>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:30:54 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote   
   (in article=20   
   <9ffcde4b-ccda-4c75-b81d-d93732dfb731@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>):   
      
   > On Nov 16, 9:40=C2=A0am, Amy Guskin  wrote:   
   >>=20   
   >=20   
   >>=20   
   >> =A0So the post *never* appeared? What   
   >> was it about =E2=80=B9=C2=A0the release of Claudia's book?   
   >=20   
   > 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. <<   
      
   Okay, and with this, I hope we will be able to agree that it makes NO sen=   
   se=20   
   for someone to have dumped your post. Everyone here likes Claudia, I'm=20   
   absolutely certain that no one with moderator capabilities would have any=   
   =20   
   reason to want to deny her publicity for her upcoming book, thus cutting =   
   into=20   
   her sales, even if the level of emotion towards you was of a "we hate you=   
   =20   
   with the fire of a hundred thousand suns" variety. Don't you agree?   
      
   >>> Everyone else who has had posts lost =E2=80=B9=C2=A0me included =E2=80=   
   =B9=C2=A0just sends them=20   
   >> again and chalks it up to quirks in the system. <   
   >=20   
   > Pretty hard to do if you haven't saved the text before clicking on   
   > submit. <<   
      
   You don't have any kind of outqueue in your newsreader client?  I would=20   
   humbly suggest looking into something else, like Hogwasher. I can't tell =   
   you=20   
   how many times that outbox has bailed me out when a post has gone missing=   
   !   
      
   > >> and sometimes it's found to be a   
   >> problem with their ISP. Dunno. I don't =C2=A0handle the technical stuf=   
   f. That's   
   >> not the kind of programming I do. But I *do* know that you have to hav=   
   e a   
   >> pretty inflated opinion of yourself to think that you're getting all o=   
   f this   
   >> special attention from moderators who *barely have time to moderate*, =   
   much   
   >> less play a stupid game with someone who only posts extremely sporadic=   
   ally.   
   >=20   
   > 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. <<   
      
   Okay, all sarcastic quippery aside, I want to you to really *hear* what I=   
    am=20   
   saying, and be confident that it is meant seriously, with not a jot of=20   
   underlying derision, saracasm, or anything else of which I've been accuse=   
   d:=20   
   why now? With almost nothing going on in this newsgroup, why would any=20   
   moderator have an interest in actively discouraging anyone from posting?=20   
   Maybe, possibly, when this newsgroup was alive and kicking, I could=20   
   conceivably allow the notion of some shadow moderator not wanting things =   
   to=20   
   be stirred up here, and to discourage said stirrer-upper from posting in =   
   the=20   
   future.  But with about three people posting and reading...who *cares* if=   
   =20   
   someone is slightly annoying? He is only annoying those three people, rig=   
   ht?=20   
   So why would anyone care to thwart you *now*, when the newsgroup is very=20   
   close to pining for the fjords? Who would *need* to thwart you from posti=   
   ng=20   
   in the future?  *What* future (as far as the relative health of this ng i=   
   s=20   
   concerned)?   
      
   (No disrespect to the handful of people still keeping the home fires burn=   
   ing=20   
   here, and obviously there are more than three, but I meant that as a=20   
   metaphor.)   
      
   >>>> Sorry, dude, no idea =E2=80=B9=C2=A0and I even spent about ten minut=   
   es yesterday=20   
   >> searching around in the archives, but couldn't find any conversations=20   
   >> between you and I in that time period, and got bored and gave up. <   
   >=20   
   > 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. <<   
      
   Sorry, I didn't find it. I wouldn't say that my memory is poor; more that=   
    I=20   
   don't make a special effort to retain unimportant things.  And, for the=20   
   record: I am *not* saying that sarcastically, or as a dig at you. Honestl=   
   y,=20   
   discussions on the internet about a tv show are *not* that important in t=   
   he=20   
   grand scheme of things, whether they were great discussions, personal=20   
   responses from JMS, or arguments.   
      
   >>> I don't suppose you will ever believe it, but you are *not* being tar=   
   geted,   
   >> and if posts are going missing, it's a technical problem. If you still=   
    want   
   >> to post about Claudia, I'd suggest trying again   
   >=20   
   > Four months later or so?   
   >=20   
   > No thanks ...it's certainly not worthy the bother after all this time. =   
   <<   
      
   If you had an opinion about some of the content in the teaser, it is like=   
   ly=20   
   still relevant, since the book is now available in its full version.  In=20   
   fact, I think a thread on the book itself would be kind of interesting, a=   
   nd=20   
   something to make it worthwhile for those three people to keep coming aro=   
   und=20   
   here. :-)   
      
   And I can promise you that it'll appear quickly, since I am back moderati=   
   ng=20   
   regularly. And if it *doesn't* appear, that might tell us something about=   
   =20   
   what is going wrong with your posts.   
      
   Amy   
      
   --=20   
   Diligent Moderatrix   
   --- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32   
    * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:340/400)