I foresee an unfair dismissal suit coming up - and I suspect successful:
AFAICS, Brian hasn't a leg to stand on - umbrella had put her case, in
several reports which will be there as evidence and which "went to
everybody", along with costings and predicted returns well exceeding the
outlay. Granted, being predictions only, they're challengeable, but
since no-one did, I think she has a good case.

(I admit I share some of her frustration from writing things that nobody
reads, and then those nobodies make decisions [or in her case don't make
decisions] based on points made in the writings.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
[via Penny Mayes (mayes@pmail.net)]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:40:03 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> a
gribouillé dans la poussière...

>
>Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
> [via Penny Mayes (mayes@pmail.net)]

Good grief, I don't recall that email address. I did use a run of odd free
accounts in my early days online. If its presence in your tag file
generated a lot of spam, I don't recall that either.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 4:04:09 PM UTC, Penny wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:40:03 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> a
> gribouillé dans la poussière...
> >
> >Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
> > [via Penny Mayes (ma...@pmail.net)]
> Good grief, I don't recall that email address. I did use a run of odd free
> accounts in my early days online. If its presence in your tag file
> generated a lot of spam, I don't recall that either.

Erme - would this be a good place for me to mention that whatever email address may be showing for me in these Google Groups postings of mine doesn't work any more? nickodell49@yahoo.ca does work but I haven't found a way to easily append that in Google Groups.

Nick (except cut'n'paste)
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

In message <prom7i9dim3oih84nb6ajme0drob8jtrg8@4ax.com> at Sat, 3 Jun
2023 17:03:56, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:40:03 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> a
>gribouillé dans la poussière...
>
>>
>>Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
>> [via Penny Mayes (mayes@pmail.net)]
>
>Good grief, I don't recall that email address. I did use a run of odd free
>accounts in my early days online. If its presence in your tag file
>generated a lot of spam, I don't recall that either.

I wouldn't now include a live email address in my quotes file; I must
have included that one many years ago.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

pu gnikcab yb naem uoy tahw siht sI

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:40:03 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>I foresee an unfair dismissal suit coming up - and I suspect successful:
>AFAICS, Brian hasn't a leg to stand on - umbrella had put her case, in
>several reports which will be there as evidence and which "went to
>everybody", along with costings and predicted returns well exceeding the
>outlay. Granted, being predictions only, they're challengeable, but
>since no-one did, I think she has a good case.

Yes indeed. Her last words in Friday's episode should have been, "I'll
see you at the tribunal!"

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 09:01:23 +0100, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 12:40:03 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I foresee an unfair dismissal suit coming up - and I suspect successful:
>>AFAICS, Brian hasn't a leg to stand on - umbrella had put her case, in
>>several reports which will be there as evidence and which "went to
>>everybody", along with costings and predicted returns well exceeding the
>>outlay. Granted, being predictions only, they're challengeable, but
>>since no-one did, I think she has a good case.
>
>Yes indeed. Her last words in Friday's episode should have been, "I'll
>see you at the tribunal!"

Would they have treated a male manager in this way, or am I seeing
misogyny where there is none?

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com>
a gribouillé dans la poussière...

>Erme - would this be a good place for me to mention that whatever email address may be showing for me in these Google Groups postings of mine doesn't work any more? nickodell49@yahoo.ca does work but I haven't found a way to easily append that in Google Groups.
>
>Nick (except cut'n'paste)
>nickodell49@yahoo.ca

Ah, I did try to email you a while back at two or three addresses and only
got two bounces - still not sure if you got the message, will have to go
back and take a look.

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

In message <73io7it7u00vvt2m8fttpshgelijrp98vp@4ax.com> at Sun, 4 Jun
2023 09:17:59, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 09:01:23 +0100, John Armstrong
><jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[]
>>Yes indeed. Her last words in Friday's episode should have been, "I'll
>>see you at the tribunal!"
>
>Would they have treated a male manager in this way, or am I seeing
>misogyny where there is none?

There's almost certainly an unconscious (or subconscious, I'm never
sure) trace of that, though I don't think Brian - and certainly not Adam
- would think of himself as having such an attitude. It's there, to some
extent, in all of us.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

On 03/06/2023 12:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I foresee an unfair dismissal suit coming up - and I suspect successful:
> AFAICS, Brian hasn't a leg to stand on - umbrella had put her case, in
> several reports which will be there as evidence and which "went to
> everybody", along with costings and predicted returns well exceeding the
> outlay. Granted, being predictions only, they're challengeable, but
> since no-one did, I think she has a good case.
>
> (I admit I share some of her frustration from writing things that nobody
> reads, and then those nobodies make decisions [or in her case don't make
> decisions] based on points made in the writings.)

Employment law doesn't really apply to Ambridge - Witness the
shoehorning of George into Jazzer's position.

John Finlay <chemistman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/06/2023 12:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I foresee an unfair dismissal suit coming up - and I suspect successful:
>> AFAICS, Brian hasn't a leg to stand on - umbrella had put her case, in
>> several reports which will be there as evidence and which "went to
>> everybody", along with costings and predicted returns well exceeding the
>> outlay. Granted, being predictions only, they're challengeable, but
>> since no-one did, I think she has a good case.
>>
>> (I admit I share some of her frustration from writing things that nobody
>> reads, and then those nobodies make decisions [or in her case don't make
>> decisions] based on points made in the writings.)
>
> Employment law doesn't really apply to Ambridge - Witness the
> shoehorning of George into Jazzer's position.
>

For which I see some trouble brewing later on. George is a nasty Alf Jnr!

Mrs McT

Chris <chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> John Finlay <chemistman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/06/2023 12:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> I foresee an unfair dismissal suit coming up - and I suspect successful:
>>> AFAICS, Brian hasn't a leg to stand on - umbrella had put her case, in
>>> several reports which will be there as evidence and which "went to
>>> everybody", along with costings and predicted returns well exceeding the
>>> outlay. Granted, being predictions only, they're challengeable, but
>>> since no-one did, I think she has a good case.
>>>
>>> (I admit I share some of her frustration from writing things that nobody
>>> reads, and then those nobodies make decisions [or in her case don't make
>>> decisions] based on points made in the writings.)
>>
>> Employment law doesn't really apply to Ambridge - Witness the
>> shoehorning of George into Jazzer's position.
>>
>
> For which I see some trouble brewing later on. George is a nasty Alf Jnr!
>
>
> Mrs McT
>

Once a Grundy…

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:20:50 AM UTC, Penny wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
> >Erme - would this be a good place for me to mention that whatever email address may be showing for me in these Google Groups postings of mine doesn't work any more? nicko...@yahoo.ca does work but I haven't found a way to easily append that in Google Groups.
> >
> >Nick (except cut'n'paste)
> >nicko...@yahoo.ca
> Ah, I did try to email you a while back at two or three addresses and only
> got two bounces - still not sure if you got the message, will have to go
> back and take a look.
How far back is A While Back? I think I introduced nickodell49@yahoo.ca into my usenet posts around the middle of last year and I would have received mail at PlusNet until the end of last October and unless your email were along the lines of "...and I never want to hear from you again!" I'm sure I would have replied to anything I received.

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com>
a gribouillé dans la poussière...

>On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:20:50?AM UTC, Penny wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
>> a gribouillé dans la poussière...

>> Ah, I did try to email you a while back at two or three addresses and only
>> got two bounces - still not sure if you got the message, will have to go
>> back and take a look.
>How far back is A While Back?

Wed, 29 Mar, 12:09 - the subject was the Polish name of an English lutier.

>I think I introduced nickodell49@yahoo.ca into my usenet posts around the middle of last year

That was the address which didn't bounce.

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:45:37 AM UTC, Penny wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
> >On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:20:50?AM UTC, Penny wrote:
> >> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
> >> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
> >> Ah, I did try to email you a while back at two or three addresses and only
> >> got two bounces - still not sure if you got the message, will have to go
> >> back and take a look.
> >How far back is A While Back?
> Wed, 29 Mar, 12:09 - the subject was the Polish name of an English lutier..
> >I think I introduced nicko...@yahoo.ca into my usenet posts around the middle of last year
> That was the address which didn't bounce.

Oh dear: something's definitely gone wrong there then. I would definitely have remembered a topic like that if I'd seen it. I've received other mail from umrats to that yahoo.ca address and I regularly check for stuff that might have been diverted to junk mail. The only stuff I regularly delete unread is TwitterSpam so, unless the subject line began with words like "From Twitter..." then it ought to have got through.

Sorry: and I'm not avoiding you!

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 03:42:16 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com>
a gribouillé dans la poussière...

>On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:45:37?AM UTC, Penny wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
>> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
>> >On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:20:50?AM UTC, Penny wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
>> >> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
>> >> Ah, I did try to email you a while back at two or three addresses and only
>> >> got two bounces - still not sure if you got the message, will have to go
>> >> back and take a look.
>> >How far back is A While Back?
>> Wed, 29 Mar, 12:09 - the subject was the Polish name of an English lutier.
>> >I think I introduced nicko...@yahoo.ca into my usenet posts around the middle of last year
>> That was the address which didn't bounce.
>
>Oh dear: something's definitely gone wrong there then. I would definitely have remembered a topic like that if I'd seen it. I've received other mail from umrats to that yahoo.ca address and I regularly check for stuff that might have been diverted to junk mail. The only stuff I regularly delete unread is TwitterSpam so, unless the subject line began with words like "From Twitter..." then it ought to have got through.
>
>Sorry: and I'm not avoiding you!

I resent it yesterday, did it arrive?

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:48:47 AM UTC, Penny wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 03:42:16 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
> >On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:45:37?AM UTC, Penny wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 10:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
> >> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
> >> >On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:20:50?AM UTC, Penny wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 11:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nick...@bigfoot.com>
> >> >> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
> >> >> Ah, I did try to email you a while back at two or three addresses and only
> >> >> got two bounces - still not sure if you got the message, will have to go
> >> >> back and take a look.
> >> >How far back is A While Back?
> >> Wed, 29 Mar, 12:09 - the subject was the Polish name of an English lutier.
> >> >I think I introduced nicko...@yahoo.ca into my usenet posts around the middle of last year
> >> That was the address which didn't bounce.
> >
> >Oh dear: something's definitely gone wrong there then. I would definitely have remembered a topic like that if I'd seen it. I've received other mail from umrats to that yahoo.ca address and I regularly check for stuff that might have been diverted to junk mail. The only stuff I regularly delete unread is TwitterSpam so, unless the subject line began with words like "From Twitter..." then it ought to have got through.
> >
> >Sorry: and I'm not avoiding you!
> I resent it yesterday, did it arrive?

Yes, and I've answered it and hope you receive my reply.

I found it in my Spam folder - but only after physically looking there because it appears to have got in there "silently" by which I mean Yahoo hadn't flagged up any content in the spam folder and I only saw it when I physically opened the folder. I'm sorry but I have a horrible feeling that I may have missed your earlier message through trusting that Yahoo would indicate to me when anything appeared. I may well have missed other people's messages for similar reasons. Now: how do I make sure that wanted emails don't get treated as spam in the first place?

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:29:35 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com>
a gribouillé dans la poussière...

>On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:48:47?AM UTC, Penny wrote:

>> I resent it yesterday, did it arrive?
>
>Yes, and I've answered it and hope you receive my reply.
>
>I found it in my Spam folder - but only after physically looking there because it appears to have got in there "silently" by which I mean Yahoo hadn't flagged up any content in the spam folder and I only saw it when I physically opened the folder. I'm sorry but I have a horrible feeling that I may have missed your earlier message through trusting that Yahoo would indicate to me when anything appeared. I may well have missed other people's messages for similar reasons. Now: how do I make sure that wanted emails don't get treated as spam in the first place?

Hm, I might suggest you look for ways to filter your mail and add 'never
send to spam' to anything from email addresses you know.
OTOH, since I did that, a little wildly, gmail has been 'never sending
anything to spam' which is a boodly nuisance, along with plonking my own
replies in my inbox and hiding some stuff completely somewhere else. I have
deleted several filters I have created in the past which included 'never
send to spam', in the hope of getting back to sanity, but it hasn't helped
:(

Thanks for your reply, I may ask a similar question of my 'not Polish'
friend.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959