>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:30:54 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article=20
):

> 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