
(Grrarrggh) wrote in message
...
Who are the daughters of aristocrats and royals born in the years 1975, 1976,
1977, 1978? Thanks.
Tam
Some ladies enjoying courtesy titles born between 1st Jan. 1975 & 31
Dec 1978.
Note: Has Helen Villiers, daughter of the late Viscount Villiers and
sister of the Earl fo Jersey, yet to be raised to the rank of the
daughter of an earl as is the custom ? If not, then she remains the
Hon Helen Villiers.
snip
That's Helen Child Villiers. She, her sister and her half-sister are
now
all The Lady.
Sacha

On 4/3/07 19:13, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 4 Mar, 18:55, Sacha wrote:
Nothing I have *ever* posted here has assisted you to do that 'lady
daughter' thing over my children.

It's all over the place Sacha. Here just a few of them. You started
talking about your kids ancestors. I deducted very quickly. You are
the fool not me.

http://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/showth...=109458&page=6

in article , Michael
Rhodes
at wrote on 2/5/03 1:37 pm:
(Grrarrggh) wrote in message
...
Who are the daughters of aristocrats and royals born in the years 1975,
1976,
1977, 1978? Thanks.
Tam
Some ladies enjoying courtesy titles born between 1st Jan. 1975 & 31
Dec 1978.
Note: Has Helen Villiers, daughter of the late Viscount Villiers and
sister of the Earl fo Jersey, yet to be raised to the rank of the
daughter of an earl as is the custom ? If not, then she remains the
Hon Helen Villiers.
snip
That's Helen Child Villiers. She, her sister and her half-sister are
now
all The Lady.
Sacha

Please show me where that occurred in urg's archives. Fool.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 3/3/07 21:17, in article ,
"Alan
Holmes" wrote:


"Neil Tonks" wrote in message
...

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
""There has been a noticeable active interest in gardening in the
United
Kingdom over the last 10 - 15 years""

There's been an active interest in gardening in the UK for a LOT longer
than 15 years!!!!!!

I would have thought that it needed at least one extra '0'!

You're all answering a well known and long term troll. Why fall for it?
Stop, read, think! Do you *really* think that gardeners on a seriously
involved gardening group fall for this garbage? Some members of urg have
be gardening for 50 years, or more. This person is not contributing to
the
sum of urg's knowledge.
He sucks in new responses by this form of post and by his own admission he
knows nothing about gardening. Please do not encourage this person.

Sorry, I should have read who had posted the original article!

Alan

"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 4/3/07 12:10, in article
, "La Puce"
wrote:

On 3 Mar, 23:08, Sacha wrote:
You're all answering a well known and long term troll. Why fall for it?
Stop, read, think! Do you *really* think that gardeners on a seriously
involved gardening group fall for this garbage? Some members of urg
have
be gardening for 50 years, or more.

Do you know everybody here? I don't think Mike talks garbage at all.
snip

You cannot imagine how glad I am to see you write this. "Like calls unto
like".

And there you are, replying to La Puke!

Alan

wrote:

Don't threaten
........

my
work place and my colleagues. They have nothing to do with this.


But you did this to Judith, so what makes the difference here?


--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

On 8 Mar, 00:40, Janet Tweedy wrote:
But you did this to Judith, so what makes the difference here?

OK. Just for you Janet - just one last time. If I get further
criticisms, further orders from anybody regarding this matter, I will
simply ignore it. I'm taking this time to answer you, because you have
asked me and to give my side of the story and I will leave it at
that.

Because I had mentioned that Judith was spending a long time on her
computer at her place of work, (after being told I had rotten teeth,
my clothe where dirty, that she had seen me in Scotland, my
organisation etc.) she got upset that I had mentioned her workplace.
Fair enough. That was my intention indeed, to shut her up. But she
rang my office twice asking to speak to my husband, which is extremely
strange. Did she honestly expected I'd put her, a stranger, on the
phone to him? She then wrote to my colleague in London (she published
the letters here) thinking they were my employers, which they're not
and with this she tried to make me loose my job, which she cannot.

After my colleague rang me to ask me what was going on, I was terribly
ambarassed, he forwarded me her email too and it was terrible because
she had added the bit that Sacha had written about the French
translation of 'stupid' which I still concider as 'stupid' and nothing
else but which wasn't, according to Sacha and Judith. Many francophone
indeed agreed with me on urg. But this didn't make any difference. I
saw red and you would have as well. I admire my colleague, I value my
20 years relationship with him. I felt she had gone too far. I also
don't take orders from strangers, I do not let myself being walked
over in this way. I might appear dizzy, which I am, I make mistake,
I'm just human. I just couldn't beleive the incredible liberty with
which she rang my office, sent me emails, wrote to my colleagues etc.
It was too much and I reciprocated.

The only difference is that I really didn't think I'd be successful, I
never ever sink so low as to do something like this, but in retrospect
I don't regret any second of it because it has stopped her emails, her
letters to my colleague (they simply ignore her) and stopped her phone
calls. We've heard over and over again here not to do to others what
you don't want to be done to you. And that is what happened.

I would be furious if I was her. I really would. I didn't mean it to
come to this - but what is done is done. Nobody has indeed the right
to pursue someone to their workplace, trying to reach their husband,
trying to undermind relationships with someone else's colleagues,
criticise what they look like. But if the 'stalking' aspect of this
started with me dropping to Sacha's nursery on my way back from
Cornwall, I was stalked to Scotland whilst doing a community
consultation. How else would they have seen me with my long hair, my
long coat, my multitude of scarfes. We were freezing and I was very
tired. I had spent 3 days outdoors talking to hundreds of people. So
she must have came to Scotland to see me - how else she would have
known? She even posted the fact here! And that is very scary indeed.

This combine with the fact that I know for a fact that someone has
asked others via email to killfile me as resulted in me finding myself
in a 'troll' position and that hurts me immensely. But what do you
want me to do? If someone is found to be replying to me and getting
very friendly, they get the same treatment. Look at Jenny, look at
Uncle, even Martin got it a couple of days ago. The best thing is to
just ignore anyone telling you to killfile him/her, jump on the
dispute waggon and keep to the subject at hand which is gardening.

This is usenet - and as much as I would like to give you further
informations which I'm sure would put you even more in my shoes, I
just cannot without once again giving too many personnal info out to
be used to yet again further ammunitions. I think I've spoken enough
about myself.

I hope this clarify your question. I value your posts, I value
everydoby's posts for that matter, always, though as any other human
being, I do get a pang when I get put down unecessarily on the back of
someone else's post to me. If we do not have the time to read through
all the bumph that is being posted here, then one surely should just
keep to posts that are relevant to them, and keep their noses out of
somebody else's querels.

"La Puce" wrote in message
On 8 Mar, 00:40, Janet Tweedy wrote:
But you did this to Judith, so what makes the difference here?

OK. Just for you Janet - just one last time. If I get further
criticisms, further orders from anybody regarding this matter, I will
simply ignore it.

Now that would be a first for you!

I'm taking this time to answer you, because you have
asked me and to give my side of the story and I will leave it at
that.

No, she did not ask you to give your side of the story. She made what is
known as rhetorical statement.

Because I had mentioned that Judith was spending a long time on her
computer at her place of work,

No, you accused her of USING her work computer to make posts to urg. But
you did more than this didn't you? You complained to Judith's employers and
they then had to use scarce public funds doing an investigation of Judith's
computer use. They found out that your complaints were completely false.
You are malicious and a waster of tax money that each and every Brit pays.
They should sue the arse off you for your time wasting and maliciousness.

(after being told I had rotten teeth,
my clothe where dirty, that she had seen me in Scotland, my
organisation etc.) she got upset that I had mentioned her workplace.
Fair enough. That was my intention indeed, to shut her up.

Yes, you do like to control people.

But she
rang my office twice asking to speak to my husband,

That is what YOU claim Judith did, whereas Judith has denied it. Given that
you have repeatedly been caught out lying here from one post to the next or
claiming that you have been misunderstood or giving some other implausible
excuse for your errors and lies whilst Judith has not, you are not credible
in making such claims. I believe Judith and not you as will everyone who
has an ounce of common sense and can read.

which is extremely
strange. Did she honestly expected I'd put her, a stranger, on the
phone to him?

Even if Judith had rung (which I and most others but your idiot eggers on
don't believe) I have no doubt that you love to control who talks to your
husband and who doesn't.

She then wrote to my colleague in London (she published
the letters here)

Yes and they found out the truth about you didn't they?

thinking they were my employers, which they're not
and with this she tried to make me loose my job, which she cannot.

No but someone should. You give URBED a vile reputation.

After my colleague rang me to ask me what was going on, I was terribly
ambarassed, he forwarded me her email too and it was terrible because
she had added the bit that Sacha had written about the French
translation of 'stupid' which I still concider as 'stupid' and nothing
else but which wasn't, according to Sacha and Judith. Many francophone
indeed agreed with me on urg. But this didn't make any difference. I
saw red and you would have as well. I admire my colleague, I value my
20 years relationship with him.

I'll bet he's now realised your real worth to the organisation too.

I felt she had gone too far. I also
don't take orders from strangers,

No, that much is obvious. But then most of us know that it is mere common
human decency to avoid trying to maliciously hurt others by lying or making
false statments or exposing details of their children to those who have no
need to know. You aren't restricted by such things as mere common human
decency.

I do not let myself being walked
over in this way. I might appear dizzy, which I am, I make mistake,
I'm just human.

You make huge mistakes but I doubt that is because you are human. I don't
see you as being human in any way shape or form.

I just couldn't beleive the incredible liberty with
which she rang my office, sent me emails, wrote to my colleagues etc.
It was too much and I reciprocated.

Liberty? What barefaced garbage!

You lied about her actions and her computer usage. You made false
accusations against her to her employer. You cost taxpayers money by making
those false accusations. You tried to get her sacked.

You didn't reciprocate you sad piece of work, you initiated! What's more,
you were found out for being a malicious liar and a troublemaker.

The only difference is that I really didn't think I'd be successful, I
never ever sink so low as to do something like this,

God how do you live with yourself? Most people have some capacity for guilt
when caught out lying and being malicious but not you. You just act the
pathetic, wee, hard done by thing and hope that some sad sack like your
eggers on will actually believe your lies! Your gall knows no bounds!

but in retrospect
I don't regret any second of it

No. Malicious troublemakers such as yourself don't give a thuppenny bit for
the wasting of tax payer's money or being caught out making false
accusations. They just content themselves with lying to themsleves and
continuing to lie to others at every given opportunity.

I would be furious if I was her. I really would. I didn't mean it to
come to this - but what is done is done. Nobody has indeed the right
to pursue someone to their workplace,

Excuse me while I clean up the spew on my keyboard! You are such a
hypocrite giving this mealy mouthed justification for you own vile actions.
YOU made false accustions to Judith's employer and YOU were caught out as a
result of that lie. At least the London office of URBED now know that you
are a nasty piece of work.

You must be happy though that your husband hasn't yet twigged that you lie
like a pig in mud.

trying to reach their husband,
trying to undermind relationships with someone else's colleagues,
criticise what they look like. But if the 'stalking' aspect of this
started with me dropping to Sacha's nursery on my way back from
Cornwall, I was stalked to Scotland whilst doing a community
consultation. How else would they have seen me with my long hair, my
long coat, my multitude of scarfes. We were freezing and I was very
tired. I had spent 3 days outdoors talking to hundreds of people. So
she must have came to Scotland to see me - how else she would have
known? She even posted the fact here! And that is very scary indeed.

Oh yes, of course. Dear itty bitty, vulnerable you just happened to drop by
(unannounced) to Sacha's nursery to have your photo taken outside whereupon
your dear sweet wee sanitised Manchester teenager's suddenly got a fit of
the wobblies and didn't want to meet that "nasty woman" (such sweet mouthed
wee Manchester teenagers! Where di you hire these paragons?) whilst nasty
Judith MUST have stalked you to Scotland. What absolute crap!

The only one who has engaged in either stalking or threats or malicious
action here is you. Grow up or at least try to get a grip on reality!
Don't you realise that we can all read, that we can all remember what you
write from one post to the next, that your nasty lies, your flirtations with
the dirty old men of the group, your agist, sexist, foul mouthed comments
and justifications and attempts at nasty anonymous net stalking are
archived?

You really are both stupid and self deluded. And you leave tracks a mile
wide. When someone does finally take legal action against you, you have
left tracks a mile wide. Your poor deluded husband and URBED are going to
be in for a big surprise aren't they? You may be able to continue to lie to
yourself but once this gets to a court or some sort of mediation if such a
thing is available in the UK, your arse will be well and truly fried. And
deservedly so. You may be able to lie to yourself and sucker your husband
and the dirty old men of this group into thinking you are a sweet,
vulnerable morsel but others involved in any legal forum look at facts. The
facts are that you take action to deliberately attempt to damage others.
That can be proven in what you tried to do with Judith. That can be proven
by the trail of posting you have left all over the internet full of threats
and inconsistencies of story as and when you are yet again caught out in a
lie.

You have no crediblity but that doesn't stop you. What a shocker you are.

I feel sorry for your husband and children as they will suddenly find
themselves in a very nasty situation. It's only a matter of time given your
intemperate and self deluding behaviour.

This combine with the fact that I know for a fact that someone has
asked others via email to killfile me as resulted in me finding myself
in a 'troll' position and that hurts me immensely.

Well given the extraordinary efforts you have gone to to hurt others both
here and other news groups that is quite satisfying. I hope that before you
are finished your nasty little snivelling life, you receive far greater hurt
than you have tried to give so maliciously to others.

But what do you
want me to do? If someone is found to be replying to me and getting
very friendly, they get the same treatment. Look at Jenny, look at
Uncle, even Martin got it a couple of days ago. The best thing is to
just ignore anyone telling you to killfile him/her, jump on the
dispute waggon and keep to the subject at hand which is gardening.

More mealy mouthed twaddle. If you ever stuck to gardening and took time off
from your flirtation with Uncle and others you might actually learn
something about gardening rather than making the howlers of mistakes that
you do.

I hope this clarify your question. I value your posts, I value
everydoby's posts for that matter, always, though as any other human
being, I do get a pang when I get put down unecessarily on the back of
someone else's post to me. If we do not have the time to read through
all the bumph that is being posted here, then one surely should just
keep to posts that are relevant to them, and keep their noses out of
somebody else's querels.

Excuse me, I need to go and vomit again.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:54:57 +1100, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"La Puce" wrote in message
On 8 Mar, 00:40, Janet Tweedy wrote:
But you did this to Judith, so what makes the difference here?

OK. Just for you Janet - just one last time. If I get further
criticisms, further orders from anybody regarding this matter, I will
simply ignore it.

Now that would be a first for you!

I'm taking this time to answer you, because you have
asked me and to give my side of the story and I will leave it at
that.

No, she did not ask you to give your side of the story. She made what is
known as rhetorical statement.

Because I had mentioned that Judith was spending a long time on her
computer at her place of work,

No, you accused her of USING her work computer to make posts to urg. But
you did more than this didn't you? You complained to Judith's employers and
they then had to use scarce public funds doing an investigation of Judith's
computer use.

IF she was using her employees computers to post here, and troll, then
that is bringing her employees into disrepute. Employers don't pay
people to troll and netkop in their time. If I caught her doing it, I
would complain too.

People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones!

snip bully boy vitriol


--


Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead!




Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.

"Pete (.¿.)" wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:54:57 +1100, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"La Puce" wrote in message
On 8 Mar, 00:40, Janet Tweedy wrote:
But you did this to Judith, so what makes the difference here?

OK. Just for you Janet - just one last time. If I get further
criticisms, further orders from anybody regarding this matter, I will
simply ignore it.

Because I had mentioned that Judith was spending a long time on her
computer at her place of work,

No, you accused her of USING her work computer to make posts to urg. But
you did more than this didn't you? You complained to Judith's employers
and
they then had to use scarce public funds doing an investigation of
Judith's
computer use.

IF she was using her employees computers to post here, and troll, then
that is bringing her employees into disrepute. Employers don't pay
people to troll and netkop in their time. If I caught her doing it, I
would complain too.

Thank you so much for so promptly confirming my suspicion that you were
either a troll, one of Puce's sock puppets or one of her gullible eggers on.

On 8 Mar, 13:58, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
Thank you so much for so promptly confirming my suspicion that you were
either a troll, one of Puce's sock puppets or one of her gullible eggers on

It's nice to be liked. You should try it )

On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:58:01 +1100, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:

"Pete (.¿.)" wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:54:57 +1100, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote:
"La Puce" wrote in message
On 8 Mar, 00:40, Janet Tweedy wrote:
But you did this to Judith, so what makes the difference here?

OK. Just for you Janet - just one last time. If I get further
criticisms, further orders from anybody regarding this matter, I will
simply ignore it.

Because I had mentioned that Judith was spending a long time on her
computer at her place of work,

No, you accused her of USING her work computer to make posts to urg. But
you did more than this didn't you? You complained to Judith's employers
and
they then had to use scarce public funds doing an investigation of
Judith's
computer use.

IF she was using her employees computers to post here, and troll, then
that is bringing her employees into disrepute. Employers don't pay
people to troll and netkop in their time. If I caught her doing it, I
would complain too.

Thank you so much for so promptly confirming my suspicion that you were
either a troll, one of Puce's sock puppets or one of her gullible eggers on.


Truth hurts does it bully boy?


--


Avoid the rush at the last judgement. Be converted now instead!




Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"La Puce" wrote in message
On 8 Mar, 00:40, Janet Tweedy wrote:
But you did this to Judith, so what makes the difference here?

OK. Just for you Janet - just one last time. If I get further
criticisms, further orders from anybody regarding this matter, I will
simply ignore it.

Now that would be a first for you!

Stuff deleted:-

Excuse me, I need to go and vomit again.

It would be better for your health if you did not respond to the Puke, she
only makes you puke!

Put her in your killfile, like I did!

Alan