"StarFuryG7"  wrote in message    
   news:fe030c38-87b6-45d3-b614-d04553eef008@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...   
   On Nov 15, 8:00 am, "Nicole Massey"  wrote:   
   > "StarFuryG7"  wrote in message   
   >   
   > news:eb6397c9-706b-42ea-85d0-74677d5c00c3@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Nov 14, 7:12 pm, "Nicole Massey"  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.   
   --- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32   
    * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:340/400)