On Nov 16, 9:40=C2=A0am, Amy Guskin  wrote:   
   >   
   > Because I hadn't been moderating for *months*. "Months," which does inclu=   
   de   
   > late June, July, August, and early September, which qualify as summer her=   
   e in   
   > the northern hemisphere.   
      
   That qualifies as a Duh! Amy. I did say it was during the summer,   
   which apparently we're agreed upon as to when that occurs 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 complai=   
   nts   
   > about a post about Claudia that hadn't appeared. Didn't know *when* you w=   
   ere   
   > talking about, but it didn't *matter*. Why is this so hard to understand?   
      
   The time frame as to when the message was posted has been referenced   
   several times here in this thread.   
      
   > 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,   
      
   Okay, whatever --you weren't/couldn't do your job, either because you   
   physically weren't up to it, were unable, or just didn't feel like it.   
   Fine. Got it.   
      
   >   
   > 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 jus=   
   t   
   > didn't think about it =E2=80=B9=C2=A0I was more concerned with assuring y=   
   ou that nobody is   
   > dumping your posts, which they aren't. =C2=A0So the post *never* appeared=   
   ? What   
   > was it about =E2=80=B9=C2=A0the release of Claudia's book?   
      
   Yes, she handed out a several-page summary at to attendees at Comic   
   Con on the West Coast concerning some of the things the book would   
   cover.   
      
   >   
   > > "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,   
   > when we reject a post, the bounce generates an email that goes to you,   
   > telling you why we rejected the post. =C2=A0If there *is* a way of dumpin=   
   g a post   
   > without generating a reason, I do not know it.   
      
   I've never believed you to blame in that regard anyway.   
      
   > > 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 =E2=80=B9=C2=A0why are you seemingly the only pe=   
   rson suffering this fate? <   
      
   I don't know that I am.   
      
   > Everyone else who has had posts lost =E2=80=B9=C2=A0me included =E2=80=B9=   
   =C2=A0just sends them again and chalks it up to quirks in the system. <   
      
   Pretty hard to do if you haven't saved the text before clicking on   
   submit.   
      
   > People who have had   
   > repeated problems usually confer with Jay <   
      
   I went through my share of that in years past --lost cause.   
      
   > and sometimes it's found to be a   
   > problem with their ISP. Dunno. I don't =C2=A0handle 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 t=   
   his   
   > special attention from moderators who *barely have time to moderate*, muc=   
   h   
   > less play a stupid game with someone who only posts extremely sporadicall=   
   y.   
      
   I would think that if anything that would only make it easier for   
   someone paying attention, and it also has the benefit of serving as a   
   source of discouragement concerning future posting for the person   
   attempting to get his message through.   
      
   > >>> 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).   
   >   
   > > Thank yourselves for my having pulled the plug on that year's ago -- an=   
   d posts not appearing with no such notifications predated my having changed=   
    my mail settings. <   
      
   >   
   > Can't parse the first part =E2=80=B9 pulled the plug on *what*?   
      
   Receiving system notifications from the newsgroup, including those   
   that might be sent by a moderator.   
      
   > and there is no   
   > apostrophe in "years ago" =E2=80=B9   
      
   You're going to nitpick a clumsy keystroke?   
      
   :::Sigh:::   
      
   >   
   > >>> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got=   
    it.   
      
   >   
   > Sorry, dude, no idea =E2=80=B9=C2=A0and I even spent about ten minutes ye=   
   sterday searching around in the archives, but couldn't find any conversatio=   
   ns between you and I in that time period, and got bored and gave up. <   
      
   LMAO - even if your memory is that poor, it's there, and while finding   
   it would probably require reading through a significant number of   
   posts, the general location shouldn't be at all difficult to find.   
      
   >   
   > I don't suppose you will ever believe it, but you are *not* being targete=   
   d,   
   > and if posts are going missing, it's a technical problem. If you still wa=   
   nt   
   > to post about Claudia, I'd suggest trying again   
      
   Four months later or so?   
      
   No thanks ...it's certainly not worthy the bother after all this time.   
   --- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32   
    * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:340/400)