>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:13:02 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote   
   (in article=20   
   <33c3811f-4094-42e2-99de-a0137f23a17e@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):   
      
   > On Nov 15, 6:23=A0pm, Amy Guskin  wrote:   
   >>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote   
   >>=20   
   >> (in article   
   >> <4dda15d7-c22e-48f8-8f5c-69a91e210...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):   
   >>=20   
   >>=20   
   >>=20   
   >>> 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.<<   
   >>=20   
   >> Duh! =A0At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about =   
   it. =A0How   
   >> does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? =A0All I h=   
   ad seen   
   >> was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!   
   >>=20   
   >=20   
   > 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 inclu=   
   de=20   
   late June, July, August, and early September, which qualify as summer her=   
   e in=20   
   the northern hemisphere.  And incidentally, this is the first I'm hearing=   
   =20   
   that it was summer. In the handful of posts I read, all I saw was complai=   
   nts=20   
   about a post about Claudia that hadn't appeared. Didn't know *when* you w=   
   ere=20   
   talking about, but it didn't *matter*. Why is this so hard to understand?=   
    I=20   
   know I've already said repeatedly on this thread that I was lax, I was=20   
   shirking my duties because there never seemed to be any messages when I=20   
   checked here, plus I was physically unable part of the time (either from=20   
   being in the hospital or being on another continent) to moderate. So any=20   
   posts that haven't shown up *this year* would pretty much be my fault. I=20   
   don't think it was crazy =8B=A0or suspicious! =8B for me to naturally ass=   
   ume you=20   
   were talking about something in the current year!   
      
   >> > And allow me to quote you:   
   >=20   
   > "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."   
   >=20   
   > 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 techni=   
   cal=20   
   reason, but my first assumption would not be to blame somebody =8B=A0or s=   
   omething=20   
   =8B=A0else.  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=20   
   replying to you, I hadn't moderated yet. And after I did, honestly, I jus=   
   t=20   
   didn't think about it =8B=A0I was more concerned with assuring you that n=   
   obody is=20   
   dumping your posts, which they aren't.  So the post *never* appeared? Wha=   
   t=20   
   was it about =8B=A0the release of Claudia's book?   
      
   >>> So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a poin=   
   t over   
   >> the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, wh=   
   ich=20   
   >> 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.   
   >=20   
   > "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 threa=   
   d,=20   
   when we reject a post, the bounce generates an email that goes to you,=20   
   telling you why we rejected the post.  If there *is* a way of dumping a p=   
   ost=20   
   without generating a reason, I do not know it.  And since I have been nea=   
   rly=20   
   solely moderating for a good long time, your theory falls down because *I=   
    do=20   
   not know how to dump a post, if such a thing is even possible*.   
      
   >>> no one is that interested in you or your   
   >> posts.   
   >=20   
   > 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 =8B=A0which, =   
   again, I=20   
   don't think is possible =8B=A0why are you seemingly the only person suffe=   
   ring=20   
   this fate? Everyone else who has had posts lost =8B=A0me included =8B=A0j=   
   ust sends=20   
   them again and chalks it up to quirks in the system. People who have had=20   
   repeated problems usually confer with Jay, and sometimes it's found to be=   
    a=20   
   problem with their ISP. Dunno. I don't  handle the technical stuff. That'=   
   s=20   
   not the kind of programming I do. But I *do* know that you have to have a=   
   =20   
   pretty inflated opinion of yourself to think that you're getting all of t=   
   his=20   
   special attention from moderators who *barely have time to moderate*, muc=   
   h=20   
   less play a stupid game with someone who only posts extremely sporadicall=   
   y.   
      
   >>> 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 c=   
   an   
   >> receiving email from the modbot (which I think you have to in order to=   
    be   
   >> registered in the newsgroup).   
   >=20   
   > 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 =8B pulled the plug on *what*? and there is no=   
   =20   
   apostrophe in "years ago" =8B and the second part, you're out of my pay g=   
   rade.=20   
   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.   
   >>>=20   
   >>=20   
   >> No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I s=   
   aid   
   >> about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.   
   >>=20   
   >=20   
   > 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 =8B=A0and I even spent about ten minutes yesterday s=   
   earching=20   
   around in the archives, but couldn't find any conversations between you a=   
   nd I=20   
   in that time period, and got bored and gave up.   
      
   I don't suppose you will ever believe it, but you are *not* being targete=   
   d,=20   
   and if posts are going missing, it's a technical problem. If you still wa=   
   nt=20   
   to post about Claudia, I'd suggest trying again, or if you like, email me=   
    the=20   
   content of your post and I will post it myself, indicating clearly that i=   
   t is=20   
   *your* post.   
      
   Amy   
      
   --=20   
   Diligent Moderatrix   
   --- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32   
    * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:340/400)