| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #23881 is a reply to message #5969] |
Mon, 12 November 2012 13:32   |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 02:50:43 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<d4abcdbe-b909-4c07-bbff-1b840728467b@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):
I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
> just dumps it. <<
Ha! It is so funny to come back here after all this time and see what is
going on. StarFury, first of all, you can lay the blame square with me on
your Claudia post not getting through. I have had a VERY complex and tough
year, starting with my February surgery that went wrong, and had long-running
complications through the spring (hospital-acquired infection had me on a pic
line for months) followed by more complicated and painful physical therapy
than I'd had before. Then came the late spring and summer, when my elderly
parents found a home down here, and I spent every weekend schlepping up to
New York with my husband to help them pack a lifetime of stuff and get the
house ready for the sale. Then they moved here, right around the block from
me, and that quickly became a full time job that I didn't expect (taking them
to supermarkets, doctors, stores, etc.). And then I went to Paris for a few
weeks on a much-deserved vacation. Then I came back, and it was election time
I'm a seasonal poll worker so this takes up some space in my life. And now
it is post-election, and I am back looking in on things. So, am I telling you
all of this so you can play your tiny violin for me? Indeed no. I am just
telling you that I was more busy than usual all year long, and thus have not
been holding up my end of things in moderation land. For at least a year,
this place has become so empty it is practically desolate. So instead of
popping in several times a day, every day, I have only been popping in to
moderate VERY occasionally, for which I apologize. But when week after week
goes by with NOTHING in the queue, I started to think that maybe this place
was just being deserted by people hopping over to Facebook. Obviously I was
wrong, and I'll get back on the stick with my daily moderation. So, that post
*specifically* not appearing was indeed my fault.
But the second point I want to make is this: I can't speak for anyone else,
but as long as I have been moderating, which is some years, NO ONE is looking
at who is posting and deciding on that basis whether or not to approve it..
You have a highly inflated opinion of yourself if you think that. Most of us
are really quite busy with our actual lives, and we are doing this
moderating, keeping the newsgroup running out of the kindness of our hearts
and a love for this property. Having said that, if I read something
inflammatory, you bet I will go back up and check who posted it. But on a
normal basis? If a post is a garden variety, non-inflammatory post, with an
opinion or a link or a question, it's all most of us can do to have time to
read it and approve it. No one is sitting around moderating and waiting for
your posts to show up just so we can bounce them. Sheesh, dude. And, srsly.
Amy
Still here!
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #23992 is a reply to message #23602] |
Mon, 12 November 2012 13:41 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 00:22:52 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<c89c6a78-ac7c-453d-ae84-de8f3b2547c2@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 7, 9:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_di...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
>> hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
>>
>> Dennis
>
> No one cares about this newsgroup anymore. It's a wonder that didn't
> happen sooner. <<
What does this even *mean*? A non-moderated thread allowing posts through
from all non-hand-moderated posters is a *normal* condition here; it couldn't
"happen sooner" because that is the natural state of existence of a
non-moderated post and posts by non-hand-moderated posters. It has nothing to
do with any perceived neglect.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #23993 is a reply to message #23623] |
Mon, 12 November 2012 13:41 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 05:38:39 -0500, Bruce Goatly wrote
(in article <RYLms.244277$Tf3.45935@fx12.am4>):
> StarFuryG7 wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 4:27 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you completely incapable of ever dropping a subject? It's amazing to
>>> watch you both here and on IMDb.
>>>
>>
>> It depends on what it is, but if you really paid attention to my posts
>> there you'd have noticed that.
>>
>> But hey, Jan --you don't have to bother with me if you don't care to.
>> In fact, you didn't even have to stick your nose in here.
>>
>> Pardon me if that's too blunt and direct.
>
> Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
> and aggressive? <<
To be fair, StarFury does post on topic and is interested in the show.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #23994 is a reply to message #23665] |
Mon, 12 November 2012 13:43 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:51:11 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<367fe63f-2b5f-4e1f-864a-d664ce405caa@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 8, 3:37 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
> wrote.:
>>
>> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
>> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
>> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
>> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
>> insulting them on a daily basis?
>
> Do you even realize that this thread fell dormant back in July, only
> to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
> resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
> later?<<
Since you are using single quotes around "retired," presumably to be
sarcastic, I have to point out here that while Jay is indeed retired from
moderation, that doesn't mean he can't read and post here like everybody
else. So, no sarcastic single quotes required!
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24033 is a reply to message #23993] |
Mon, 12 November 2012 18:31 |
news
Messages: 157
Registered: October 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/12/2012 1:41 PM, Amy Guskin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 05:38:39 -0500, Bruce Goatly wrote
> (in article <RYLms.244277$Tf3.45935@fx12.am4>):
>
>> StarFuryG7 wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 4:27 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you completely incapable of ever dropping a subject? It's amazing to
>>>> watch you both here and on IMDb.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It depends on what it is, but if you really paid attention to my posts
>>> there you'd have noticed that.
>>>
>>> But hey, Jan --you don't have to bother with me if you don't care to.
>>> In fact, you didn't even have to stick your nose in here.
>>>
>>> Pardon me if that's too blunt and direct.
>>
>> Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
>> and aggressive? <<
>
> To be fair, StarFury does post on topic and is interested in the show.
>
> Amy
>
Hi Amy,
Glad to see you back. Did your medical situation resolve itself?
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24174 is a reply to message #24033] |
Tue, 13 November 2012 15:31 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:31:09 -0500, news wrote
(in article <fFfos.16003$h94.12732@newsfe02.iad>):
> Hi Amy,
>
> Glad to see you back. Did your medical situation resolve itself? <<
Hi, Mike thanks for asking. Yes and no: after two months on the pic line,
the infection is well and truly gone, but my arm is a *mess*, and while the
pain that prompted this revision surgery is gone, the arms works *worse* than
before, which is a little depressing. But it's all good: I could have bled
out on the table, so I consider myself ahead of the game by being alive!
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24223 is a reply to message #23881] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 03:16 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 12, 1:32 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> Ha! It is so funny to come back here after all this time and see what is
> going on.
Happy to be of assistance.
> StarFury, first of all, you can lay the blame square with me on
> your Claudia post not getting through.
Are you the only moderator here? I could swear I saw another within
recent days claiming that my comments about missing posts is of no
concern.
> I have had a VERY complex and tough
> year, starting with my February surgery that went wrong, and had long-running
> complications through the spring (hospital-acquired infection had me on a pic
> line for months) followed by more complicated and painful physical therapy
> than I'd had before. Then came the late spring and summer, when my elderly
> parents found a home down here, and I spent every weekend schlepping up to
> New York with my husband to help them pack a lifetime of stuff and get the
> house ready for the sale. Then they moved here, right around the block from
> me, and that quickly became a full time job that I didn't expect (taking them
> to supermarkets, doctors, stores, etc.).
This looks and smells like too much of an obvious trap, and I refuse
to take the bait if it is.
> And then I went to Paris for a few
> weeks on a much-deserved vacation.
Well, at least someone got to go on a vacation this year.
> Then I came back, and it was election time
> ‹ I'm a seasonal poll worker so this takes up some space in my life. And now
> it is post-election, and I am back looking in on things. So, am I telling you
> all of this so you can play your tiny violin for me?
I don't play a violin, tiny or otherwise. The only musical instrument
I've played was the clarinet, and that was a long time ago.
> Indeed no. I am just
> telling you that I was more busy than usual all year long, and thus have not
> been holding up my end of things in moderation land. For at least a year,
> this place has become so empty it is practically desolate.
Yes, a wonder it didn't happen a lot sooner, as I said.
> So instead of
> popping in several times a day, every day, I have only been popping in to
> moderate VERY occasionally, for which I apologize.
If you say so.
> But when week after week
> goes by with NOTHING in the queue, I started to think that maybe this place
> was just being deserted by people hopping over to Facebook. Obviously I was
> wrong, and I'll get back on the stick with my daily moderation.
Oh, the temptation ...but that one is too easy anyway.
> So, that post
> *specifically* not appearing was indeed my fault.
>
> But the second point I want to make is this: I can't speak for anyone else,
> but as long as I have been moderating, which is some years, NO ONE is looking
> at who is posting and deciding on that basis whether or not to approve it..
Didn't you just say that you couldn't speak for anyone else?
> You have a highly inflated opinion of yourself if you think that.
Nah, not really.
> Most of us
> are really quite busy with our actual lives, and we are doing this ‹
> moderating, keeping the newsgroup running ‹ out of the kindness of our hearts
> and a love for this property.
Oh, the devotion! In fact, I'm the one hearing a violin at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24225 is a reply to message #23994] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 03:36 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 12, 1:43 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:51:11 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
> <367fe63f-2b5f-4e1f-864a-d664ce405...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Nov 8, 3:37 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote.:
>
>>> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
>>> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
>>> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
>>> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
>>> insulting them on a daily basis?
>
>> Do you even realize that this thread fell dormant back in July, only
>> to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
>> resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
>> later?<<
>
> Since you are using single quotes around "retired," presumably to be
> sarcastic,
Have you even noticed your colleague's Sig Line? It says only
"Moderator", with no mention of the word " retired".
And you're a lousy mind-reader by the way, as I only used "single
quotes" to reflect what he told me about his status here.
> I have to point out here that while Jay is indeed retired from
> moderation, that doesn't mean he can't read and post here like everybody
> else. So, no sarcastic single quotes required!
>
And "presumably" he still uses the same moderation software that you
rely on --you know, the same software that allows you to designate a
particular thread for "hand-moderation", and which can prevent a
message from making it through for posting to the forum.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24257 is a reply to message #24225] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 09:51 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:36:38 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<1dddbac1-b7bb-4455-b40e-bada8a05111d@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> I have to point out here that while Jay is indeed retired from
>> moderation, that doesn't mean he can't read and post here like everybody
>> else. So, no sarcastic single quotes required!
>>
>
> And "presumably" he still uses the same moderation software that you
> rely on --you know, the same software that allows you to designate a
> particular thread for "hand-moderation", and which can prevent a
> message from making it through for posting to the forum. <<
You do realize that the program we use for moderation is not a newsreader,
right? I am reading and posting using Hogwasher. Hogwasher is not moderation
software. So Jay can indeed be reading and posting without being in the
moderation space.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24258 is a reply to message #24223] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 11:20 |
Jan
Messages: 25
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:16:40 AM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> Are you the only moderator here?
YES, for all intents and purposes she is. Jay and Cheryl can moderate and do, when Amy is away. Which is the only reason Jay ever saw your whinging about missing posts.
Just exactly why do you find it appropriate to be such an asshole toward the very people who can slap you on hand moderation? Seems pretty counter-productive for somebody who values his posts showing up quickly.
Get over yourself. You're boring.
Jan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24288 is a reply to message #24258] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 12:39 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 14, 11:20 am, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Just exactly why do you find it appropriate to be such an asshole toward the very people who can slap you on hand moderation?
Honestly, Jan, I really could not care less what you think of me.
However, I took the tone and attitude of her post and threw it right
back at her (not that you noticed obviously), and after what occurred
here five years ago also in my dealings with her, it was warranted.
> Seems pretty counter-productive for somebody who values his posts showing up quickly.
So I'm supposed to kiss ass in order to insure something that should
happen routinely anyway?
Your attitude about that reflects exactly what I've been complaining
about with regard to it and why I feel the way I do about it. In other
words, thanks.
>
> Get over yourself. You're boring.
>
> Jan
So are you --feel free to ignore me both here and on the IMDB board.
Have a nice life.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24289 is a reply to message #24257] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 12:41 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 14, 9:51 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> You do realize that the program we use for moderation is not a newsreader,
> right?
It's irrelevant. The point was that just because he says he's
'retired' (yes, "single quotes'), he still retains the same ability to
do everything he used to do as an active moderator.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24290 is a reply to message #24289] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 15:00 |
Nicole Massey
Messages: 67
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"StarFuryG7" <StarFuryG7@aim.com> wrote in message
news:6b824bc8-0cd8-4355-b4de-d8c6ec8de960@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 14, 9:51 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> You do realize that the program we use for moderation is not a newsreader,
> right?
It's irrelevant. The point was that just because he says he's
'retired' (yes, "single quotes'), he still retains the same ability to
do everything he used to do as an active moderator.
---
Yes, just like you retain the ability to not respond to everything that
comes through here if there is the slighest possibility that it will keep
this little trollfest going. But like your choice not to use restraint, I've
seen no evidence that he has chosen to use hiss moderator priveleges to
censor any of your messages, even though at this point the horse is as dead
as Centari expansion plans. The fact that your messages keep getting through
belies your theory that you have been categorically moderated. Yes, you can
create all kinds of elaborate theories about how they're still arrayed
against you, but that fluttering thing obscuring your vision is the finger
of the shade of Sir William of Occam shaking his finger at you.
So, in light of the fact that you have managed to annoy or frustrate a
majority of the regulars here on this group, what are you planning for you
next act? I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
will correct it)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24306 is a reply to message #24288] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 16:29 |
Jan
Messages: 25
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:39:40 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> However, I took the tone and attitude of her post and threw it right back at her (not that you noticed obviously), and after what occurred here five years ago also in my dealings with her, it was warranted.
I neither remember nor care what happened 5 years ago. However, let me tell you, as somebody who knows Amy for many years, on and off the newsgroup, that you're so off base as to be in a different universe. Amy apologized and meant it. She gave you an explanation as to why she hasn't been moderating much. That's all it was, an explanation not an excuse.
You owe her an apology. Let's see if you're big enough to extend it.
Jan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24307 is a reply to message #24290] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 18:57 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 14, 3:03 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> ---
> Yes, just like you retain the ability to not respond to everything that
> comes through here if there is the slighest possibility that it will keep
> this little trollfest going.
Nicole, need I remind you --and apparently I must-- that where things
last left off between the two of us that I couldn't have been more
polite, and even acknowledged your point. I was content to drop
everything there and leave it at that, but then what happened? Well,
it's obvious --your friend the moderator decided to chime in with an
all too familiar and typically snarky attitude, so please, spare me
the bullcrap, will ya.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24308 is a reply to message #24306] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 19:01 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 14, 4:29 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I neither remember nor care what happened 5 years ago.
Well, that's you.
> However, let me tell you, as somebody who knows Amy for many years, on and off the newsgroup, that you're so off base as to be in a different universe. Amy apologized and meant it.
Yes, amid all of her derision and sarcasm, I'm sure she "meant it" --
Not.
> She gave you an explanation as to why she hasn't been moderating much. That's all it was, an explanation not an excuse.
Call it what you will, but what I found interesting about it was that
she acknowledged a specific post which didn't show up as being her
fault, as though she had seen it. And yet I have heard all sorts of
speculative reasons as to why a post of mine might not show up here,
but a moderator not doing their job was overlooked as a possibility.
Instead it was attributed to a variety of potential technical
problems, or me just looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, but
not a moderator who wasn't around to approve something.
>
> You owe her an apology. Let's see if you're big enough to extend it.
>
> Jan
She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got
it.
And I certainly don't owe her one now for any darn thing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24309 is a reply to message #24307] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 19:10 |
Nicole Massey
Messages: 67
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"StarFuryG7" <StarFuryG7@aim.com> wrote in message
news:7eec43a5-92bc-4dc3-98ad-8ba0572ccb3b@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 14, 3:03 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> ---
> Yes, just like you retain the ability to not respond to everything that
> comes through here if there is the slighest possibility that it will keep
> this little trollfest going.
Nicole, need I remind you --and apparently I must-- that where things
last left off between the two of us that I couldn't have been more
polite, and even acknowledged your point. I was content to drop
everything there and leave it at that, but then what happened? Well,
it's obvious --your friend the moderator decided to chime in with an
all too familiar and typically snarky attitude, so please, spare me
the bullcrap, will ya.
---
One man's snarky attitude is another man's honest response, especially on
the internet. So please, take the Sequoia tree off your sholder and return
it to the national park. What's done is done, and once again, I point you to
Vorlon comments on veracity.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24321 is a reply to message #24308] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 19:38 |
Jan
Messages: 25
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:01:25 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> On Nov 14, 4:29 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, amid all of her derision and sarcasm, I'm sure she "meant it" --
>
> Not.
>
>
The ONLY slightly snarky bit of her entire lengthy post was the last four words of the last paragraph. And incredibly mild snark at that. If it were me, I'd have called a spade a spade and called you a raving paranoiac. But that's just me.
>
> Call it what you will, but what I found interesting about it was that
>
> she acknowledged a specific post which didn't show up as being her
>
> fault, as though she had seen it. And yet I have heard all sorts of
>
> speculative reasons as to why a post of mine might not show up here,
>
> but a moderator not doing their job was overlooked as a possibility.
>
> Instead it was attributed to a variety of potential technical
>
> problems, or me just looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, but
>
> not a moderator who wasn't around to approve something.
>
Believe me, while we appreciate her entirely volunteer efforts, most of us simply don't think much about the mechanics of moderation at all. And as you say, speculative reasons were given. It's not as if this discussion is either an investigation or trial. We gave information on possible reasons based on past experience.
>
>>
>
>> You owe her an apology. Let's see if you're big enough to extend it.
>
>>
>
> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got
>
> it.
>
>
>
> And I certainly don't owe her one now for any darn thing.
Oh, you do. But it's your karmic debt to accrue so do as you will. Must be rough carrying every grudge and imagined slight around all the time.
Now then...how about you either drop it or talk about the actual thread topic?
Jan
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24322 is a reply to message #24321] |
Wed, 14 November 2012 22:06 |
Nicole Massey
Messages: 67
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
(Off Topic demised equine abuse deleted)
I did a recent check of Bookshare.org, a site for blind folks, and only the
Centauri Prime Trilogy is availible there. Since it's a volunteer effort,
they could use some folks to scan the books and proof the scans. They have
agreements with the publishers to make the books availible for blind folks,
so it won't violate any copyright.
And I still want to know if Minister Leone was Joe's idea of Peter's.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24328 is a reply to message #24321] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 01:14 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 14, 7:38 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> The ONLY slightly snarky bit of her entire lengthy post was the last four words of the last paragraph. And incredibly mild snark at that. If it were me, I'd have called a spade a spade and called you a raving paranoiac. But that's just me. <
Uh huh --stick that with your own tiny violin while you're at it.
I've grown accustomed to your blinders by the way.
And clearly nothing rude or impolite about your insults
obviously ...in fact, your manure smells like roses, doesn't it?
Of course it does ...and next you'll be a candidate for sainthood as a
matter of fact.
> Believe me, while we appreciate her entirely volunteer efforts, most of us simply don't think much about the mechanics of moderation at all. And as you say, speculative reasons were given. It's not as if this discussion is either an investigation or trial. We gave information on possible reasons based on past experience. <
Right --all of which omitted a moderator somehow being at fault
obviously, which turned out to be the case. So when you get right down
to it, I was actually correct as to why at least one post never showed
up here. So Jan, where is the "apology" from you? Come on, let's see
you "man up".
Yeah, didn't think so.
>
> Oh, you do. But it's your karmic debt to accrue so do as you will. <
If being less than polite to a few snobs on a message board is the
worst I have to worry about in terms of karma, I'd say I'm not doing
all that bad obviously.
> Must be rough carrying every grudge and imagined slight around all the time. <
Or maybe there really is something to be said about the company here.
I'm definitely going with the latter.
>
> Now then...how about you either drop it or talk about the actual thread topic?
>
> Jan
I'll tell you what--by all means feel free to do that yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #24347 is a reply to message #24328] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 07:59 |
Jan
Messages: 25
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:14:08 AM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> On Nov 14, 7:38 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> And clearly nothing rude or impolite about your insults
>
You're right. I apologize for calling you an asshole. Regardless of accuracy, it was rude and childish of me and I shouldn't have done it.
>
> Right --all of which omitted a moderator somehow being at fault
>
> obviously, which turned out to be the case. So when you get right down
>
> to it, I was actually correct as to why at least one post never showed
>
> up here. So Jan, where is the "apology" from you? Come on, let's see
>
> you "man up".
>
>
>
> Yeah, didn't think so.
>
Apologize for admitted speculation being incorrect? Generally one apologizes for an actual wrong done knowingly, not for accidental and harmless error. So yeah, I'm woman enough to admit I/we were wrong. All better now, right? Thought so.
Jan
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25162 is a reply to message #24290] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 18:11 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:00:56 -0500, Nicole Massey wrote
(in article <k80tdv$1i7$1@news.albasani.net>):
I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
> but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
> philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
> it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
> will correct it) <<
Ooh, good, you picked one I know. :-)
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25163 is a reply to message #24308] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 18:23 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<4dda15d7-c22e-48f8-8f5c-69a91e21096a@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Call it what you will, but what I found interesting about it was that
> she acknowledged a specific post which didn't show up as being her
> fault, as though she had seen it.<<
Duh! At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it. How
does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
And, dude, I've gotta say: you have some *severe* contextual comprehension
issues with my posts. Not that I've never been snarky, or sarcastic, but I
sure haven't been AT ALL in this particular thread. I'd say, "When I'm
snarky or sarcastic, you'll *know* it...but apparently you won't.
>> And yet I have heard all sorts of
> speculative reasons as to why a post of mine might not show up here,
> but a moderator not doing their job was overlooked as a possibility.
> Instead it was attributed to a variety of potential technical
> problems, or me just looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, but
> not a moderator who wasn't around to approve something. <<
So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a point over
the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which was
true up until Feb. 2 of this year when I went in for my shoulder
reconstruction, and then got lax/lazy. It *still* doesn't mean anyone is
purposefully looking for *your* messages and dumping them. Which, by the
way, is seriously self-centered; no one is that interested in you or your
posts. There are definitely people who have posted here in the past that
might make someone look for and read their posts carefully in case they need
hand moderating, but I don't think you're one of them. And in NO case would
we just dump a post, anyway! As someone pointed out earlier up the thread, if
we bounce something it *automatically generates a reason and emails it to
you.* Automatically. So you'd know if you were bounced, assuming you can
receiving email from the modbot (which I think you have to in order to be
registered in the newsgroup).
>> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got
> it. <<
No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I said
about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25164 is a reply to message #24328] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 18:33 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:14:01 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<a98c0d85-5399-45f8-90e3-507b2e4a6978@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Right --all of which omitted a moderator somehow being at fault
> obviously, which turned out to be the case. So when you get right down
> to it, I was actually correct as to why at least one post never showed
> up here. So Jan, where is the "apology" from you? Come on, let's see
> you "man up". <<
Actually, you were not correct. On July 28, you said this, which is what
prompted me to respond (after someone pointed it out to me and I came back to
the newsgroup this week after my lengthy absence):
>> I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
just dumps it. <<
But instead it turned out that it was just me not being together enough to
moderate for an extended period of time. So, not "actually correct"; instead,
actually incorrect.
And by the way, I barely can handle just the step-by-step moderation process:
I wouldn't have clue one how to "just dump" any message. I can *bounce* a
message, but if I do that, you will get a reason emailed to you.
Automatically. As I've said before.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25165 is a reply to message #25162] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 21:20 |
John W. Kennedy
Messages: 20
Registered: October 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Nov 15, 6:11 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:00:56 -0500, Nicole Massey wrote
>
> (in article <k80tdv$1i...@news.albasani.net>):
>
> I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
>
>> but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
>> philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
>> it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
>> will correct it) <<
>
> Ooh, good, you picked one I know. :-)
>
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
> your philosophy."
With the understanding that "your philosophy", in this case, means
"that philosophy stuff", as in, "I got yer math right here, I got yer
science, I got yer philosophy," which is vulgar nowadays, but was
perfectly respectable in Shakespeare's day.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25183 is a reply to message #24322] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 21:47 |
Dennis \(Icarus\)
Messages: 6
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"Nicole Massey" wrote in message news:k81mc6$ran$1@news.albasani.net...
> I did a recent check of Bookshare.org, a site for blind folks, and only the
> Centauri Prime Trilogy is availible there. Since it's a volunteer effort,
> they could use some folks to scan the books and proof the scans. They have
> agreements with the publishers to make the books availible for blind folks,
> so it won't violate any copyright.
> And I still want to know if Minister Leone was Joe's idea of Peter's.
Thanks for that!
will contact them.
Dennis
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25184 is a reply to message #24174] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 23:49 |
Matthew Vincent
Messages: 8
Registered: October 2012
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:31:36 AM UTC+13, Amy Guskin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:31:09 -0500, news wrote
>
> (in article <fFfos.16003$h94.12732@newsfe02.iad>):
>
>> Hi Amy,
>
>>
>
>> Glad to see you back. Did your medical situation resolve itself? <<
>
> Hi, Mike thanks for asking. Yes and no: after two months on the pic line,
> the infection is well and truly gone, but my arm is a *mess*, and while the
> pain that prompted this revision surgery is gone, the arms works *worse* than
> before, which is a little depressing. But it's all good: I could have bled
> out on the table, so I consider myself ahead of the game by being alive!
Ouch Amy, you poor thing. Thank you for the update. I hope you make a full recovery in time. I'll be sure to send you healing energy. Nice to have you back with us.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25185 is a reply to message #24348] |
Thu, 15 November 2012 23:52 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 15, 7:59 am, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Apologize for admitted speculation being incorrect?
No, for deliberately ruling out the one possibility you weren't
interested in considering, while criticizing and mocking me in the
process.
> Generally one apologizes for an actual wrong done knowingly
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25187 is a reply to message #25163] |
Fri, 16 November 2012 00:13 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 15, 6:23 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
> <4dda15d7-c22e-48f8-8f5c-69a91e210...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>> Call it what you will, but what I found interesting about it was that
>> she acknowledged a specific post which didn't show up as being her
>> fault, as though she had seen it.<<
>
> Duh! At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it. How
> does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
> was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
>
Then why were you accepting blame for it not having appeared? We're
talking about a post from back during the summer.
And allow me to quote you:
"Ha! It is so funny to come back here after all this time and see what
is going on. StarFury, first of all, you can lay the blame square with
me on your Claudia post not getting through."
Now, if there are various system quirks that might stand to prevent a
post from making it through to this board, as has been claimed, how do
you know the post about her not showing up was attributable to you
directly rather than one of those supposed technical problems that
potentially exist?
And again, it's a post from months ago -- did you see it still stuck
in the queue after all this time? Why accept blame if you didn't--
couldn't--know whether you were actually at fault?
> And, dude, I've gotta say: you have some *severe* contextual comprehension
> issues with my posts. Not that I've never been snarky, or sarcastic, but I
> sure haven't been AT ALL in this particular thread. I'd say, "When I'm
> snarky or sarcastic, you'll *know* it...but apparently you won't.
Ha! It's so funny to come back here and see this!
>
> So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a point over
> the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which was
> true up until Feb. 2 of this year when I went in for my shoulder
> reconstruction, and then got lax/lazy. It *still* doesn't mean anyone is
> purposefully looking for *your* messages and dumping them.
"Purposely looking"? I see it as more casual and cavalier than that
frankly. "Oh, there he is again." :::Dump:::
> Which, by the
> way, is seriously self-centered;
If there's one thing I'd never be accused of out in the real world by
people who know me, that's it.
> no one is that interested in you or your
> posts.
One doesn't have to be particularly interested in me or my posts to be
spiteful just for the sake of it.
> As someone pointed out earlier up the thread, if
> we bounce something it *automatically generates a reason and emails it to
> you.* Automatically. So you'd know if you were bounced, assuming you can
> receiving email from the modbot (which I think you have to in order to be
> registered in the newsgroup).
Thank yourselves for my having pulled the plug on that year's ago --
and posts not appearing with no such notifications predated my having
changed my mail settings.
>
>>> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got it.
>>
>
> No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I said
> about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
>
So you say, but I'm inclined to doubt that. Even if out of simple
curiosity than nothing else, refreshing your memory wouldn't be all
that difficult.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25188 is a reply to message #25164] |
Fri, 16 November 2012 00:22 |
StarFuryG7
Messages: 50
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Nov 15, 6:33 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> But instead it turned out that it was just me not being together enough to
> moderate for an extended period of time. So, not "actually correct"; instead,
> actually incorrect.
>
It still comes down to a moderator not doing their assigned duty
regardless.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25214 is a reply to message #25186] |
Fri, 16 November 2012 08:18 |
Nicole Massey
Messages: 67
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
"StarFuryG7" <StarFuryG7@aim.com> wrote in message
news:fe030c38-87b6-45d3-b614-d04553eef008@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 8:00 am, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> "StarFuryG7" <StarFur...@aim.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eb6397c9-706b-42ea-85d0-74677d5c00c3@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 7:12 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>
>> ---
>> One man's snarky attitude is another man's honest response, especially
>> on
>> the internet.
>
> Say hello to the honest man.
> ---
> I will, next time I run into him. Or does self delusion not count against
> honesty? <
I've not only been completely forthright here, but it turns out that
I've been vindicated to boot. I can understand your unwillingness to
acknowledge that given that you've preferred being adversarial in my
direction, but calling me a liar seriously undermines your snooty
pretense of being 'above it all'.
---
Well, since I didn't call you a liar, just self delusional, based on the
evidence that you've presented so far, How does that fit your
self-justification for the myriad filters you're applying to the messages
here?
I suggest a little experiment. Instead of expecting adversarial interactions
here, (expectations decrease joy) how about doing a little thought
experiment and turning the filter around and reading things here as if no
one is adversarial to you at all? It may not be the truth., but the altered
perspective might go a long way toward understanding.
And I don't find it the least bit surprising that the suggestion that your
post didn't get through resulted in you holding the premise that it was
enemy action while the counter proposals were ones that excluded it. The
conversation (or if you prefer, argument in either its true meaning or the
more common one used in social situations) was to present other reasons why
your post didn't get through, not to present the entire list of
possibilities, and since you already presented the thought that it was
moderator action that was already in the list of possibilities. (And thanks
to prior evidence, which of course happened to not play out this time, the
wyrd being what it is, it was less than likely that it was what you
suggested)
You're still clinging to this faulty premise that someone is categorically
rejecting your posts just because of who you are. I think the responses
that have been given from the very person who is in charge of moderation
puts that to pay. And your decision to filter administrative messages from
the software does not in any way strengthen your position -- quite the
contrary. It puts your protests in a category where you are assuming the
worst from your own actions instead of coming from an informed position
regarding the particulars of if your posts come through or not.
Finally, I would like to remind you that though you might not be
categorically moderated by the official channels each person on this
newsgroup also has the ability to killfile you should you reach a point
where your messages pass a threshold of annoying to him or her. This runs
the risk of anything of value or with substantitive content you post here in
the future once this little whingefest dies down may not get seen, which
will marginalize you just as much as if you were being singled out for
rejection by the moderators.
Snooty? Wow, that's a first -- no one has ever called me that before. I'll
have to add it to the list.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25238 is a reply to message #25184] |
Fri, 16 November 2012 09:18 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:49:08 -0500, Matthew Vincent wrote
(in article <0dad68d6-3d25-4e9a-afc6-1d40dfae817d@googlegroups.com>):
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:31:36 AM UTC+13, Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:31:09 -0500, news wrote
>>
>> (in article <fFfos.16003$h94.12732@newsfe02.iad>):
>>
>>> Hi Amy,
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Glad to see you back. Did your medical situation resolve itself? <<
>>
>> Hi, Mike thanks for asking. Yes and no: after two months on the pic line,
>> the infection is well and truly gone, but my arm is a *mess*, and while the
>> pain that prompted this revision surgery is gone, the arms works *worse*
>> than
>> before, which is a little depressing. But it's all good: I could have bled
>> out on the table, so I consider myself ahead of the game by being alive!
>
> Ouch Amy, you poor thing. Thank you for the update. I hope you make a full
> recovery in time. I'll be sure to send you healing energy. Nice to have you
> back with us. <<
Thanks so much, Matthew it really was a tough year! (Except for Paris,
naturally!)
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25239 is a reply to message #25187] |
Fri, 16 November 2012 09:40 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:13:02 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<33c3811f-4094-42e2-99de-a0137f23a17e@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 15, 6:23 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>>
>> (in article
>> <4dda15d7-c22e-48f8-8f5c-69a91e210...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> Call it what you will, but what I found interesting about it was that
>>> she acknowledged a specific post which didn't show up as being her
>>> fault, as though she had seen it.<<
>>
>> Duh! At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it. How
>> does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
>> was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
>>
>
> Then why were you accepting blame for it not having appeared? We're
> talking about a post from back during the summer. <<
Because I hadn't been moderating for *months*. "Months," which does include
late June, July, August, and early September, which qualify as summer here in
the northern hemisphere. And incidentally, this is the first I'm hearing
that it was summer. In the handful of posts I read, all I saw was complaints
about a post about Claudia that hadn't appeared. Didn't know *when* you were
talking about, but it didn't *matter*. Why is this so hard to understand? I
know I've already said repeatedly on this thread that I was lax, I was
shirking my duties because there never seemed to be any messages when I
checked here, plus I was physically unable part of the time (either from
being in the hospital or being on another continent) to moderate. So any
posts that haven't shown up *this year* would pretty much be my fault. I
don't think it was crazy or suspicious! for me to naturally assume you
were talking about something in the current year!
>>> And allow me to quote you:
>
> "Ha! It is so funny to come back here after all this time and see what
> is going on. StarFury, first of all, you can lay the blame square with
> me on your Claudia post not getting through."
>
> Now, if there are various system quirks that might stand to prevent a
> post from making it through to this board, as has been claimed, how do
> you know the post about her not showing up was attributable to you
> directly rather than one of those supposed technical problems that
> potentially exist? <<
You are seriously kidding, right? I suppose it *could* have been a technical
reason, but my first assumption would not be to blame somebody or something
else. Especially since I hadn't been doing my job for months.
>> And again, it's a post from months ago -- did you see it still stuck
> in the queue after all this time? Why accept blame if you didn't--
> couldn't--know whether you were actually at fault? <<
Nope, it isn't in the queue. When I was reading those first messages and
replying to you, I hadn't moderated yet. And after I did, honestly, I just
didn't think about it I was more concerned with assuring you that nobody is
dumping your posts, which they aren't. So the post *never* appeared? What
was it about the release of Claudia's book?
>>> So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a point over
>> the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which
>> was
>> true up until Feb. 2 of this year when I went in for my shoulder
>> reconstruction, and then got lax/lazy. It *still* doesn't mean anyone is
>> purposefully looking for *your* messages and dumping them.
>
> "Purposely looking"? I see it as more casual and cavalier than that
> frankly. "Oh, there he is again." :::Dump::: <<
I don't think that's even possible. As I've said repeatedly on this thread,
when we reject a post, the bounce generates an email that goes to you,
telling you why we rejected the post. If there *is* a way of dumping a post
without generating a reason, I do not know it. And since I have been nearly
solely moderating for a good long time, your theory falls down because *I do
not know how to dump a post, if such a thing is even possible*.
>>> no one is that interested in you or your
>> posts.
>
> One doesn't have to be particularly interested in me or my posts to be
> spiteful just for the sake of it. <<
Yes, they do. Because if someone just enjoyed dumping posts which, again, I
don't think is possible why are you seemingly the only person suffering
this fate? Everyone else who has had posts lost me included just sends
them again and chalks it up to quirks in the system. People who have had
repeated problems usually confer with Jay, and sometimes it's found to be a
problem with their ISP. Dunno. I don't handle the technical stuff. That's
not the kind of programming I do. But I *do* know that you have to have a
pretty inflated opinion of yourself to think that you're getting all of this
special attention from moderators who *barely have time to moderate*, much
less play a stupid game with someone who only posts extremely sporadically.
>>> As someone pointed out earlier up the thread, if
>> we bounce something it *automatically generates a reason and emails it to
>> you.* Automatically. So you'd know if you were bounced, assuming you can
>> receiving email from the modbot (which I think you have to in order to be
>> registered in the newsgroup).
>
> Thank yourselves for my having pulled the plug on that year's ago --
> and posts not appearing with no such notifications predated my having
> changed my mail settings. <<
Can't parse the first part pulled the plug on *what*? and there is no
apostrophe in "years ago" and the second part, you're out of my pay grade.
I have no idea how this all works behind the matrix.
>>> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got it.
>>>
>>
>> No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I said
>> about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
>>
>
> So you say, but I'm inclined to doubt that. Even if out of simple
> curiosity than nothing else, refreshing your memory wouldn't be all
> that difficult. <<
Sorry, dude, no idea and I even spent about ten minutes yesterday searching
around in the archives, but couldn't find any conversations between you and I
in that time period, and got bored and gave up.
I don't suppose you will ever believe it, but you are *not* being targeted,
and if posts are going missing, it's a technical problem. If you still want
to post about Claudia, I'd suggest trying again, or if you like, email me the
content of your post and I will post it myself, indicating clearly that it is
*your* post.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Electronic versions of B5 books [message #25240 is a reply to message #25188] |
Fri, 16 November 2012 09:44 |
Amy Guskin
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:22:05 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<c8f1f969-bc45-4598-8f0a-1abe44acb087@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 15, 6:33 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>
>> But instead it turned out that it was just me not being together enough to
>> moderate for an extended period of time. So, not "actually correct";
>> instead,
>> actually incorrect.
>>
>
> It still comes down to a moderator not doing their assigned duty
> regardless. <<
But that's not what you repeatedly claim is the reason. You repeatedly claim
that you are being targeted, that some shadow moderator is somehow dumping
your posts. But, as I pointed out above, that is not what happened. If a post
didn't show up this year, in the past few months, before I came back to the
newsgroup a couple of days ago, it's likely because I wasn't doing my job..
That is NOT the same as deliberate sabotage.
If, however, the post *never* showed up, not even after I came back, I'm
guessing it is whatever technical problem you are repeatedly having, possibly
something to do with your ISP.
Has anyone else out there had posts go completely missing this year? I'm
curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
