On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:01:25 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> On Nov 14, 4:29=A0pm, Jan  wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Yes, amid all of her derision and sarcasm, I'm sure she "meant it" --
>=20
> Not.
>=20
>=20

The ONLY slightly snarky bit of her entire lengthy post was the last four w=
ords of the last paragraph.  And incredibly mild snark at that.  If it were=
 me, I'd have called a spade a spade and called you a raving paranoiac.  Bu=
t that's just me.


>=20
> Call it what you will, but what I found interesting about it was that
>=20
> she acknowledged a specific post which didn't show up as being her
>=20
> fault, as though she had seen it. And yet I have heard all sorts of
>=20
> speculative reasons as to why a post of mine might not show up here,
>=20
> but a moderator not doing their job was overlooked as a possibility.
>=20
> Instead it was attributed to a variety of potential technical
>=20
> problems, or me just looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, but
>=20
> not a moderator who wasn't around to approve something.
>=20

Believe me, while we appreciate her entirely volunteer efforts, most of us =
simply don't think much about the mechanics of moderation at all. And as yo=
u say, speculative reasons were given.  It's not as if this discussion is e=
ither an investigation or trial.  We gave information on possible reasons b=
ased on past experience.=20

>=20
> >
>=20
> > You owe her an apology. =A0Let's see if you're big enough to extend it.
>=20
> >
>=20
> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got
>=20
> it.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> And I certainly don't owe her one now for any darn thing.

Oh, you do.  But it's your karmic debt to accrue so do as you will.  Must b=
e rough carrying every grudge and imagined slight around all the time.

Now then...how about you either drop it or talk about the actual thread top=
ic? =20

Jan
--- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32