>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:13:02 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article=20
):

> On Nov 15, 6:23=A0pm, Amy Guskin  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>>=20
>> (in article
>> ):
>>=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