info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Electronic versions of B5 books
315 views
Skip to first unread message
Wayne Dernoncourt
Jul 13, 2012, 7:14:12 AM7/13/12
to
I have all of the B5 books so far (not the trilogies, but the script/What the
hell happened/etc. books, at least I think I have), what I would love to have
but doubt I ever will are electronic versions of these books. I have all of
the books, but I've stopped reading them. Why? I've damaged some of the
books (and they've been replaced by the scripts team), but if I go back and
re-read them, replacements won't be available. Also those things end up
being heavy. I'd love to be able to carry three or four of those books
around when I go on vacation. A Kindle or an iPad version would be lots more
portable than the printed copy.
I'm sure that my dream will remain unfulfilled, but I can still have it.
hell happened/etc. books, at least I think I have), what I would love to have
but doubt I ever will are electronic versions of these books. I have all of
the books, but I've stopped reading them. Why? I've damaged some of the
books (and they've been replaced by the scripts team), but if I go back and
re-read them, replacements won't be available. Also those things end up
being heavy. I'd love to be able to carry three or four of those books
around when I go on vacation. A Kindle or an iPad version would be lots more
portable than the printed copy.
I'm sure that my dream will remain unfulfilled, but I can still have it.
Nicole Massey
Jul 13, 2012, 8:58:47 AM7/13/12
to
"Wayne Dernoncourt" <way...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CC257B44...@news.panix.com...
electronic versions of the script books for legal reasons. For me it was
simply an accessibility issue, as I'm blind.
PhantomSteve
Jul 13, 2012, 11:15:30 AM7/13/12
to
Nicole Massey entertained (or was it annoyed?) us in message:
They would also have to consider how they do it - one of the "features"
of the books is that they would not be available in the future after the
end of the publication window.
They also couldn't publish them exactly as they were, as another thing
they always say is basically "these won't ever be published in their
entirety again" - the deal when they were first published was similar to
the one for the "Echoes" series:
"PLEASE DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY LIMITED EDITION.
These books will never, ever be available again. This compilation
under a different title will never, ever be available again. Really.
Name any ploy used by an unscrupulous "limited edition" publisher
and know that we will not do that.
That said, it is possible that some of the content could be
available somewhere else, someday, separately. "Separately" is the
key word here. For example, one of the interviews could be
republished in another book."
Steve
--
__ _ __
o|\('')/|o |_)|_ _ __ _|_ _ __ _ _|_ _ _ o|\('')/|o
\_ _/ | | |(_|| | |_(_)|||_> |_(/_\_/(/_ \_ _/
/___/ (PhantomSteve - Design : Marion Koslowski) \___\
of the books is that they would not be available in the future after the
end of the publication window.
They also couldn't publish them exactly as they were, as another thing
they always say is basically "these won't ever be published in their
entirety again" - the deal when they were first published was similar to
the one for the "Echoes" series:
"PLEASE DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY LIMITED EDITION.
These books will never, ever be available again. This compilation
under a different title will never, ever be available again. Really.
Name any ploy used by an unscrupulous "limited edition" publisher
and know that we will not do that.
That said, it is possible that some of the content could be
available somewhere else, someday, separately. "Separately" is the
key word here. For example, one of the interviews could be
republished in another book."
Steve
--
__ _ __
o|\('')/|o |_)|_ _ __ _|_ _ __ _ _|_ _ _ o|\('')/|o
\_ _/ | | |(_|| | |_(_)|||_> |_(/_\_/(/_ \_ _/
/___/ (PhantomSteve - Design : Marion Koslowski) \___\
John W Kennedy
Jul 13, 2012, 1:44:51 PM7/13/12
to
On 2012-07-13 11:14:12 +0000, Wayne Dernoncourt said:
> I have all of the B5 books so far (not the trilogies, but the script/What the
> hell happened/etc. books, at least I think I have), what I would love to have
> but doubt I ever will are electronic versions of these books. I have all of
> the books, but I've stopped reading them. Why? I've damaged some of the
> books (and they've been replaced by the scripts team), but if I go back and
> re-read them, replacements won't be available. Also those things end up
> being heavy. I'd love to be able to carry three or four of those books
> around when I go on vacation. A Kindle or an iPad version would be lots more
> portable than the printed copy.
>
> I'm sure that my dream will remain unfulfilled, but I can still have it.
>
Apart from the other problems, most of the material is in the form of original scans; you're talking a megabyte or two per page (assuming they've been converted in to optimized PNGs -- otherwise you could be looking at over 100MB each). In principle, they could be OCRed, but I've just been doing that with a single 80-page typescript, which reduced it from about 500MB to about 125kB, but destroyed all the formatting while introducing several OCR errors per page, both of which I had to fix by hand (and I'd still be working on it if I hadn't decided that I could ignore the original line breaks and page breaks, and that's not acceptable for the scripts).
> I have all of the B5 books so far (not the trilogies, but the script/What the
> hell happened/etc. books, at least I think I have), what I would love to have
> but doubt I ever will are electronic versions of these books. I have all of
> the books, but I've stopped reading them. Why? I've damaged some of the
> books (and they've been replaced by the scripts team), but if I go back and
> re-read them, replacements won't be available. Also those things end up
> being heavy. I'd love to be able to carry three or four of those books
> around when I go on vacation. A Kindle or an iPad version would be lots more
> portable than the printed copy.
>
> I'm sure that my dream will remain unfulfilled, but I can still have it.
>
Unless you can find a few dozen volunteers to work for several weeks without pay, I don't think it's feasible.
--
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson
Wayne Dernoncourt
Jul 14, 2012, 8:13:47 AM7/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:44:51 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote
(in article <9484D038-4D2C-4761...@attglobal.net>):
I'm willing to bet the text didn't start out as pen on paper, maybe it did.
But someone somewhere put it into a computer for production on a printer.
I'm looking to capture that to an electronic version. As someone else
pointed out the "Limited time only" is a sticky issue. I'm sure there are
other issues.
(in article <9484D038-4D2C-4761...@attglobal.net>):
But someone somewhere put it into a computer for production on a printer.
I'm looking to capture that to an electronic version. As someone else
pointed out the "Limited time only" is a sticky issue. I'm sure there are
other issues.
Wayne Dernoncourt
Jul 15, 2012, 9:57:33 AM7/15/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:15:30 -0400, PhantomSteve wrote
(in article <XnsA08FA56344B19ph...@81.171.92.222>):
After doing some more thinking about this stuff what about embedding the
buyers name, email, address, etc. in each copy (multiple times). Each person
would be able to "buy" one copy/license for each copy of the volume. I
typically buy two copies of each volume, I don't know why, my wife is pretty
sure I'm crazy but that is a different issue<g>. But since I buy two copies
and deliver to the same address, I would be eligible to get 1 electronic
version for all of my electronic gadgets - format's not withstanding. I
don't know if PDF, some sort of Amazon/Apple format would be more appropriate
since the more proprietary formats would lend themselves to additional
features but also obsolescence.
(in article <XnsA08FA56344B19ph...@81.171.92.222>):
buyers name, email, address, etc. in each copy (multiple times). Each person
would be able to "buy" one copy/license for each copy of the volume. I
typically buy two copies of each volume, I don't know why, my wife is pretty
sure I'm crazy but that is a different issue<g>. But since I buy two copies
and deliver to the same address, I would be eligible to get 1 electronic
version for all of my electronic gadgets - format's not withstanding. I
don't know if PDF, some sort of Amazon/Apple format would be more appropriate
since the more proprietary formats would lend themselves to additional
features but also obsolescence.
Nicole Massey
Jul 15, 2012, 1:38:18 PM7/15/12
to
news:0001HW.CC28448D...@news.panix.com...
A common tactic in RPG books is to watermark the buyer's name on each page
of the pdf.
of the pdf.
Wayne Dernoncourt
Jul 15, 2012, 7:41:50 PM7/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:38:18 -0400, Nicole Massey wrote
(in article <jtuvd3$ico$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>> After doing some more thinking about this stuff what about embedding
>> the buyers name, email, address, etc. in each copy (multiple times).
>> Each person
>> would be able to "buy" one copy/license for each copy of the volume. I
>> typically buy two copies of each volume, I don't know why, my wife is
>> pretty
>> sure I'm crazy but that is a different issue<g>. But since I buy two
>> copies
>> and deliver to the same address, I would be eligible to get 1 electronic
>> version for all of my electronic gadgets - format's not withstanding. I
>> don't know if PDF, some sort of Amazon/Apple format would be more
>> appropriate
>> since the more proprietary formats would lend themselves to additional
>> features but also obsolescence.
>
> A common tactic in RPG books is to watermark the buyer's name on each
> page of the pdf.
How effective is this tactic? I don't think that DRM is actually very
effective in practice, but I do respect every author the right to
protect their property.
(in article <jtuvd3$ico$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>> After doing some more thinking about this stuff what about embedding
>> the buyers name, email, address, etc. in each copy (multiple times).
>> Each person
>> would be able to "buy" one copy/license for each copy of the volume. I
>> typically buy two copies of each volume, I don't know why, my wife is
>> pretty
>> sure I'm crazy but that is a different issue<g>. But since I buy two
>> copies
>> and deliver to the same address, I would be eligible to get 1 electronic
>> version for all of my electronic gadgets - format's not withstanding. I
>> don't know if PDF, some sort of Amazon/Apple format would be more
>> appropriate
>> since the more proprietary formats would lend themselves to additional
>> features but also obsolescence.
>
> A common tactic in RPG books is to watermark the buyer's name on each
> page of the pdf.
effective in practice, but I do respect every author the right to
protect their property.
Nicole Massey
Jul 16, 2012, 4:20:32 AM7/16/12
to
news:0001HW.CC28CD7E...@news.panix.com...
Not sure. It persists, so it must be working on some level, but since I'm
blind I don't actually run into it in the things I use, so I can't say if
it's a deterrent.
blind I don't actually run into it in the things I use, so I can't say if
it's a deterrent.
Wayne Dernoncourt
Jul 20, 2012, 10:22:54 AM7/20/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:20:32 -0400, Nicole Massey wrote
(in article <ju0j39$c8g$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Hopefully someone else that has experience can chime in here....
(in article <ju0j39$c8g$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Wayne Dernoncourt
Jul 21, 2012, 9:12:20 AM7/21/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:22:54 -0400, Wayne Dernoncourt wrote
(in article <0001HW.CC2EE1FE...@news.panix.com>):
Re-reading what I wrote it sounds like I'm minimizing what you said.
I didn't mean to imply that, I was wondering if someone else has more
information about the level of success that embedding the purchasers
information in the file.
(in article <0001HW.CC2EE1FE...@news.panix.com>):
I didn't mean to imply that, I was wondering if someone else has more
information about the level of success that embedding the purchasers
information in the file.
StarFuryG7
Jul 25, 2012, 2:42:03 AM7/25/12
to
Gee, whatever could have happened to my post from last week concerning
Claudia Christian's new book, as if I didn't know.
This place never changes.
Claudia Christian's new book, as if I didn't know.
This place never changes.
Andrew Swallow
Jul 25, 2012, 11:03:51 AM7/25/12
to
Andrew Swallow
StarFuryG7
Jul 27, 2012, 2:29:26 AM7/27/12
to
On Jul 25, 11:03 am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Was that the posting that mentioned Claudia Christian's date with JMS?
> Andrew Swallow
The article mentioned it, not my posting. The only thing the post
> Was that the posting that mentioned Claudia Christian's date with JMS?
> Andrew Swallow
contained was the title of the article and the Page Link. But, as with
SO MANY MESSAGES THAT I HAVE POSTED HERE THROUGH THE YEARS, it
mysteriously never showed up after being submitted to the moderators
for :::ahem::: 'review'.
The sad fact is that it's been going on for well over a decade here
concerning my messages --no reason to not allow them to show up other
than pure, unadulterated spite in the vast majority of cases just like
this.
Bruce Goatly
Jul 27, 2012, 4:15:30 AM7/27/12
to
StarFuryG7 wrote:
> The sad fact is that it's been going on for well over a decade here
> concerning my messages --no reason to not allow them to show up other
> than pure, unadulterated spite in the vast majority of cases just like
> this.
And yet the moderators allowed the piece of vitriol above to show up. What
> The sad fact is that it's been going on for well over a decade here
> concerning my messages --no reason to not allow them to show up other
> than pure, unadulterated spite in the vast majority of cases just like
> this.
does that say about your theory, I wonder?
--
Bruce
Wayne Dernoncourt
Jul 27, 2012, 8:08:50 AM7/27/12
to
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:42:03 -0400, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<ecf6e7cc-3b1b-4fb4...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> Gee, whatever could have happened to my post from last week concerning
> Claudia Christian's new book, as if I didn't know.
>
> This place never changes.
I never saw it.... more info please
(in article
<ecf6e7cc-3b1b-4fb4...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> Gee, whatever could have happened to my post from last week concerning
> Claudia Christian's new book, as if I didn't know.
>
> This place never changes.
StarFuryG7
Jul 27, 2012, 1:01:16 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 8:08 am, Wayne Dernoncourt <way...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> I never saw it.... more info please
What more information do you really need? I've already said that the
>
> I never saw it.... more info please
only thing the message contained was the title of the article and the
article link, and that's it, other than it was posted by me a week
ago.
StarFuryG7
Jul 27, 2012, 12:59:31 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 4:15 am, "Bruce Goatly" <s...@goatly.co.uk> wrote:
> And yet the moderators allowed the piece of vitriol above to show up. What
> does that say about your theory, I wonder?
> --
> Bruce
I'll tell you exactly what it 'says' about it: that either you know
> And yet the moderators allowed the piece of vitriol above to show up. What
> does that say about your theory, I wonder?
> --
> Bruce
how this groups functions on a technical level and are feigning
ignorance, or you simply don't know and need to be told. So regardless
of which it is, this thread hasn't been flagged for monitoring, so
unless a poster has been put on "hand moderation" they can post a
message to it and have it go through without a problem. That's how I
knew I could post here in this thread and that it would show up,
whereas creating a new thread doesn't automatically work that way
necessarily. The one I alluded to went to a moderator for approval,
and just never appeared after that, which as I said, has occurred
over, and over, and over again through the years here. And it can't be
chalked up to Google Groups, because I've posted threads here under a
multitude of different methods here through the years, and have seen
it happen time and time again. So the posts not showing up is
purposeful on the part of someone. It's the only logical conclusion
that can be drawn after years and years of the same garbage.
Have a nice day.
Nicole Massey
Jul 27, 2012, 3:49:40 PM7/27/12
to
"StarFuryG7" <StarF...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:b905a19c-c90c-43ab...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
have been problems with starting new threads due to some glich in the server
that handles the moderation . Some of the most respected members of this
newsgroup have had problems with this, because the message never gets to the
server somehow. There have been some server hang problems in the past as
well, from what I've gathered, so it well may be that these two things have
kept messages from going through, not intentional moderation of your
postings. For a while there only postings sent on an existing thread got
through, so folks were changing titles and such to get their messages
through. I've had a couple go into the bit bucket when I sent new messages
but they made it when replying to a thread and just changing the title.
So there is another logical answer to this besides some sort of censorship.
As far as I know, only inflamatory messages and story ideas get moderated,
and EVERY message goes through moderation, with the possible exception of
those sent by moderators.
Of course I could be wrong about that last bit, but it's the impression I"ve
gotten based on watching message flow.
StarFuryG7
Jul 27, 2012, 4:27:00 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 3:49 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> Actually, no, it's not the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. There
> have been problems with starting new threads due to some glich in the server
> that handles the moderation . Some of the most respected members of this
> newsgroup have had problems with this, because the message never gets to the
> server somehow. There have been some server hang problems in the past as
> well, from what I've gathered, so it well may be that these two things have
> kept messages from going through, not intentional moderation of your
> postings. For a while there only postings sent on an existing thread got
> through, so folks were changing titles and such to get their messages
> through. I've had a couple go into the bit bucket when I sent new messages
> but they made it when replying to a thread and just changing the title.
> So there is another logical answer to this besides some sort of censorship.
> As far as I know, only inflamatory messages and story ideas get moderated,
> and EVERY message goes through moderation, with the possible exception of
> those sent by moderators.
> Of course I could be wrong about that last bit, but it's the impression I"ve
> gotten based on watching message flow.
So you're saying they've had server problems for well over a decade
> Actually, no, it's not the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. There
> have been problems with starting new threads due to some glich in the server
> that handles the moderation . Some of the most respected members of this
> newsgroup have had problems with this, because the message never gets to the
> server somehow. There have been some server hang problems in the past as
> well, from what I've gathered, so it well may be that these two things have
> kept messages from going through, not intentional moderation of your
> postings. For a while there only postings sent on an existing thread got
> through, so folks were changing titles and such to get their messages
> through. I've had a couple go into the bit bucket when I sent new messages
> but they made it when replying to a thread and just changing the title.
> So there is another logical answer to this besides some sort of censorship.
> As far as I know, only inflamatory messages and story ideas get moderated,
> and EVERY message goes through moderation, with the possible exception of
> those sent by moderators.
> Of course I could be wrong about that last bit, but it's the impression I"ve
> gotten based on watching message flow.
that have never been properly addressed even after all this time?
I'm skeptical to say the least, and haven't found the staff to be
particularly friendly through the years to boot.
By the way, if you reply, can you please see to it that your comments
are distinctly separate from mine? I'd appreciate it.
Nicole Massey
Jul 27, 2012, 7:34:21 PM7/27/12
to
news:b67f8878-dbbf-43bd...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
--
How's that? For some reason my system doesn't put everyone in the > sign
format, not sure why.
I'm not sure where the problems started, but I remember having problems
posting when the moderated group started. I was away for a bit, getting used
to being blind, which of course took a lot of my focus, so I can't speak for
it in that situation. When I came back I had the dickens of a time (and with
how long most of Dickens' works are, that's saying something) getting to
where I could post to the list using my new email address.
And I've found the moderators to be very helpful when I've emailed them, Amy
Guskin in particular.
There is this assumption that messages sent through the internet are 100%
guaranteed to get somewhere. That is of course no where near the reality of
it, thanks to the wide number of variables in play in any email transaction.
I can't speak for why you're having problems posting here, as I'm not on the
inside of how this newsgroup works, but I can relay what I've encountered.
As for Claudia' book, I caught the story on it on Sci-Fi Wire. I wouldn't be
surprised if she's being completely honest in her memoir, and it takes a lot
of guts to pass out teasers at the door to a talk with your former boss, but
truth is a three edged sword, a saying that is more true the more we learn
about cognitive science and how the brain works. So I'd suggest keeping the
shaker of fine grind iodized close at hand for any autobiography.
How's that? For some reason my system doesn't put everyone in the > sign
format, not sure why.
I'm not sure where the problems started, but I remember having problems
posting when the moderated group started. I was away for a bit, getting used
to being blind, which of course took a lot of my focus, so I can't speak for
it in that situation. When I came back I had the dickens of a time (and with
how long most of Dickens' works are, that's saying something) getting to
where I could post to the list using my new email address.
And I've found the moderators to be very helpful when I've emailed them, Amy
Guskin in particular.
There is this assumption that messages sent through the internet are 100%
guaranteed to get somewhere. That is of course no where near the reality of
it, thanks to the wide number of variables in play in any email transaction.
I can't speak for why you're having problems posting here, as I'm not on the
inside of how this newsgroup works, but I can relay what I've encountered.
As for Claudia' book, I caught the story on it on Sci-Fi Wire. I wouldn't be
surprised if she's being completely honest in her memoir, and it takes a lot
of guts to pass out teasers at the door to a talk with your former boss, but
truth is a three edged sword, a saying that is more true the more we learn
about cognitive science and how the brain works. So I'd suggest keeping the
shaker of fine grind iodized close at hand for any autobiography.
Dennis (Icarus)
Jul 27, 2012, 9:09:09 PM7/27/12
to
"Nicole Massey" wrote in message news:juv8p9$pjl$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
<snip>
>--
>How's that? For some reason my system doesn't put everyone in the > sign
>format, not sure why.
you are using outlook express 6, quotefix may help
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Dennis
StarFuryG7
Jul 28, 2012, 2:50:43 AM7/28/12
to
On Jul 27, 7:34 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> How's that?
>
That's fine, thanks.
> I'm not sure where the problems started, but I remember having problems
> posting when the moderated group started. I was away for a bit, getting used
> to being blind, which of course took a lot of my focus, so I can't speak for
> it in that situation. When I came back I had the dickens of a time (and with
> how long most of Dickens' works are, that's saying something) getting to
> where I could post to the list using my new email address.
Oh, there's been talk of problems with posts not showing up
through the years due to one technical problem or another, but I don't
remember it being an issue all of the time. There were periods where
it didn't seem to be an issue at all, and yet my posts wouldn't show
up, and if I wrote to someone on the staff about it via private email,
it wasn't unusual for me to get a nasty reply in response. Two of the
people that spring to mind were never pleasant as a matter of fact,
even via email where there was no one to see what was being said. And
since those were the kinds of curt replies that I got behind the
scenes on occasion (albeit rare occasions because I didn't post to
this newsgroup on a consistent ongoing basis) that told me something
about them personally concerning the kind of people they are. And as
things stand right now I've posted two messages to this group since
the spring that never appeared prior to the one I've already mentioned
concerning Claudia and her book. I'm sorry --I just don't believe it's
a coincidence or that it has anything to do with technical issues all
of the time. I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
just dumps it. In fact there was a big argument that took place about
this five years ago because I dared to complain then, and it turned
into a stupid dispute about whether Usenet is a part of the Internet
or not, followed by JMS sticking his nose in and being a pompous jerk.
Frankly, my experiences here through the years have been rather
miserable, and I know for a fact that it's not all attributable to me.
I just throw back what I've had thrown at me. You however seem nice,
and I don't wish to take how I feel about it out on you. However, I
think you would agree that if you tried posting three messages here
since the spring, all of which simply didn't show up, you would have a
raised eyebrow about it as well.
> And I've found the moderators to be very helpful when I've emailed them, Amy
> Guskin in particular.
Okay, I wish you hadn't mentioned her, but I'll just leave it
at that.
> There is this assumption that messages sent through the internet are 100%
> guaranteed to get somewhere. That is of course no where near the reality of
> it, thanks to the wide number of variables in play in any email transaction.
Like I said, there have been a multitude of issues like this
over many, many years --for well over a decade in fact, probably a
decade and a half ...in fact, ya know what ...longer than that as I
sit here thinking about it because I would post here back when B5 was
on the air in first-run, so it literally goes back that far. I have
had many different computers, and have used various different types of
connection, starting with Dial-up, to DSL, to a cable modem and a
router, and it's always been the same crap. I used to post directly
from AOL back when they still had newsgroups, and even back then, the
same baloney, and I would be told, "Oh, well, you're posting from AOL,
and not everything comes through from AOL." I would post from
Newsreaders of various types via a variety of different servers
throughout the years, and it always amounted to the same thing. Yes,
posts would come through to already existing threads usually, but not
all the time with them as well for that matter. It just looks too darn
fishy after a while, and I suspect it all has to do with when politics
were routinely discussed in this group, and someone on the staff not
particularly liking my political views. I would have posts censored on
the basis of being 'too volatile' supposedly, when from my point of
view it was simply because someone didn't like my expressed views. I
think it traces back to that though.
> I can't speak for why you're having problems posting here, as I'm not on the
> inside of how this newsgroup works, but I can relay what I've encountered.
> As for Claudia' book, I caught the story on it on Sci-Fi Wire. I wouldn't be
> surprised if she's being completely honest in her memoir, and it takes a lot
> of guts to pass out teasers at the door to a talk with your former boss, but
> truth is a three edged sword, a saying that is more true the more we learn
> about cognitive science and how the brain works. So I'd suggest keeping the
> shaker of fine grind iodized close at hand for any autobiography.
Well, the purpose of publishing a memoir is to get that
person's recollections down for posterity, or simply for the author's
own personal satisfaction and perhaps to make a little money, and
sure, it's from their perspective, which isn't going to include
everything that occurred, naturally. It's not meant to. She's telling
what she remembers, and who knows, there may well even be things that
she has since forgotten and didn't put down on paper. Or she could be
coloring things in a way to favor the perception she wants taken away
by the reader. However, regardless, it has to do with this show, and
it was simply a link to the article, which people could have then
discussed here if they saw fit --or not. Of course it's up to them.
It's not as though they would even have to read the piece if they
don't want to, but since it's "Babylon 5" related and is coming from
one of the stars of the show, it seems to me that it could be deemed
pertinent to this newsgroup, especially given that there's not a whole
lot in the way of new news appearing here these days, or for a long
time for that matter. And Lord knows I'd rather not be having to post
another obituary of one of the actors or people who were involved with
the show. We've had enough of those over the last eight years.
> How's that?
>
That's fine, thanks.
> I'm not sure where the problems started, but I remember having problems
> posting when the moderated group started. I was away for a bit, getting used
> to being blind, which of course took a lot of my focus, so I can't speak for
> it in that situation. When I came back I had the dickens of a time (and with
> how long most of Dickens' works are, that's saying something) getting to
> where I could post to the list using my new email address.
through the years due to one technical problem or another, but I don't
remember it being an issue all of the time. There were periods where
it didn't seem to be an issue at all, and yet my posts wouldn't show
up, and if I wrote to someone on the staff about it via private email,
it wasn't unusual for me to get a nasty reply in response. Two of the
people that spring to mind were never pleasant as a matter of fact,
even via email where there was no one to see what was being said. And
since those were the kinds of curt replies that I got behind the
scenes on occasion (albeit rare occasions because I didn't post to
this newsgroup on a consistent ongoing basis) that told me something
about them personally concerning the kind of people they are. And as
things stand right now I've posted two messages to this group since
the spring that never appeared prior to the one I've already mentioned
concerning Claudia and her book. I'm sorry --I just don't believe it's
a coincidence or that it has anything to do with technical issues all
of the time. I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
just dumps it. In fact there was a big argument that took place about
this five years ago because I dared to complain then, and it turned
into a stupid dispute about whether Usenet is a part of the Internet
or not, followed by JMS sticking his nose in and being a pompous jerk.
Frankly, my experiences here through the years have been rather
miserable, and I know for a fact that it's not all attributable to me.
I just throw back what I've had thrown at me. You however seem nice,
and I don't wish to take how I feel about it out on you. However, I
think you would agree that if you tried posting three messages here
since the spring, all of which simply didn't show up, you would have a
raised eyebrow about it as well.
> And I've found the moderators to be very helpful when I've emailed them, Amy
> Guskin in particular.
at that.
> There is this assumption that messages sent through the internet are 100%
> guaranteed to get somewhere. That is of course no where near the reality of
> it, thanks to the wide number of variables in play in any email transaction.
over many, many years --for well over a decade in fact, probably a
decade and a half ...in fact, ya know what ...longer than that as I
sit here thinking about it because I would post here back when B5 was
on the air in first-run, so it literally goes back that far. I have
had many different computers, and have used various different types of
connection, starting with Dial-up, to DSL, to a cable modem and a
router, and it's always been the same crap. I used to post directly
from AOL back when they still had newsgroups, and even back then, the
same baloney, and I would be told, "Oh, well, you're posting from AOL,
and not everything comes through from AOL." I would post from
Newsreaders of various types via a variety of different servers
throughout the years, and it always amounted to the same thing. Yes,
posts would come through to already existing threads usually, but not
all the time with them as well for that matter. It just looks too darn
fishy after a while, and I suspect it all has to do with when politics
were routinely discussed in this group, and someone on the staff not
particularly liking my political views. I would have posts censored on
the basis of being 'too volatile' supposedly, when from my point of
view it was simply because someone didn't like my expressed views. I
think it traces back to that though.
> I can't speak for why you're having problems posting here, as I'm not on the
> inside of how this newsgroup works, but I can relay what I've encountered.
> As for Claudia' book, I caught the story on it on Sci-Fi Wire. I wouldn't be
> surprised if she's being completely honest in her memoir, and it takes a lot
> of guts to pass out teasers at the door to a talk with your former boss, but
> truth is a three edged sword, a saying that is more true the more we learn
> about cognitive science and how the brain works. So I'd suggest keeping the
> shaker of fine grind iodized close at hand for any autobiography.
person's recollections down for posterity, or simply for the author's
own personal satisfaction and perhaps to make a little money, and
sure, it's from their perspective, which isn't going to include
everything that occurred, naturally. It's not meant to. She's telling
what she remembers, and who knows, there may well even be things that
she has since forgotten and didn't put down on paper. Or she could be
coloring things in a way to favor the perception she wants taken away
by the reader. However, regardless, it has to do with this show, and
it was simply a link to the article, which people could have then
discussed here if they saw fit --or not. Of course it's up to them.
It's not as though they would even have to read the piece if they
don't want to, but since it's "Babylon 5" related and is coming from
one of the stars of the show, it seems to me that it could be deemed
pertinent to this newsgroup, especially given that there's not a whole
lot in the way of new news appearing here these days, or for a long
time for that matter. And Lord knows I'd rather not be having to post
another obituary of one of the actors or people who were involved with
the show. We've had enough of those over the last eight years.
Nicole Massey
Jul 28, 2012, 8:07:27 AM7/28/12
to
"Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_di...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20e0c$50133bfc$cf62c293$11...@KNOLOGY.NET...
also probably search for something to fix the poorly implemented spell
checker.
Jay Denebeim
Oct 6, 2012, 1:06:06 PM10/6/12
to
In article <b67f8878-dbbf-43bd...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
isn't friendly do you? Seeing as how it's a completely volunteer
effort and we have no incentive to be helpful to people who jerk us
around, I can't imagine that how you treat us/them could have anything
to do with how you're treated.
Oh and as far 'through the years goes' you contacted the moderators
exactly twice on August 27th 2007, about a bounce Amy did of an
attempted troll you tried. Now I haven't moderated since my heart
attack in 2001, but if it had been me doing the moderation you would
have gotten moderated for sure over that exchange.
Anyway, I see you haven't matured much in the last five years.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
StarFuryG7 <StarF...@aim.com> wrote:
>I'm skeptical to say the least, and haven't found the staff to be
>particularly friendly through the years to boot.
You don't think your attitude has anything to do with why the 'staff'
>I'm skeptical to say the least, and haven't found the staff to be
>particularly friendly through the years to boot.
isn't friendly do you? Seeing as how it's a completely volunteer
effort and we have no incentive to be helpful to people who jerk us
around, I can't imagine that how you treat us/them could have anything
to do with how you're treated.
Oh and as far 'through the years goes' you contacted the moderators
exactly twice on August 27th 2007, about a bounce Amy did of an
attempted troll you tried. Now I haven't moderated since my heart
attack in 2001, but if it had been me doing the moderation you would
have gotten moderated for sure over that exchange.
Anyway, I see you haven't matured much in the last five years.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
StarFuryG7
Oct 17, 2012, 4:59:34 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
> You don't think your attitude has anything to do with why the 'staff'
> isn't friendly do you?
And let me just take a wild, wild guess here --you think you're
>
> You don't think your attitude has anything to do with why the 'staff'
> isn't friendly do you?
attitude has always been just fine and dandy of course, so naturally
the problem must lie with me rather than yourself.
On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
> Seeing as how it's a completely volunteer
> effort and we have no incentive to be helpful to people who jerk us
> around, I can't imagine that how you treat us/them could have anything
> to do with how you're treated.
about being jerked around via my posts not appearing here so often
through the years, but no surprise at all to see you try and turn it
around. This has always been standard operating procedure for you, at
least where I personally have been concerned, hence my not having a
good reason to be all cheery around here if I do decide to drop in and
visit.
On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
> Oh and as far 'through the years goes' you contacted the moderators
> exactly twice on August 27th 2007, about a bounce Amy did of an
> attempted troll you tried. Now I haven't moderated since my heart
> attack in 2001, but if it had been me doing the moderation you would
> have gotten moderated for sure over that exchange.
>
> Anyway, I see you haven't matured much in the last five years.
>
ago? After all, this is not new for you either --dump, be obnoxious
and sarcastic, while trying to play the pity card all at the same
time. For the record, you're the same obnoxious jerk I've always known
you do be, going back a good fifteen years at least. You've never
changed, have always come off with that same smug, superior, pompous
attitude, and knowing that you were in a position of authority and
control, it made it all too easy for you evidently. Also for the
record, I couldn't care less what your friends and cronies, nor JMS,
may have to say on that point, because clearly you've been just swell
to them through the years. What they fail to understand is that I have
seen, recognize, and know a different side of you, and you're not some
warm and fuzzy little teddy bear that everyone and anyone would want
to run up and hug necessarily. Politically we've never been on the
same page, and that probably also has some bearing as to why you never
took a liking to me. Honestly though, I couldn't care less. You claim
I haven't made queries to staff about posts that haven't appeared, and
in more recent years that would certainly be true. After all, why
bother when you know there's no point to doing so and that you're
likely being *jerked around* by staff members? But what I said in this
thread about posts not showing up was and is absolutely true, with the
post and intended thread about Claudia and her soon to be released
book being but one of the more recent examples. I also think that the
post which took a week to mysteriously appear finally regarding
Michael O'Hare's passing, which was referred to in a similar
neighboring thread, also attests to it as a matter of fact, and
apparently it was you who took your sweet time in pushing that one
through.
And so, by the way, I see you haven't matured much through the years
either.
John W. Kennedy
Oct 17, 2012, 11:05:37 PM10/17/12
to
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:59:54 PM UTC-4, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> And so, by the way, I see you haven't matured much through the years either.
We all know what C. S. Lewis said about those who are horrified at the idea of being thought childish.
> And so, by the way, I see you haven't matured much through the years either.
StarFuryG7
Oct 18, 2012, 12:33:43 AM10/18/12
to
On Oct 17, 11:05 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <John.W.Kenn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
hesitation to call a spade a spade around here.
You have a wonderful day too.
wrote:
>
> We all know what C. S. Lewis said about those who are horrified at the idea of being thought childish.
Yes, I'm sure it absolutely kills your friend to see me showing no
> We all know what C. S. Lewis said about those who are horrified at the idea of being thought childish.
hesitation to call a spade a spade around here.
You have a wonderful day too.
Matthew Vincent
Nov 3, 2012, 2:48:59 AM11/3/12
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:59:54 AM UTC+13, StarFuryG7 wrote:
>On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
>> Oh and as far as 'through the years goes' you contacted
>On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
>> the moderators exactly twice on August 27th 2007, about
>> a bounce Amy did of an attempted troll you tried. Now
>> I haven't moderated since my heart attack in 2001, but
>> if it had been me doing the moderation you would have
>> gotten moderated for sure over that exchange.
>
>> a bounce Amy did of an attempted troll you tried. Now
>> I haven't moderated since my heart attack in 2001, but
>> if it had been me doing the moderation you would have
>> gotten moderated for sure over that exchange.
>
> Am I really supposed to care that you had a
> heart attack eleven years ago?
Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being. Whatever verbal disagreements you have with another poster in an internet newsgroup, you should be able to put them aside and show empathy for another human being suffering from a traumatic life event.
> heart attack eleven years ago?
"No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star: we are one. No matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear: we are one. Here gathered together in common cause we agree to recognize this singular truth and this singular rule: that we must be kind to one another." -- G'Kar
"Babylon 5 was the last of the Babylon stations. There would never be another. It changed the future and it changed us. It taught us that we have to create the future or others will do it for us. It showed us that we have to care for one another, because if we don't, who will?" -- Ivanova, SiL
> After all, this is not new for you either --dump,
> be obnoxious and sarcastic, while trying to play
> the pity card all at the same time.
Next time someone you're arguing with references a negative life event, there are two socially appropriate responses: either you don't mention it at all, or else (preferably) you say something like "I'm sorry to hear that". Then you can go back to arguing your case later in the post. Try it sometime.
Matthew
StarFuryG7
Nov 5, 2012, 6:52:46 PM11/5/12
to
On Nov 3, 1:49 am, Matthew Vincent <mbvinc...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being.
I don't need you lecturing me about what constitutes "a decent human
>
> Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being.
being", especially not when his pointing out that he had a heart
attack occurs at the very same time he's denigrating me. I don't have
to put up with that, aside from the fact that we're talking about
something that happened eleven years ago, not yesterday, last week or
last month. And how much aggravation have I had here over the course
of those years with respect to posts that mysteriously never showed
up, in all likelihood because of him? For all you or he knows I could
have had a heart attack myself, and I know one thing for darn sure
with regard to that: he wouldn't have cared less.
Jan
Nov 7, 2012, 4:27:19 PM11/7/12
to
On Monday, November 5, 2012 6:53:06 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> On Nov 3, 1:49 am, Matthew Vincent <mbvinc...@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being. I don't need you lecturing me about what constitutes "a decent human being", especially not when his pointing out that he had a heart attack occurs at the very same time he's denigrating me. I don't have to put up with that, aside from the fact that we're talking about something that happened eleven years ago, not yesterday, last week or last month. And how much aggravation have I had here over the course of those years with respect to posts that mysteriously never showed up, in all likelihood because of him? For all you or he knows I could have had a heart attack myself, and I know one thing for darn sure with regard to that: he wouldn't have cared less.
Are you completely incapable of ever dropping a subject? It's amazing to watch you both here and on IMDb.
> On Nov 3, 1:49 am, Matthew Vincent <mbvinc...@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being. I don't need you lecturing me about what constitutes "a decent human being", especially not when his pointing out that he had a heart attack occurs at the very same time he's denigrating me. I don't have to put up with that, aside from the fact that we're talking about something that happened eleven years ago, not yesterday, last week or last month. And how much aggravation have I had here over the course of those years with respect to posts that mysteriously never showed up, in all likelihood because of him? For all you or he knows I could have had a heart attack myself, and I know one thing for darn sure with regard to that: he wouldn't have cared less.
Jan
Nicole Massey
Nov 7, 2012, 8:32:18 PM11/7/12
to
"Jan" <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2becf95f-65df-4d62...@googlegroups.com...
Moderators, please stop approving these messages. They serve no positive
purpose for anyone except the poster, and they may be scaring people off
from an already very quiet newsgroup. Pointing out that we've all had things
not show up due to various technology issues, so it's going to probably keep
going on and on until either someone apoligizes to the person or the
moderators get tired and take the newsgroup offline for good.
And if such noise keeps up we run a much greater risk of Joe not coming back
after everyone is tired of playing on the new version BBS called Facebook.
Dennis (Icarus)
Nov 7, 2012, 9:43:21 PM11/7/12
to
>Moderators, please stop approving these messages. They serve no positive
>purpose for anyone except the poster, and they may be scaring people off
>from an already very quiet newsgroup. Pointing out that we've all had
>things not show up due to various technology issues, so it's going to
>probably keep going on and on until either someone apoligizes to the person
>or the moderators get tired and take the newsgroup offline for good.
>And if such noise keeps up we run a much greater risk of Joe not coming
>back after everyone is tired of playing on the new version BBS called
>Facebook.
Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
>purpose for anyone except the poster, and they may be scaring people off
>from an already very quiet newsgroup. Pointing out that we've all had
>things not show up due to various technology issues, so it's going to
>probably keep going on and on until either someone apoligizes to the person
>or the moderators get tired and take the newsgroup offline for good.
>And if such noise keeps up we run a much greater risk of Joe not coming
>back after everyone is tired of playing on the new version BBS called
>Facebook.
hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
Dennis
StarFuryG7
Nov 8, 2012, 12:17:23 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 4:27 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Are you completely incapable of ever dropping a subject? It's amazing to watch you both here and on IMDb.
>
It depends on what it is, but if you really paid attention to my posts
>
> Are you completely incapable of ever dropping a subject? It's amazing to watch you both here and on IMDb.
>
there you'd have noticed that.
But hey, Jan --you don't have to bother with me if you don't care to.
In fact, you didn't even have to stick your nose in here.
Pardon me if that's too blunt and direct.
StarFuryG7
Nov 8, 2012, 12:22:52 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 9:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_di...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
happen sooner.
wrote:
>
> Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
> hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
>
> Dennis
No one cares about this newsgroup anymore. It's a wonder that didn't
> Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
> hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
>
> Dennis
happen sooner.
Bruce Goatly
Nov 8, 2012, 5:37:26 AM11/8/12
to
Bruce Goatly
Nov 8, 2012, 5:38:39 AM11/8/12
to
and aggressive?
StarFuryG7
Nov 8, 2012, 12:16:28 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 5:37 am, "Bruce Goatly" <s...@goatly.co.uk> wrote:
>
> .... and yet you care enough to keep posting here.
Yes, because I admittedly have this character flaw; if someone gives
>
> .... and yet you care enough to keep posting here.
me a hard time, I figure the least I can do is return the favor. I
never took to being run off by bullies either.
StarFuryG7
Nov 8, 2012, 12:19:44 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 5:38 am, "Bruce Goatly" <s...@goatly.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
> and aggressive?
My "only purpose"? Let me ask you something . . . do you think that
>
> Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
> and aggressive?
was my "only purpose" when I posted the article about Claudia
Christian's coming book several months ago, which never showed up
here?
I understand that it seems that way to you, but that didn't have to be
the case.
John W. Kennedy
Nov 8, 2012, 3:36:47 PM11/8/12
to
the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
insulting them on a daily basis?
Nicole Massey
Nov 8, 2012, 5:14:12 PM11/8/12
to
news:92c414a3-e9c2-4603...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
And for those of us who have been here for a while, that isn't the least bit
surprising, because we've all had it happen. Moderated newsgroups are not
always a stable setup, and the chances are much better that your message got
sucked into what is known as the "bit bucket" instead of actively moderrated
out. As the saying goes, (and it's odd how these kinds of things come up
multiple times in the same day after months or years of rest) "Never credit
to Malice what can be easily accomplished through ignorance, incompetence,
or just plain old bad luck." (I suspect the latter here)
And as John Kennedy has so eloquently pointed out, if they wanted to censor
you, why would they put up with your demised equine flaggelation of this
current topic after allegedly censoring fairly innocuous postings? Sir
William of Occam is looking at you...
On Nov 8, 5:38 am, "Bruce Goatly" <s...@goatly.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
> and aggressive?
My "only purpose"? Let me ask you something . . . do you think that
was my "only purpose" when I posted the article about Claudia
Christian's coming book several months ago, which never showed up
here?
---
>
> Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
> and aggressive?
My "only purpose"? Let me ask you something . . . do you think that
was my "only purpose" when I posted the article about Claudia
Christian's coming book several months ago, which never showed up
here?
And for those of us who have been here for a while, that isn't the least bit
surprising, because we've all had it happen. Moderated newsgroups are not
always a stable setup, and the chances are much better that your message got
sucked into what is known as the "bit bucket" instead of actively moderrated
out. As the saying goes, (and it's odd how these kinds of things come up
multiple times in the same day after months or years of rest) "Never credit
to Malice what can be easily accomplished through ignorance, incompetence,
or just plain old bad luck." (I suspect the latter here)
And as John Kennedy has so eloquently pointed out, if they wanted to censor
you, why would they put up with your demised equine flaggelation of this
current topic after allegedly censoring fairly innocuous postings? Sir
William of Occam is looking at you...
StarFuryG7
Nov 8, 2012, 7:51:11 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 3:37 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
wrote.:
to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
later? I was content to leave it at that, meaning where I had left off
in July, until I saw his rebuke. So no, it doesn't really surprise me
that my posts have been getting through because apparently someone
hasn't designated this thread for "hand-moderation"...yet. It appears
no one is paying attention at the moment, and based on past activity,
it might be another month or so before they decide to again, at which
time I'll get another sarcastic reply, along with whatever else.
And I'm not "insulting them on a daily basis" either. I've just been
replying to the messages people are posting to my attention over the
last few days.
wrote.:
>
> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
> insulting them on a daily basis?
Do you even realize that this thread fell dormant back in July, only
> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
> insulting them on a daily basis?
to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
later? I was content to leave it at that, meaning where I had left off
in July, until I saw his rebuke. So no, it doesn't really surprise me
that my posts have been getting through because apparently someone
hasn't designated this thread for "hand-moderation"...yet. It appears
no one is paying attention at the moment, and based on past activity,
it might be another month or so before they decide to again, at which
time I'll get another sarcastic reply, along with whatever else.
And I'm not "insulting them on a daily basis" either. I've just been
replying to the messages people are posting to my attention over the
last few days.
StarFuryG7
Nov 8, 2012, 7:57:26 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 5:16 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>
> And for those o us who have been here for a while, that isn't the least bit
prefer to see
this thread go inactive, so don't answer if you would prefer not to.
>
> And for those o us who have been here for a while, that isn't the least bit
> surprising, because we've all had it happen.
Would you mind if I inquired as to how frequently? I realize you would
prefer to see
this thread go inactive, so don't answer if you would prefer not to.
Nicole Massey
Nov 8, 2012, 9:11:50 PM11/8/12
to
news:f83f4e31-f8c3-4d93...@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
---
I can't speak to the frequency of it, but my last post to the list that
wasn't a reply about something Walter Koenig said regarding the show, never
showed up, and when I emailed a moderator I was told that it didn't hit
their system. This has been a problem here for several years now -- someone
who has a better archive and was posting here more often can tell you when
this particular problem popped up, though I remember it was after when I
lost my sight that that message came through, and I was out of commission
for about a year after that happened in terms of using the computer, so it
was more recently than the summer of 2004.
I get the impression that the server goes down from time to time or locks
up, and then nothing gets through, so that could be a reason as well. Like I
said before, moderated newsgroups are a kludge on normal usenet traffic, so
sometimes less than optimum things happen. I'm on another mailing list
that's moderated simply to eliminate crossposting, and that newsgroup gets
about two orders of magnitude more spam than I get on any other newsgroup,
simply because messages have to go through an email process to get
moderated, so like I said above, it's often a less than optimum process.
Furthermore, it's also of almost no importance. This is a free forum without
advertizing and only volunteer effort, and no one is going to lose their
home, dinner, clothing, or water over it, so it's just window dressing. And
Jay's response to you was because he finally got some time to respond and
you were rather offensive about it all, so let's not get all victimy here.
The simple truth is that you had something go not right, you thought it was
enemy action instead of happenstance, and so, from what you've said, you
then decided they were persecuting you for some reason and got defensive.
Might be an ID response working here -- it often is in these situations. But
I've traded emails with Jay on rare occasions, and on Amy far more often,
and one thing that impressed me about both of them was their integrity --
they don't filter anyone based on their own opinions, only on the stated
rules that were put in place for JMS's safety when this group was created.
And since that is mainly an issue of posting story ideas, and I can't see a
decent story idea relating to Claudia's memoirs and allegations of same, I
doubt you were "censored" for posting it. And before you go into the whole
"protecting Joe" angle, Joe doesn't need any protecting -- he's dealt with
far greater questions about his integrity than what Claudia suggested. And
everyone knows that he's the one to clear up such things, keeping in mind
Vorlon commentaries on the truth.
Now, mayhap, was there something you would like to say about the show? I
can't believe we're coming up next year on the fifteenth anniversary of the
end of it.
I can't speak to the frequency of it, but my last post to the list that
wasn't a reply about something Walter Koenig said regarding the show, never
showed up, and when I emailed a moderator I was told that it didn't hit
their system. This has been a problem here for several years now -- someone
who has a better archive and was posting here more often can tell you when
this particular problem popped up, though I remember it was after when I
lost my sight that that message came through, and I was out of commission
for about a year after that happened in terms of using the computer, so it
was more recently than the summer of 2004.
I get the impression that the server goes down from time to time or locks
up, and then nothing gets through, so that could be a reason as well. Like I
said before, moderated newsgroups are a kludge on normal usenet traffic, so
sometimes less than optimum things happen. I'm on another mailing list
that's moderated simply to eliminate crossposting, and that newsgroup gets
about two orders of magnitude more spam than I get on any other newsgroup,
simply because messages have to go through an email process to get
moderated, so like I said above, it's often a less than optimum process.
Furthermore, it's also of almost no importance. This is a free forum without
advertizing and only volunteer effort, and no one is going to lose their
home, dinner, clothing, or water over it, so it's just window dressing. And
Jay's response to you was because he finally got some time to respond and
you were rather offensive about it all, so let's not get all victimy here.
The simple truth is that you had something go not right, you thought it was
enemy action instead of happenstance, and so, from what you've said, you
then decided they were persecuting you for some reason and got defensive.
Might be an ID response working here -- it often is in these situations. But
I've traded emails with Jay on rare occasions, and on Amy far more often,
and one thing that impressed me about both of them was their integrity --
they don't filter anyone based on their own opinions, only on the stated
rules that were put in place for JMS's safety when this group was created.
And since that is mainly an issue of posting story ideas, and I can't see a
decent story idea relating to Claudia's memoirs and allegations of same, I
doubt you were "censored" for posting it. And before you go into the whole
"protecting Joe" angle, Joe doesn't need any protecting -- he's dealt with
far greater questions about his integrity than what Claudia suggested. And
everyone knows that he's the one to clear up such things, keeping in mind
Vorlon commentaries on the truth.
Now, mayhap, was there something you would like to say about the show? I
can't believe we're coming up next year on the fifteenth anniversary of the
end of it.
Jan
Nov 9, 2012, 8:53:59 AM11/9/12
to janmsc...@aol.com
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 7:57:34 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
>
> Would you mind if I inquired as to how frequently? I realize you would
>
> prefer to see
>
> this thread go inactive, so don't answer if you would prefer not to.
Sometimes *quite* frequently. At one point a year or so ago maybe one in three or four of my posts were actually getting through because Google groups got glitchy as hell. Didn't matter if it was a new thread or old one and it had nothing to do with the moderating software or process, it was entirely Google.
>
> Would you mind if I inquired as to how frequently? I realize you would
>
> prefer to see
>
> this thread go inactive, so don't answer if you would prefer not to.
When a post is rejected, an email goes out to the poster. As I was once going to be a moderator, I see those notes when they go out. Sometimes they're for duplicate posts, sometimes they're for spam and sometimes they're for story ideas but when a moderator rejects a post an email goes out with the reason.
Jan
Doug Freyburger
Nov 9, 2012, 10:56:01 AM11/9/12
to
Jan wrote:
> StarFuryG7 wrote:
>
>> Would you mind if I inquired as to how frequently?
>
> StarFuryG7 wrote:
>
>> Would you mind if I inquired as to how frequently?
>
> Sometimes *quite* frequently. At one point a year or so ago maybe one
> in three or four of my posts were actually getting through because
> Google groups got glitchy as hell. Didn't matter if it was a new thread
> or old one and it had nothing to do with the moderating software or
> process, it was entirely Google.
On occasion the group goes silent. At some point a post makes it
> in three or four of my posts were actually getting through because
> Google groups got glitchy as hell. Didn't matter if it was a new thread
> or old one and it had nothing to do with the moderating software or
> process, it was entirely Google.
through and the backlog gets posted. I have sent email offlgroup to one
of the moderators on at least one such occasion. So far I've never sent
an email to the official administrator contact for the group @isc.net.
I take it StarFury's question is not about those cases.
What StarFury has complained about is messages that got stuck in email
for a week before even arriving in the moderation queue. That shows in
the headers of the messages he has cited. And thus an email problem
not a moderation problem. It's like complaining that the Moon is New
on a dark night when I should be calling the street light folks.
Because of this in the nature of his complaints I've considered them
pointless bickering. I'd have put him on hand moderation long ago and
taken up rejecting such complaints as not based in fact. There has been
attempt after attempt at pointing him to his email problems and none of
it has sunk in. At this point I have concluded he doesn't want to deal
with that because he wants to complain more than he wants to solve any
problem. He'd have gotten a better email system long ago otherwise.
I see around 1 in 10 of my messages get dropped. I generally don't care
as long as most of them go through. As long as most of them do it's not
worth my digging through my sent list to find the ones that did not make
it.
> When a post is rejected, an email goes out to the poster. As I was
> once going to be a moderator, I see those notes when they go out.
> Sometimes they're for duplicate posts, sometimes they're for spam and
> sometimes they're for story ideas but when a moderator rejects a post
> an email goes out with the reason.
so they don't get such rejections. That's the price. It's been years
since I got a message rejected but it has happened when I responded late
to a blocked thread. Because I see the rejections I know what posts
have been rejected. Lacking a rejection or seeing it in the post in the
group I know it got stuck/lost in email. Yet another reason why the
more complaints I see by StarFury the less I care - He should check for
rejection notices in his email. No rejection means it has not made it
to the moderators so it's his issue not theirs.
StarFuryG7
Nov 9, 2012, 4:57:37 PM11/9/12
to
simply not aware of given that some of it occurred behind-the-scenes
in email exchanges going back a long time ago; situations that I found
to be particularly distasteful which I simply haven't forgotten about
over time. It's pointless to go into specifics though given that it
won't change a thing. Suffice it to say, as I've stated here
previously on numerous occasions, not just recently within the last
few months, posts have gone missing all the way back to the 90s from
whatever service or newsgroup server I happened to be posting from. If
it's indeed tech-related, it sure takes in a lot of territory,
although whether it stems from this newsgroup and how it's configured
or from some unknown intermittent ghost in the machine, I wouldn't be
able to say obviously as there's simply no way for me to know. But
over time, spanning well over a decade, it looks suspicious, and more
than that, has felt suspicious to boot on a number of occasions. This
is not something which has popped up within just the last few years--
at least not for me.
> And before you go into the whole
> "protecting Joe" angle, Joe doesn't need any protecting -- he's dealt with
> far greater questions about his integrity than what Claudia suggested. And
> everyone knows that he's the one to clear up such things, keeping in mind
> Vorlon commentaries on the truth.
than anything...a portion of it anyway, which I would think to be a
potential reason for it having been kill-filed perhaps by someone in a
position to do it.
> Now, mayhap, was there something you would like to say about the show? I
> can't believe we're coming up next year on the fifteenth anniversary of the
> end of it.
or for a long time for that matter, I'd do it elsewhere, such as on
IMDB as Jan has noted, or in one of the other forums I frequent (the
old AOL message board I routinely visited is gone, since they deleted
all of their old boards all a while back in favor of a new and
supposedly "improved" message board format, which is as lousy as can
be. But I have generally shied away from posting here for a whole host
of reasons, not just the possible, and from what you say, probable
technical issues.
All of this stuff aside though, I just want to say that despite our
differences here you deserve a lot of credit for the way you're able
to effectively communicate using a computer. The fact that you appear
to be able to do so with such ease despite your loss of sight is
remarkably impressive, at least to me anyway. One of the things that's
always bothered me about "Covert Affairs" is that one of the main
characters is supposed to be something of a computer whiz even though
he's blind, which I've found to be incredibly unrealistic. You however
give me reason to second guess that personal perception, for what it's
worth.
StarFuryG7
Nov 9, 2012, 5:22:12 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 10:56 am, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On occasion the group goes silent. At some point a post makes it
> through and the backlog gets posted. I have sent email offlgroup to one
> of the moderators on at least one such occasion. So far I've never sent
> an email to the official administrator contact for the group @isc.net.
> I take it StarFury's question is not about those cases.
>
> What StarFury has complained about is messages that got stuck in email
> for a week before even arriving in the moderation queue. That shows in
> the headers of the messages he has cited. And thus an email problem
> not a moderation problem. It's like complaining that the Moon is New
> on a dark night when I should be calling the street light folks.
> Because of this in the nature of his complaints I've considered them
> pointless bickering.
If that's the case, then who was it that decided to stir the pot again
>
> On occasion the group goes silent. At some point a post makes it
> through and the backlog gets posted. I have sent email offlgroup to one
> of the moderators on at least one such occasion. So far I've never sent
> an email to the official administrator contact for the group @isc.net.
> I take it StarFury's question is not about those cases.
>
> What StarFury has complained about is messages that got stuck in email
> for a week before even arriving in the moderation queue. That shows in
> the headers of the messages he has cited. And thus an email problem
> not a moderation problem. It's like complaining that the Moon is New
> on a dark night when I should be calling the street light folks.
> Because of this in the nature of his complaints I've considered them
> pointless bickering.
by posting a message to this thread last month, which was a reply to
me, two and a half months after the thread had fallen dormant back in
July?
Ya see, this is one of the problems that I also have with this
newsgroup frankly. People always go out of their way to defend the
actions of the moderators while overlooking their transgressions, only
in this case, you're a moderator too.
But if I've been nothing more than a nuisance here as you claim, then
why was it that he couldn't just let sleeping dogs lay (I'd say "lie,"
but I don't want to be accused of some kind of Freudian slip, so it's
a conscious choice)?
> I'd have put him on hand moderation long ago and
> taken up rejecting such complaints as not based in fact. There has been
> attempt after attempt at pointing him to his email problems and none of
> it has sunk in. At this point I have concluded he doesn't want to deal
> with that because he wants to complain more than he wants to solve any
> problem. He'd have gotten a better email system long ago otherwise.
notifications by choice. I shut down that feature in my preferences
more than five years ago after being ambushed similarly here, though
on a considerably larger scale.
>
> A lot of posters report they have registered using a throw away account
> so they don't get such rejections. That's the price. It's been years
> since I got a message rejected but it has happened when I responded late
> to a blocked thread. Because I see the rejections I know what posts
> have been rejected. Lacking a rejection or seeing it in the post in the
> group I know it got stuck/lost in email. Yet another reason why the
> more complaints I see by StarFury the less I care -
accustomed to that attitude for years anyway at this point, which is
all the more reason I haven't felt particularly inclined to be "Mr.
Nice Guy" regardless of how people choose to take it. I simply reached
that point some time ago and 'don't care' myself anymore.
Nicole Massey
Nov 9, 2012, 5:58:39 PM11/9/12
to
news:1535d503-dfce-4694...@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
---
I have prior experience in IT as a LAN administrator, Desktop Support tech,
Helpdesk Manager, Technical Writer, and a few others. (All before I lost my
sight) Anyone who knows how to type can express themself well, though it
requires that they also know how to express themself well too. I'm something
of a word geek, so I take clear communication seriously, and I've been doing
this for almost 32 years now, as I started out with BBS systems.
I acknowledge that I don't know everything about your personal interaction,
but I do know a lot about the way things are run here. As said by another on
this thread, if you didn't get a rejection email, then your message wasn't
rejected by moderation -- their own personal feelings aside, I believe this
group has moderators with enough integrity that they wouldn't squash
something and not tell you about it being rejected.
I also think that embarassing Joe from something Claudia said wouldn't be
enough reason to reject an email. (Especially with some of the CYA
retconning Claudia has done in the past to remove her responsibility from
some issues)
Two monks were walking down a road that was well travelled, dodging others,
for their order had a rule that they were not to physically touch anyone
else. When they reached a river, an old woman stood there, scared to cross,
so the older monk lifted her up on his shoulders and carried her across the
river on his back. The younger monk said nothing, but this bothered him not
a little. They walked on and at evening, after traversing another 20 miles,
they sat down for dinner and sleep.
The younger monk said, "Brother, something is bothering me. That old woman,
you touched her by carrying her across the river. That violates our rules.
And I am concerned for you."
The older monk looked at him and said, "And I am concerned for you, my
brother, for the same reason."
The younger monk, surprised, said, "Why? I've done nothing."
His older compatriot said, "I carried that woman across a stream, a distance
of a hundred and fifty feet. You've carried her now for over twenty five
miles. Don't you think it's time to put her down now?"
Any gruge or bad feelings you hold isn't going to keep those you're holding
them against miss one nanosecond of sleep. You are a different matter. As
has been said here, they're letting you keep this up -- any one of the
moderators could hand moderate you or tell us to knock it off and shut down
the thread. They aren't. This should tell you something about the integrity
of he people for whom you're holding on to something that started long ago.
This is my option for B5 related stuff -- I dont' use Facebook both because
it has blind accessibility problems and because I got tired of BBS's when I
shut mine down in 1997. And that makes me wonder -- if you're not here to
talk about the show, just why are you here then?
I have prior experience in IT as a LAN administrator, Desktop Support tech,
Helpdesk Manager, Technical Writer, and a few others. (All before I lost my
sight) Anyone who knows how to type can express themself well, though it
requires that they also know how to express themself well too. I'm something
of a word geek, so I take clear communication seriously, and I've been doing
this for almost 32 years now, as I started out with BBS systems.
I acknowledge that I don't know everything about your personal interaction,
but I do know a lot about the way things are run here. As said by another on
this thread, if you didn't get a rejection email, then your message wasn't
rejected by moderation -- their own personal feelings aside, I believe this
group has moderators with enough integrity that they wouldn't squash
something and not tell you about it being rejected.
I also think that embarassing Joe from something Claudia said wouldn't be
enough reason to reject an email. (Especially with some of the CYA
retconning Claudia has done in the past to remove her responsibility from
some issues)
Two monks were walking down a road that was well travelled, dodging others,
for their order had a rule that they were not to physically touch anyone
else. When they reached a river, an old woman stood there, scared to cross,
so the older monk lifted her up on his shoulders and carried her across the
river on his back. The younger monk said nothing, but this bothered him not
a little. They walked on and at evening, after traversing another 20 miles,
they sat down for dinner and sleep.
The younger monk said, "Brother, something is bothering me. That old woman,
you touched her by carrying her across the river. That violates our rules.
And I am concerned for you."
The older monk looked at him and said, "And I am concerned for you, my
brother, for the same reason."
The younger monk, surprised, said, "Why? I've done nothing."
His older compatriot said, "I carried that woman across a stream, a distance
of a hundred and fifty feet. You've carried her now for over twenty five
miles. Don't you think it's time to put her down now?"
Any gruge or bad feelings you hold isn't going to keep those you're holding
them against miss one nanosecond of sleep. You are a different matter. As
has been said here, they're letting you keep this up -- any one of the
moderators could hand moderate you or tell us to knock it off and shut down
the thread. They aren't. This should tell you something about the integrity
of he people for whom you're holding on to something that started long ago.
This is my option for B5 related stuff -- I dont' use Facebook both because
it has blind accessibility problems and because I got tired of BBS's when I
shut mine down in 1997. And that makes me wonder -- if you're not here to
talk about the show, just why are you here then?
StarFuryG7
Nov 9, 2012, 11:20:04 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 6:01 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> ---
highlighted a number of different things that she covers in her book
based on the summary she handed out at Comic Con, but only part of the
article focused on a date she had with Joe which made her feel
awkward. It was a little amusing, but even if he did ask her out and
she felt funny about it, what's the big deal? She's an attractive
woman, especially back then when she was in her thirties, and what guy
would blame Joe for wanting to go out on a date with her, even if it
turned out that she wasn't interested him in that way? At least he
gave it a shot, which is more than can be said about a lot of people
who don't have such guts and then live to regret it because they find
themselves wondering later, sometimes years after the fact, how things
might have turned out otherwise if only they had taken a chance,
opened their mouth and made a play for someone they found appealing.
And obviously that's an issue that can apply to both men and women.
> Any gruge or bad feelings you hold isn't going to keep those you're holding
> them against miss one nanosecond of sleep.
I'm well aware of that, and believe me, I don't lose any sleep over it
either. It doesn't mean I'm going to simply forget about it though,
especially not here.
> You are a different matter. As
> has been said here, they're letting you keep this up -- any one of the
> moderators could hand moderate you or tell us to knock it off and shut down
> the thread. They aren't. This should tell you something about the integrity
> of he people for whom you're holding on to something that started long ago.
Except that I don't see why it should automatically be attributed to
'integrity' necessarily rather than something else, especially when I
found myself censored for some of the most ridiculous reasons in years
past by contrast. That was well before the standards became far more
'relaxed' than has been the case in more recent years.
And besides, one of the moderators just stated that he hasn't bothered
to censor me because he regards me as little more than a nuisance not
worth the bother (paraphrased of course).
> This is my option for B5 related stuff -- I dont' use Facebook both because
> it has blind accessibility problems and because I got tired of BBS's when I
> shut mine down in 1997.
I don't believe in Facebook --they collect too much personal
information, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a whole
host of other reasons that I don't care for them and how they go about
things organizationally, so I wouldn't bother to frequent there
either.
> And that makes me wonder -- if you're not here to
> talk about the show, just why are you here then?
I'll post articles here periodically, as well as elsewhere, and when I
do they're always pertinent to the show in some way, and it really
doesn't thrill me when they simply don't show up, especially when it's
related to tragic news, such as the passing of a prominent cast
member. And that didn't just happen with respect to the tragic passing
of Michael O'Hare more recently, it also happened with Jeff Conaway
last year. People are free to discuss those things as they may see
fit, or not, depending on how they feel, but I take death notices
especially seriously, particularly in a place like this. It has
nothing to do with how I may happen to feel about the members who
frequent this newsgroup one way or the other --It's about
acknowledging and perhaps even honoring the dead. However, in this
particular case the thread topic that didn't show up related to
Claudia's book, and if one of the moderator's did decide to kill it
because they felt it would be embarrassing to Joe, which is somewhat
ridiculous given that it was an article posted on Blastr, where it
would be seen and read by many more people anyway, then they certainly
could have let me know here in this thread why they chose not to let
it go through if that was indeed the case. Anything else that has
stemmed from that has just been me taking it as it comes, and that's
all otherwise.
I hope you're pleased with the results of your interrogation.
> ---
> I also think that embarassing Joe from something Claudia said wouldn't be
> enough reason to reject an email. (Especially with some of the CYA
> retconning Claudia has done in the past to remove her responsibility from
> some issues)
I don't recall it being all that terrible though. The Blastr article
> enough reason to reject an email. (Especially with some of the CYA
> retconning Claudia has done in the past to remove her responsibility from
> some issues)
highlighted a number of different things that she covers in her book
based on the summary she handed out at Comic Con, but only part of the
article focused on a date she had with Joe which made her feel
awkward. It was a little amusing, but even if he did ask her out and
she felt funny about it, what's the big deal? She's an attractive
woman, especially back then when she was in her thirties, and what guy
would blame Joe for wanting to go out on a date with her, even if it
turned out that she wasn't interested him in that way? At least he
gave it a shot, which is more than can be said about a lot of people
who don't have such guts and then live to regret it because they find
themselves wondering later, sometimes years after the fact, how things
might have turned out otherwise if only they had taken a chance,
opened their mouth and made a play for someone they found appealing.
And obviously that's an issue that can apply to both men and women.
> Any gruge or bad feelings you hold isn't going to keep those you're holding
> them against miss one nanosecond of sleep.
either. It doesn't mean I'm going to simply forget about it though,
especially not here.
> You are a different matter. As
> has been said here, they're letting you keep this up -- any one of the
> moderators could hand moderate you or tell us to knock it off and shut down
> the thread. They aren't. This should tell you something about the integrity
> of he people for whom you're holding on to something that started long ago.
'integrity' necessarily rather than something else, especially when I
found myself censored for some of the most ridiculous reasons in years
past by contrast. That was well before the standards became far more
'relaxed' than has been the case in more recent years.
And besides, one of the moderators just stated that he hasn't bothered
to censor me because he regards me as little more than a nuisance not
worth the bother (paraphrased of course).
> This is my option for B5 related stuff -- I dont' use Facebook both because
> it has blind accessibility problems and because I got tired of BBS's when I
> shut mine down in 1997.
information, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a whole
host of other reasons that I don't care for them and how they go about
things organizationally, so I wouldn't bother to frequent there
either.
> And that makes me wonder -- if you're not here to
> talk about the show, just why are you here then?
do they're always pertinent to the show in some way, and it really
doesn't thrill me when they simply don't show up, especially when it's
related to tragic news, such as the passing of a prominent cast
member. And that didn't just happen with respect to the tragic passing
of Michael O'Hare more recently, it also happened with Jeff Conaway
last year. People are free to discuss those things as they may see
fit, or not, depending on how they feel, but I take death notices
especially seriously, particularly in a place like this. It has
nothing to do with how I may happen to feel about the members who
frequent this newsgroup one way or the other --It's about
acknowledging and perhaps even honoring the dead. However, in this
particular case the thread topic that didn't show up related to
Claudia's book, and if one of the moderator's did decide to kill it
because they felt it would be embarrassing to Joe, which is somewhat
ridiculous given that it was an article posted on Blastr, where it
would be seen and read by many more people anyway, then they certainly
could have let me know here in this thread why they chose not to let
it go through if that was indeed the case. Anything else that has
stemmed from that has just been me taking it as it comes, and that's
all otherwise.
I hope you're pleased with the results of your interrogation.
Nicole Massey
Nov 10, 2012, 9:14:09 AM11/10/12
to
news:7589d54f-b365-4116...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Everything has been reported to MinPax, of course.
John Kennedy is, not, as far as I know, a moderator, and I didn't read his
response to you as indicative of him saying he was.
Since you shut down such responses from the moderators, you are assuming
that you were censored instead of knowing it for sure, as you have no
evidence either way if it was moderation or not. In light of constant
problems getting things to this newsgroup, it's more logical to assume that
it wasn't direct moderation, and instead was the result of some other
problem. I understand there is emotional value in assuming that it's enemy
action, but that is an assumption.
John Kennedy is, not, as far as I know, a moderator, and I didn't read his
response to you as indicative of him saying he was.
Since you shut down such responses from the moderators, you are assuming
that you were censored instead of knowing it for sure, as you have no
evidence either way if it was moderation or not. In light of constant
problems getting things to this newsgroup, it's more logical to assume that
it wasn't direct moderation, and instead was the result of some other
problem. I understand there is emotional value in assuming that it's enemy
action, but that is an assumption.
John W. Kennedy
Nov 10, 2012, 10:59:04 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 9:16 am, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> John Kennedy is, not, as far as I know, a moderator,
For the record, I'm not, and never have been, and, if I were, the
> John Kennedy is, not, as far as I know, a moderator,
first thing I would do would be to try to fix the moderation so that
it would work for /me/, which it hasn't, ever since I switched years
ago from the attglobal.net ISP (the former ibm.net, exclusively dial-
up) to optonline.net (Cablevision), so that I am forced to use the
odious and increasingly unusable Google Groups.
> and I didn't read his
> response to you as indicative of him saying he was.
a blindingly obvious and completely public fact, accepting the
monitive role on the principle that (as Sir Dinadan said to Taliessin
in the rose garden in a far higher matter): "Any may be; one must."
StarFuryG7
Nov 10, 2012, 6:52:32 PM11/10/12
to
> Since you shut down such responses from the moderators, you are assuming
> that you were censored instead of knowing it for sure, as you have no
> evidence either way if it was moderation or not. In light of constant
> problems getting things to this newsgroup, it's more logical to assume that
> it wasn't direct moderation, and instead was the result of some other
> problem. I understand there is emotional value in assuming that it's enemy
> action, but that is an assumption.
I have very good intuition generally speaking. The Presidential
> that you were censored instead of knowing it for sure, as you have no
> evidence either way if it was moderation or not. In light of constant
> problems getting things to this newsgroup, it's more logical to assume that
> it wasn't direct moderation, and instead was the result of some other
> problem. I understand there is emotional value in assuming that it's enemy
> action, but that is an assumption.
election turned out exactly as I feared it would in fact.
But I take your point.
Amy Guskin
Nov 12, 2012, 1:32:08 PM11/12/12
to
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 02:50:43 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<d4abcdbe-b909-4c07...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):
I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
> just dumps it. <<
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. I have had a VERY complex and tough
year, starting with my February surgery that went wrong, and had long-running
complications through the spring (hospital-acquired infection had me on a pic
line for months) followed by more complicated and painful physical therapy
than I'd had before. Then came the late spring and summer, when my elderly
parents found a home down here, and I spent every weekend schlepping up to
New York with my husband to help them pack a lifetime of stuff and get the
house ready for the sale. Then they moved here, right around the block from
me, and that quickly became a full time job that I didn't expect (taking them
to supermarkets, doctors, stores, etc.). And then I went to Paris for a few
weeks on a much-deserved vacation. Then I came back, and it was election time
I'm a seasonal poll worker so this takes up some space in my life. And now
it is post-election, and I am back looking in on things. So, am I telling you
all of this so you can play your tiny violin for me? Indeed no. I am just
telling you that I was more busy than usual all year long, and thus have not
been holding up my end of things in moderation land. For at least a year,
this place has become so empty it is practically desolate. So instead of
popping in several times a day, every day, I have only been popping in to
moderate VERY occasionally, for which I apologize. But when week after week
goes by with NOTHING in the queue, I started to think that maybe this place
was just being deserted by people hopping over to Facebook. Obviously I was
wrong, and I'll get back on the stick with my daily moderation. So, that post
*specifically* not appearing was indeed my fault.
But the second point I want to make is this: I can't speak for anyone else,
but as long as I have been moderating, which is some years, NO ONE is looking
at who is posting and deciding on that basis whether or not to approve it.
You have a highly inflated opinion of yourself if you think that. Most of us
are really quite busy with our actual lives, and we are doing this
moderating, keeping the newsgroup running out of the kindness of our hearts
and a love for this property. Having said that, if I read something
inflammatory, you bet I will go back up and check who posted it. But on a
normal basis? If a post is a garden variety, non-inflammatory post, with an
opinion or a link or a question, it's all most of us can do to have time to
read it and approve it. No one is sitting around moderating and waiting for
your posts to show up just so we can bounce them. Sheesh, dude. And, srsly.
Amy
Still here!
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article
<d4abcdbe-b909-4c07...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):
I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
> just dumps it. <<
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. I have had a VERY complex and tough
year, starting with my February surgery that went wrong, and had long-running
complications through the spring (hospital-acquired infection had me on a pic
line for months) followed by more complicated and painful physical therapy
than I'd had before. Then came the late spring and summer, when my elderly
parents found a home down here, and I spent every weekend schlepping up to
New York with my husband to help them pack a lifetime of stuff and get the
house ready for the sale. Then they moved here, right around the block from
me, and that quickly became a full time job that I didn't expect (taking them
to supermarkets, doctors, stores, etc.). And then I went to Paris for a few
weeks on a much-deserved vacation. Then I came back, and it was election time
I'm a seasonal poll worker so this takes up some space in my life. And now
it is post-election, and I am back looking in on things. So, am I telling you
all of this so you can play your tiny violin for me? Indeed no. I am just
telling you that I was more busy than usual all year long, and thus have not
been holding up my end of things in moderation land. For at least a year,
this place has become so empty it is practically desolate. So instead of
popping in several times a day, every day, I have only been popping in to
moderate VERY occasionally, for which I apologize. But when week after week
goes by with NOTHING in the queue, I started to think that maybe this place
was just being deserted by people hopping over to Facebook. Obviously I was
wrong, and I'll get back on the stick with my daily moderation. So, that post
*specifically* not appearing was indeed my fault.
But the second point I want to make is this: I can't speak for anyone else,
but as long as I have been moderating, which is some years, NO ONE is looking
at who is posting and deciding on that basis whether or not to approve it.
You have a highly inflated opinion of yourself if you think that. Most of us
are really quite busy with our actual lives, and we are doing this
moderating, keeping the newsgroup running out of the kindness of our hearts
and a love for this property. Having said that, if I read something
inflammatory, you bet I will go back up and check who posted it. But on a
normal basis? If a post is a garden variety, non-inflammatory post, with an
opinion or a link or a question, it's all most of us can do to have time to
read it and approve it. No one is sitting around moderating and waiting for
your posts to show up just so we can bounce them. Sheesh, dude. And, srsly.
Amy
Still here!
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Amy Guskin
Nov 12, 2012, 1:41:02 PM11/12/12
to
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 00:22:52 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<c89c6a78-ac7c-453d...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
What does this even *mean*? A non-moderated thread allowing posts through
from all non-hand-moderated posters is a *normal* condition here; it couldn't
"happen sooner" because that is the natural state of existence of a
non-moderated post and posts by non-hand-moderated posters. It has nothing to
do with any perceived neglect.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article
<c89c6a78-ac7c-453d...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
from all non-hand-moderated posters is a *normal* condition here; it couldn't
"happen sooner" because that is the natural state of existence of a
non-moderated post and posts by non-hand-moderated posters. It has nothing to
do with any perceived neglect.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Amy Guskin
Nov 12, 2012, 1:41:44 PM11/12/12
to
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 05:38:39 -0500, Bruce Goatly wrote
(in article <RYLms.244277$Tf3....@fx12.am4>):
To be fair, StarFury does post on topic and is interested in the show.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article <RYLms.244277$Tf3....@fx12.am4>):
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Amy Guskin
Nov 12, 2012, 1:43:44 PM11/12/12
to
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:51:11 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<367fe63f-2b5f-4e1f...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 8, 3:37 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
> wrote.:
>>
>> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
>> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
>> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
>> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
>> insulting them on a daily basis?
>
> Do you even realize that this thread fell dormant back in July, only
> to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
> resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
> later?<<
Since you are using single quotes around "retired," presumably to be
sarcastic, I have to point out here that while Jay is indeed retired from
moderation, that doesn't mean he can't read and post here like everybody
else. So, no sarcastic single quotes required!
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article
<367fe63f-2b5f-4e1f...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 8, 3:37 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
> wrote.:
>>
>> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
>> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
>> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
>> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
>> insulting them on a daily basis?
>
> Do you even realize that this thread fell dormant back in July, only
> to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
> resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
> later?<<
sarcastic, I have to point out here that while Jay is indeed retired from
moderation, that doesn't mean he can't read and post here like everybody
else. So, no sarcastic single quotes required!
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
news
Nov 12, 2012, 6:31:09 PM11/12/12
to
Glad to see you back. Did your medical situation resolve itself?
Mike
Dennis (Icarus)
Nov 13, 2012, 12:45:41 AM11/13/12
to
"Amy Guskin" wrote in message
news:0001HW.CCC6AAD8...@news.eternal-september.org...
<snip>
>
>Amy
>Still here!
Glad to hear it!
Dennis
news:0001HW.CCC6AAD8...@news.eternal-september.org...
<snip>
>
>Amy
>Still here!
Glad to hear it!
Dennis
Amy Guskin
Nov 13, 2012, 3:31:17 PM11/13/12
to
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:31:09 -0500, news wrote
(in article <fFfos.16003$h94....@newsfe02.iad>):
the infection is well and truly gone, but my arm is a *mess*, and while the
pain that prompted this revision surgery is gone, the arms works *worse* than
before, which is a little depressing. But it's all good: I could have bled
out on the table, so I consider myself ahead of the game by being alive!
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article <fFfos.16003$h94....@newsfe02.iad>):
> Hi Amy,
>
> Glad to see you back. Did your medical situation resolve itself? <<
Hi, Mike thanks for asking. Yes and no: after two months on the pic line,
>
> Glad to see you back. Did your medical situation resolve itself? <<
the infection is well and truly gone, but my arm is a *mess*, and while the
pain that prompted this revision surgery is gone, the arms works *worse* than
before, which is a little depressing. But it's all good: I could have bled
out on the table, so I consider myself ahead of the game by being alive!
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Amy Guskin
Nov 13, 2012, 3:31:45 PM11/13/12
to
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:45:41 -0500, Dennis \(Icarus\) wrote
(in article <befba$50a1de89$cf62c293$18...@KNOLOGY.NET>):
Thanks, buddy!
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article <befba$50a1de89$cf62c293$18...@KNOLOGY.NET>):
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
StarFuryG7
Nov 14, 2012, 3:16:32 AM11/14/12
to
On Nov 12, 1:32 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> Ha! It is so funny to come back here after all this time and see what is
> going on.
Happy to be of assistance.
>
> 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.
recent days claiming that my comments about missing posts is of no
concern.
> I have had a VERY complex and tough
> year, starting with my February surgery that went wrong, and had long-running
> complications through the spring (hospital-acquired infection had me on a pic
> line for months) followed by more complicated and painful physical therapy
> than I'd had before. Then came the late spring and summer, when my elderly
> parents found a home down here, and I spent every weekend schlepping up to
> New York with my husband to help them pack a lifetime of stuff and get the
> house ready for the sale. Then they moved here, right around the block from
> me, and that quickly became a full time job that I didn't expect (taking them
> to supermarkets, doctors, stores, etc.).
to take the bait if it is.
> And then I went to Paris for a few
> weeks on a much-deserved vacation.
> Then I came back, and it was election time
> ‹ I'm a seasonal poll worker so this takes up some space in my life. And now
> it is post-election, and I am back looking in on things. So, am I telling you
> all of this so you can play your tiny violin for me?
I've played was the clarinet, and that was a long time ago.
> Indeed no. I am just
> telling you that I was more busy than usual all year long, and thus have not
> been holding up my end of things in moderation land. For at least a year,
> this place has become so empty it is practically desolate.
> So instead of
> popping in several times a day, every day, I have only been popping in to
> moderate VERY occasionally, for which I apologize.
> But when week after week
> goes by with NOTHING in the queue, I started to think that maybe this place
> was just being deserted by people hopping over to Facebook. Obviously I was
> wrong, and I'll get back on the stick with my daily moderation.
> So, that post
> *specifically* not appearing was indeed my fault.
>
> But the second point I want to make is this: I can't speak for anyone else,
> but as long as I have been moderating, which is some years, NO ONE is looking
> at who is posting and deciding on that basis whether or not to approve it.
> You have a highly inflated opinion of yourself if you think that.
> Most of us
> are really quite busy with our actual lives, and we are doing this ‹
> moderating, keeping the newsgroup running ‹ out of the kindness of our hearts
> and a love for this property.
StarFuryG7
Nov 14, 2012, 3:21:19 AM11/14/12
to
On Nov 12, 1:41 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 00:22:52 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
> <c89c6a78-ac7c-453d-ae84-de8f3b254...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):
> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 00:22:52 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
>
> > On Nov 7, 9:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_di...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
> >> hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
>
> >> Dennis
>
> > No one cares about this newsgroup anymore. It's a wonder that didn't
> > happen sooner. <<
>
> What does this even *mean*?
I thought it was fairly clear: that there's nothing or no one here to
> > On Nov 7, 9:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_di...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
> >> hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
>
> >> Dennis
>
> > No one cares about this newsgroup anymore. It's a wonder that didn't
> > happen sooner. <<
>
> What does this even *mean*?
'moderate' anymore.
StarFuryG7
Nov 14, 2012, 3:36:38 AM11/14/12
to
On Nov 12, 1:43 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:51:11 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
> <367fe63f-2b5f-4e1f-864a-d664ce405...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>):
> >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 19:51:11 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
>
> > On Nov 8, 3:37 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote.:
>
> >> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
> >> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
> >> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
> >> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
> >> insulting them on a daily basis?
>
> > Do you even realize that this thread fell dormant back in July, only
> > to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
> > resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
> > later?<<
>
> Since you are using single quotes around "retired," presumably to be
> sarcastic,
Have you even noticed your colleague's Sig Line? It says only
> > On Nov 8, 3:37 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
> > wrote.:
>
> >> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
> >> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
> >> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
> >> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
> >> insulting them on a daily basis?
>
> > Do you even realize that this thread fell dormant back in July, only
> > to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
> > resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
> > later?<<
>
> Since you are using single quotes around "retired," presumably to be
> sarcastic,
"Moderator", with no mention of the word " retired".
And you're a lousy mind-reader by the way, as I only used "single
quotes" to reflect what he told me about his status here.
> I have to point out here that while Jay is indeed retired from
> moderation, that doesn't mean he can't read and post here like everybody
> else. So, no sarcastic single quotes required!
>
rely on --you know, the same software that allows you to designate a
particular thread for "hand-moderation", and which can prevent a
message from making it through for posting to the forum.
Amy Guskin
Nov 14, 2012, 9:51:27 AM11/14/12
to
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:36:38 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<1dddbac1-b7bb-4455...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>):
right? I am reading and posting using Hogwasher. Hogwasher is not moderation
software. So Jay can indeed be reading and posting without being in the
moderation space.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article
<1dddbac1-b7bb-4455...@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> I have to point out here that while Jay is indeed retired from
>> moderation, that doesn't mean he can't read and post here like everybody
>> else. So, no sarcastic single quotes required!
>>
>
> And "presumably" he still uses the same moderation software that you
> rely on --you know, the same software that allows you to designate a
> particular thread for "hand-moderation", and which can prevent a
> message from making it through for posting to the forum. <<
You do realize that the program we use for moderation is not a newsreader,
>> I have to point out here that while Jay is indeed retired from
>> moderation, that doesn't mean he can't read and post here like everybody
>> else. So, no sarcastic single quotes required!
>>
>
> And "presumably" he still uses the same moderation software that you
> rely on --you know, the same software that allows you to designate a
> particular thread for "hand-moderation", and which can prevent a
> message from making it through for posting to the forum. <<
right? I am reading and posting using Hogwasher. Hogwasher is not moderation
software. So Jay can indeed be reading and posting without being in the
moderation space.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Jan
Nov 14, 2012, 11:20:22 AM11/14/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:16:40 AM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> Are you the only moderator here?
YES, for all intents and purposes she is. Jay and Cheryl can moderate and do, when Amy is away. Which is the only reason Jay ever saw your whinging about missing posts.
> Are you the only moderator here?
Just exactly why do you find it appropriate to be such an asshole toward the very people who can slap you on hand moderation? Seems pretty counter-productive for somebody who values his posts showing up quickly.
Get over yourself. You're boring.
Jan
StarFuryG7
Nov 14, 2012, 12:39:21 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 11:20 am, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Just exactly why do you find it appropriate to be such an asshole toward the very people who can slap you on hand moderation?
Honestly, Jan, I really could not care less what you think of me.
>
> Just exactly why do you find it appropriate to be such an asshole toward the very people who can slap you on hand moderation?
However, I took the tone and attitude of her post and threw it right
back at her (not that you noticed obviously), and after what occurred
here five years ago also in my dealings with her, it was warranted.
> Seems pretty counter-productive for somebody who values his posts showing up quickly.
happen routinely anyway?
Your attitude about that reflects exactly what I've been complaining
about with regard to it and why I feel the way I do about it. In other
words, thanks.
>
> Get over yourself. You're boring.
>
> Jan
Have a nice life.
StarFuryG7
Nov 14, 2012, 12:41:17 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 9:51 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> You do realize that the program we use for moderation is not a newsreader,
> right?
It's irrelevant. The point was that just because he says he's
>
> You do realize that the program we use for moderation is not a newsreader,
> right?
'retired' (yes, "single quotes'), he still retains the same ability to
do everything he used to do as an active moderator.
Nicole Massey
Nov 14, 2012, 3:00:56 PM11/14/12
to
news:6b824bc8-0cd8-4355...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
---
Yes, just like you retain the ability to not respond to everything that
comes through here if there is the slighest possibility that it will keep
this little trollfest going. But like your choice not to use restraint, I've
seen no evidence that he has chosen to use hiss moderator priveleges to
censor any of your messages, even though at this point the horse is as dead
as Centari expansion plans. The fact that your messages keep getting through
belies your theory that you have been categorically moderated. Yes, you can
create all kinds of elaborate theories about how they're still arrayed
against you, but that fluttering thing obscuring your vision is the finger
of the shade of Sir William of Occam shaking his finger at you.
So, in light of the fact that you have managed to annoy or frustrate a
majority of the regulars here on this group, what are you planning for you
next act? I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
will correct it)
Yes, just like you retain the ability to not respond to everything that
comes through here if there is the slighest possibility that it will keep
this little trollfest going. But like your choice not to use restraint, I've
seen no evidence that he has chosen to use hiss moderator priveleges to
censor any of your messages, even though at this point the horse is as dead
as Centari expansion plans. The fact that your messages keep getting through
belies your theory that you have been categorically moderated. Yes, you can
create all kinds of elaborate theories about how they're still arrayed
against you, but that fluttering thing obscuring your vision is the finger
of the shade of Sir William of Occam shaking his finger at you.
So, in light of the fact that you have managed to annoy or frustrate a
majority of the regulars here on this group, what are you planning for you
next act? I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
will correct it)
Jan
Nov 14, 2012, 4:29:20 PM11/14/12
to
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:39:40 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> However, I took the tone and attitude of her post and threw it right back at her (not that you noticed obviously), and after what occurred here five years ago also in my dealings with her, it was warranted.
I neither remember nor care what happened 5 years ago. However, let me tell you, as somebody who knows Amy for many years, on and off the newsgroup, that you're so off base as to be in a different universe. Amy apologized and meant it. She gave you an explanation as to why she hasn't been moderating much. That's all it was, an explanation not an excuse.
> However, I took the tone and attitude of her post and threw it right back at her (not that you noticed obviously), and after what occurred here five years ago also in my dealings with her, it was warranted.
You owe her an apology. Let's see if you're big enough to extend it.
Jan
StarFuryG7
Nov 14, 2012, 6:57:53 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 3:03 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> ---
> Yes, just like you retain the ability to not respond to everything that
> comes through here if there is the slighest possibility that it will keep
> this little trollfest going.
Nicole, need I remind you --and apparently I must-- that where things
> ---
> Yes, just like you retain the ability to not respond to everything that
> comes through here if there is the slighest possibility that it will keep
> this little trollfest going.
last left off between the two of us that I couldn't have been more
polite, and even acknowledged your point. I was content to drop
everything there and leave it at that, but then what happened? Well,
it's obvious --your friend the moderator decided to chime in with an
all too familiar and typically snarky attitude, so please, spare me
the bullcrap, will ya.
StarFuryG7
Nov 14, 2012, 7:01:17 PM11/14/12
to
On Nov 14, 4:29 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I neither remember nor care what happened 5 years ago.
Well, that's you.
>
> I neither remember nor care what happened 5 years ago.
> However, let me tell you, as somebody who knows Amy for many years, on and off the newsgroup, that you're so off base as to be in a different universe. Amy apologized and meant it.
Not.
> She gave you an explanation as to why she hasn't been moderating much. That's all it was, an explanation not an excuse.
she acknowledged a specific post which didn't show up as being her
fault, as though she had seen it. And yet I have heard all sorts of
speculative reasons as to why a post of mine might not show up here,
but a moderator not doing their job was overlooked as a possibility.
Instead it was attributed to a variety of potential technical
problems, or me just looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, but
not a moderator who wasn't around to approve something.
>
> You owe her an apology. Let's see if you're big enough to extend it.
>
> Jan
it.
And I certainly don't owe her one now for any darn thing.
Nicole Massey
Nov 14, 2012, 7:10:14 PM11/14/12
to
news:7eec43a5-92bc-4dc3...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
---
One man's snarky attitude is another man's honest response, especially on
the internet. So please, take the Sequoia tree off your sholder and return
it to the national park. What's done is done, and once again, I point you to
Vorlon comments on veracity.
One man's snarky attitude is another man's honest response, especially on
the internet. So please, take the Sequoia tree off your sholder and return
it to the national park. What's done is done, and once again, I point you to
Vorlon comments on veracity.
Jan
Nov 14, 2012, 7:38:36 PM11/14/12
to janmsc...@aol.com
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:01:25 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> On Nov 14, 4:29 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, amid all of her derision and sarcasm, I'm sure she "meant it" --
>
> Not.
>
>
The ONLY slightly snarky bit of her entire lengthy post was the last four words 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. But that's just me.
> On Nov 14, 4:29 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, amid all of her derision and sarcasm, I'm sure she "meant it" --
>
> Not.
>
>
>
> 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. And yet I have heard all sorts of
>
> speculative reasons as to why a post of mine might not show up here,
>
> but a moderator not doing their job was overlooked as a possibility.
>
> Instead it was attributed to a variety of potential technical
>
> problems, or me just looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, but
>
> not a moderator who wasn't around to approve something.
>
>
> >
>
> > You owe her an apology. Let's see if you're big enough to extend it.
>
> >
>
> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got
>
> it.
>
>
>
> 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 be rough carrying every grudge and imagined slight around all the time.
>
> it.
>
>
>
> And I certainly don't owe her one now for any darn thing.
Now then...how about you either drop it or talk about the actual thread topic?
Jan
Nicole Massey
Nov 14, 2012, 10:06:39 PM11/14/12
to
(Off Topic demised equine abuse deleted)
I did a recent check of Bookshare.org, a site for blind folks, and only the
Centauri Prime Trilogy is availible there. Since it's a volunteer effort,
they could use some folks to scan the books and proof the scans. They have
agreements with the publishers to make the books availible for blind folks,
so it won't violate any copyright.
And I still want to know if Minister Leone was Joe's idea of Peter's.
I did a recent check of Bookshare.org, a site for blind folks, and only the
Centauri Prime Trilogy is availible there. Since it's a volunteer effort,
they could use some folks to scan the books and proof the scans. They have
agreements with the publishers to make the books availible for blind folks,
so it won't violate any copyright.
And I still want to know if Minister Leone was Joe's idea of Peter's.
StarFuryG7
Nov 15, 2012, 1:14:01 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 14, 7:38 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> The ONLY slightly snarky bit of her entire lengthy post was the last four words 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. But that's just me. <
Uh huh --stick that with your own tiny violin while you're at it.
>
> The ONLY slightly snarky bit of her entire lengthy post was the last four words 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. But that's just me. <
I've grown accustomed to your blinders by the way.
And clearly nothing rude or impolite about your insults
obviously ...in fact, your manure smells like roses, doesn't it?
Of course it does ...and next you'll be a candidate for sainthood as a
matter of fact.
> 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 you say, speculative reasons were given. It's not as if this discussion is either an investigation or trial. We gave information on possible reasons based on past experience. <
obviously, which turned out to be the case. So when you get right down
to it, I was actually correct as to why at least one post never showed
up here. So Jan, where is the "apology" from you? Come on, let's see
you "man up".
Yeah, didn't think so.
>
> Oh, you do. But it's your karmic debt to accrue so do as you will. <
worst I have to worry about in terms of karma, I'd say I'm not doing
all that bad obviously.
> Must be rough carrying every grudge and imagined slight around all the time. <
I'm definitely going with the latter.
>
> Now then...how about you either drop it or talk about the actual thread topic?
>
> Jan
StarFuryG7
Nov 15, 2012, 1:15:25 AM11/15/12
to
> One man's snarky attitude is another man's honest response, especially on
> the internet.
Say hello to the honest man.
> the internet.
Jan
Nov 15, 2012, 7:59:17 AM11/15/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:14:08 AM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> On Nov 14, 7:38 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> And clearly nothing rude or impolite about your insults
>
You're right. I apologize for calling you an asshole. Regardless of accuracy, it was rude and childish of me and I shouldn't have done it.
> On Nov 14, 7:38 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> And clearly nothing rude or impolite about your insults
>
>
> Right --all of which omitted a moderator somehow being at fault
>
> obviously, which turned out to be the case. So when you get right down
>
> to it, I was actually correct as to why at least one post never showed
>
> up here. So Jan, where is the "apology" from you? Come on, let's see
>
> you "man up".
>
>
>
> Yeah, didn't think so.
>
Jan
Nicole Massey
Nov 15, 2012, 7:58:14 AM11/15/12
to
news:eb6397c9-706b-42ea...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
---
I will, next time I run into him. Or does self delusion not count against
honesty?
I will, next time I run into him. Or does self delusion not count against
honesty?
Amy Guskin
Nov 15, 2012, 6:11:33 PM11/15/12
to
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:00:56 -0500, Nicole Massey wrote
(in article <k80tdv$1i7$1...@news.albasani.net>):
I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
> but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
> philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
> it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
> will correct it) <<
Ooh, good, you picked one I know. :-)
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article <k80tdv$1i7$1...@news.albasani.net>):
I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
> but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
> philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
> it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
> will correct it) <<
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Amy Guskin
Nov 15, 2012, 6:23:01 PM11/15/12
to
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<4dda15d7-c22e-48f8...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
>
> 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.<<
Duh! At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it. How
does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
And, dude, I've gotta say: you have some *severe* contextual comprehension
issues with my posts. Not that I've never been snarky, or sarcastic, but I
sure haven't been AT ALL in this particular thread. I'd say, "When I'm
snarky or sarcastic, you'll *know* it...but apparently you won't.
>> And yet I have heard all sorts of
> speculative reasons as to why a post of mine might not show up here,
> but a moderator not doing their job was overlooked as a possibility.
> Instead it was attributed to a variety of potential technical
> problems, or me just looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, but
> not a moderator who wasn't around to approve something. <<
So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a point over
the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which 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. Which, by the
way, is seriously self-centered; no one is that interested in you or your
posts. There are definitely people who have posted here in the past that
might make someone look for and read their posts carefully in case they need
hand moderating, but I don't think you're one of them. And in NO case would
we just dump a post, anyway! 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 can
receiving email from the modbot (which I think you have to in order to be
registered in the newsgroup).
>> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got
> it. <<
No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I said
about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article
<4dda15d7-c22e-48f8...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
>
> 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.<<
does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
And, dude, I've gotta say: you have some *severe* contextual comprehension
issues with my posts. Not that I've never been snarky, or sarcastic, but I
sure haven't been AT ALL in this particular thread. I'd say, "When I'm
snarky or sarcastic, you'll *know* it...but apparently you won't.
>> And yet I have heard all sorts of
> speculative reasons as to why a post of mine might not show up here,
> but a moderator not doing their job was overlooked as a possibility.
> Instead it was attributed to a variety of potential technical
> problems, or me just looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, but
> not a moderator who wasn't around to approve something. <<
the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which 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. Which, by the
way, is seriously self-centered; no one is that interested in you or your
posts. There are definitely people who have posted here in the past that
might make someone look for and read their posts carefully in case they need
hand moderating, but I don't think you're one of them. And in NO case would
we just dump a post, anyway! 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 can
receiving email from the modbot (which I think you have to in order to be
registered in the newsgroup).
>> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got
> it. <<
about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Amy Guskin
Nov 15, 2012, 6:33:42 PM11/15/12
to
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:14:01 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<a98c0d85-5399-45f8...@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
prompted me to respond (after someone pointed it out to me and I came back to
the newsgroup this week after my lengthy absence):
>> I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
just dumps it. <<
But instead it turned out that it was just me not being together enough to
moderate for an extended period of time. So, not "actually correct"; instead,
actually incorrect.
And by the way, I barely can handle just the step-by-step moderation process:
I wouldn't have clue one how to "just dump" any message. I can *bounce* a
message, but if I do that, you will get a reason emailed to you.
Automatically. As I've said before.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article
<a98c0d85-5399-45f8...@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Right --all of which omitted a moderator somehow being at fault
> obviously, which turned out to be the case. So when you get right down
> to it, I was actually correct as to why at least one post never showed
> up here. So Jan, where is the "apology" from you? Come on, let's see
> you "man up". <<
Actually, you were not correct. On July 28, you said this, which is what
> Right --all of which omitted a moderator somehow being at fault
> obviously, which turned out to be the case. So when you get right down
> to it, I was actually correct as to why at least one post never showed
> up here. So Jan, where is the "apology" from you? Come on, let's see
> you "man up". <<
prompted me to respond (after someone pointed it out to me and I came back to
the newsgroup this week after my lengthy absence):
>> I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
just dumps it. <<
But instead it turned out that it was just me not being together enough to
moderate for an extended period of time. So, not "actually correct"; instead,
actually incorrect.
And by the way, I barely can handle just the step-by-step moderation process:
I wouldn't have clue one how to "just dump" any message. I can *bounce* a
message, but if I do that, you will get a reason emailed to you.
Automatically. As I've said before.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
John W. Kennedy
Nov 15, 2012, 9:20:34 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 6:11 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:00:56 -0500, Nicole Massey wrote
>
> (in article <k80tdv$1i...@news.albasani.net>):
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:00:56 -0500, Nicole Massey wrote
>
>
> I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
>
> > but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
> > philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
> > it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
> > will correct it) <<
>
> Ooh, good, you picked one I know. :-)
>
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
> your philosophy."
With the understanding that "your philosophy", in this case, means
> I can't imagine one that would put you in an even worse light,
>
> > but, as the saying goes, "There are more things than are dreamed of in my
> > philosophy." (Paraphrased and possibly slightly misremembered, though if
> > it's too far off the mark then I hope our own High Priestess of Picked Nits
> > will correct it) <<
>
> Ooh, good, you picked one I know. :-)
>
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
> your philosophy."
"that philosophy stuff", as in, "I got yer math right here, I got yer
science, I got yer philosophy," which is vulgar nowadays, but was
perfectly respectable in Shakespeare's day.
Dennis (Icarus)
Nov 15, 2012, 9:47:21 PM11/15/12
to
"Nicole Massey" wrote in message news:k81mc6$ran$1...@news.albasani.net...
Thanks for that!
will contact them.
Dennis
will contact them.
Dennis
Matthew Vincent
Nov 15, 2012, 11:49:08 PM11/15/12
to ais...@fjordstone.com
Matthew
StarFuryG7
Nov 15, 2012, 11:52:16 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 7:59 am, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Apologize for admitted speculation being incorrect?
No, for deliberately ruling out the one possibility you weren't
>
> Apologize for admitted speculation being incorrect?
interested in considering, while criticizing and mocking me in the
process.
> Generally one apologizes for an actual wrong done knowingly
StarFuryG7
Nov 15, 2012, 11:56:25 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 8:00 am, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> "StarFuryG7" <StarFur...@aim.com> wrote in message
I've not only been completely forthright here, but it turns out that
I've been vindicated to boot. I can understand your unwillingness to
acknowledge that given that you've preferred being adversarial in my
direction, but calling me a liar seriously undermines your snooty
pretense of being 'above it all'.
> "StarFuryG7" <StarFur...@aim.com> wrote in message
I've been vindicated to boot. I can understand your unwillingness to
acknowledge that given that you've preferred being adversarial in my
direction, but calling me a liar seriously undermines your snooty
pretense of being 'above it all'.
StarFuryG7
Nov 16, 2012, 12:13:02 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 15, 6:23 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
> <4dda15d7-c22e-48f8-8f5c-69a91e210...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
>
>
>
> > 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.<<
>
> Duh! At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it. How
> does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
> was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
>
Then why were you accepting blame for it not having appeared? We're
>
>
> > 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.<<
>
> Duh! At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it. How
> does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
> was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
>
talking about a post from back during the summer.
And allow me to quote you:
"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."
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?
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?
> And, dude, I've gotta say: you have some *severe* contextual comprehension
> issues with my posts. Not that I've never been snarky, or sarcastic, but I
> sure haven't been AT ALL in this particular thread. I'd say, "When I'm
> snarky or sarcastic, you'll *know* it...but apparently you won't.
>
> So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a point over
> the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which 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.
frankly. "Oh, there he is again." :::Dump:::
> Which, by the
> way, is seriously self-centered;
people who know me, that's it.
> no one is that interested in you or your
> posts.
spiteful just for the sake of it.
> 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 can
> receiving email from the modbot (which I think you have to in order to be
> registered in the newsgroup).
and posts not appearing with no such notifications predated my having
changed my mail settings.
>
> >> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got it.
> >
>
> No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I said
> about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
>
curiosity than nothing else, refreshing your memory wouldn't be all
that difficult.
StarFuryG7
Nov 16, 2012, 12:22:05 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 15, 6:33 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> But instead it turned out that it was just me not being together enough to
> moderate for an extended period of time. So, not "actually correct"; instead,
> actually incorrect.
>
It still comes down to a moderator not doing their assigned duty
>
> But instead it turned out that it was just me not being together enough to
> moderate for an extended period of time. So, not "actually correct"; instead,
> actually incorrect.
>
regardless.
Nicole Massey
Nov 16, 2012, 8:18:08 AM11/16/12
to
news:fe030c38-87b6-45d3...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
---
Well, since I didn't call you a liar, just self delusional, based on the
evidence that you've presented so far, How does that fit your
self-justification for the myriad filters you're applying to the messages
here?
I suggest a little experiment. Instead of expecting adversarial interactions
here, (expectations decrease joy) how about doing a little thought
experiment and turning the filter around and reading things here as if no
one is adversarial to you at all? It may not be the truth., but the altered
perspective might go a long way toward understanding.
And I don't find it the least bit surprising that the suggestion that your
post didn't get through resulted in you holding the premise that it was
enemy action while the counter proposals were ones that excluded it. The
conversation (or if you prefer, argument in either its true meaning or the
more common one used in social situations) was to present other reasons why
your post didn't get through, not to present the entire list of
possibilities, and since you already presented the thought that it was
moderator action that was already in the list of possibilities. (And thanks
to prior evidence, which of course happened to not play out this time, the
wyrd being what it is, it was less than likely that it was what you
suggested)
You're still clinging to this faulty premise that someone is categorically
rejecting your posts just because of who you are. I think the responses
that have been given from the very person who is in charge of moderation
puts that to pay. And your decision to filter administrative messages from
the software does not in any way strengthen your position -- quite the
contrary. It puts your protests in a category where you are assuming the
worst from your own actions instead of coming from an informed position
regarding the particulars of if your posts come through or not.
Finally, I would like to remind you that though you might not be
categorically moderated by the official channels each person on this
newsgroup also has the ability to killfile you should you reach a point
where your messages pass a threshold of annoying to him or her. This runs
the risk of anything of value or with substantitive content you post here in
the future once this little whingefest dies down may not get seen, which
will marginalize you just as much as if you were being singled out for
rejection by the moderators.
Snooty? Wow, that's a first -- no one has ever called me that before. I'll
have to add it to the list.
Well, since I didn't call you a liar, just self delusional, based on the
evidence that you've presented so far, How does that fit your
self-justification for the myriad filters you're applying to the messages
here?
I suggest a little experiment. Instead of expecting adversarial interactions
here, (expectations decrease joy) how about doing a little thought
experiment and turning the filter around and reading things here as if no
one is adversarial to you at all? It may not be the truth., but the altered
perspective might go a long way toward understanding.
And I don't find it the least bit surprising that the suggestion that your
post didn't get through resulted in you holding the premise that it was
enemy action while the counter proposals were ones that excluded it. The
conversation (or if you prefer, argument in either its true meaning or the
more common one used in social situations) was to present other reasons why
your post didn't get through, not to present the entire list of
possibilities, and since you already presented the thought that it was
moderator action that was already in the list of possibilities. (And thanks
to prior evidence, which of course happened to not play out this time, the
wyrd being what it is, it was less than likely that it was what you
suggested)
You're still clinging to this faulty premise that someone is categorically
rejecting your posts just because of who you are. I think the responses
that have been given from the very person who is in charge of moderation
puts that to pay. And your decision to filter administrative messages from
the software does not in any way strengthen your position -- quite the
contrary. It puts your protests in a category where you are assuming the
worst from your own actions instead of coming from an informed position
regarding the particulars of if your posts come through or not.
Finally, I would like to remind you that though you might not be
categorically moderated by the official channels each person on this
newsgroup also has the ability to killfile you should you reach a point
where your messages pass a threshold of annoying to him or her. This runs
the risk of anything of value or with substantitive content you post here in
the future once this little whingefest dies down may not get seen, which
will marginalize you just as much as if you were being singled out for
rejection by the moderators.
Snooty? Wow, that's a first -- no one has ever called me that before. I'll
have to add it to the list.
Amy Guskin
Nov 16, 2012, 9:18:32 AM11/16/12
to
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:49:08 -0500, Matthew Vincent wrote
(in article <0dad68d6-3d25-4e9a...@googlegroups.com>):
Thanks so much, Matthew it really was a tough year! (Except for Paris,
naturally!)
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article <0dad68d6-3d25-4e9a...@googlegroups.com>):
naturally!)
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Amy Guskin
Nov 16, 2012, 9:40:25 AM11/16/12
to
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:13:02 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<33c3811f-4094-42e2...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 15, 6:23 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>>
>> (in article
>> <4dda15d7-c22e-48f8-8f5c-69a91e210...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.<<
>>
>> Duh! At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it. How
>> does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
>> was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
>>
>
> 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 include
late June, July, August, and early September, which qualify as summer 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 complaints
about a post about Claudia that hadn't appeared. Didn't know *when* you were
talking about, but it didn't *matter*. Why is this so hard to understand? 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, plus I was physically unable part of the time (either from
being in the hospital or being on another continent) to moderate. So any
posts that haven't shown up *this year* would pretty much be my fault. I
don't think it was crazy or suspicious! for me to naturally assume you
were talking about something in the current year!
>> > And allow me to quote you:
>
> "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."
>
> 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 technical
reason, but my first assumption would not be to blame somebody or something
else. 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
replying to you, I hadn't moderated yet. And after I did, honestly, I just
didn't think about it I was more concerned with assuring you that nobody is
dumping your posts, which they aren't. So the post *never* appeared? What
was it about the release of Claudia's book?
>>> So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a point over
>> the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which
>> 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.
>
> "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 thread,
when we reject a post, the bounce generates an email that goes to you,
telling you why we rejected the post. If there *is* a way of dumping a post
without generating a reason, I do not know it. And since I have been nearly
solely moderating for a good long time, your theory falls down because *I do
not know how to dump a post, if such a thing is even possible*.
>>> no one is that interested in you or your
>> posts.
>
> 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 why are you seemingly the only person suffering
this fate? Everyone else who has had posts lost me included just sends
them again and chalks it up to quirks in the system. People who have had
repeated problems usually confer with Jay, and sometimes it's found to be a
problem with their ISP. Dunno. I don't handle 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 this
special attention from moderators who *barely have time to moderate*, much
less play a stupid game with someone who only posts extremely sporadically.
>>> 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 can
>> 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 --
> and posts not appearing with no such notifications predated my having
> changed my mail settings. <<
Can't parse the first part pulled the plug on *what*? and there is no
apostrophe in "years ago" and the second part, you're out of my pay grade.
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.
>>>
>>
>> No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I said
>> about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
>>
>
> 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 and I even spent about ten minutes yesterday searching
around in the archives, but couldn't find any conversations between you and I
in that time period, and got bored and gave up.
I don't suppose you will ever believe it, but you are *not* being targeted,
and if posts are going missing, it's a technical problem. If you still want
to post about Claudia, I'd suggest trying again, or if you like, email me the
content of your post and I will post it myself, indicating clearly that it is
*your* post.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article
<33c3811f-4094-42e2...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 15, 6:23 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>>
>> (in article
>> <4dda15d7-c22e-48f8-8f5c-69a91e210...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.<<
>>
>> Duh! At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it. How
>> does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? All I had seen
>> was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
>>
>
> Then why were you accepting blame for it not having appeared? We're
> talking about a post from back during the summer. <<
late June, July, August, and early September, which qualify as summer 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 complaints
about a post about Claudia that hadn't appeared. Didn't know *when* you were
talking about, but it didn't *matter*. Why is this so hard to understand? 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, plus I was physically unable part of the time (either from
being in the hospital or being on another continent) to moderate. So any
posts that haven't shown up *this year* would pretty much be my fault. I
don't think it was crazy or suspicious! for me to naturally assume you
were talking about something in the current year!
>> > And allow me to quote you:
>
> "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."
>
> 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? <<
reason, but my first assumption would not be to blame somebody or something
else. 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? <<
replying to you, I hadn't moderated yet. And after I did, honestly, I just
didn't think about it I was more concerned with assuring you that nobody is
dumping your posts, which they aren't. So the post *never* appeared? What
was it about the release of Claudia's book?
>>> So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a point over
>> the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which
>> 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.
>
> "Purposely looking"? I see it as more casual and cavalier than that
> frankly. "Oh, there he is again." :::Dump::: <<
when we reject a post, the bounce generates an email that goes to you,
telling you why we rejected the post. If there *is* a way of dumping a post
without generating a reason, I do not know it. And since I have been nearly
solely moderating for a good long time, your theory falls down because *I do
not know how to dump a post, if such a thing is even possible*.
>>> no one is that interested in you or your
>> posts.
>
> One doesn't have to be particularly interested in me or my posts to be
> spiteful just for the sake of it. <<
don't think is possible why are you seemingly the only person suffering
this fate? Everyone else who has had posts lost me included just sends
them again and chalks it up to quirks in the system. People who have had
repeated problems usually confer with Jay, and sometimes it's found to be a
problem with their ISP. Dunno. I don't handle 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 this
special attention from moderators who *barely have time to moderate*, much
less play a stupid game with someone who only posts extremely sporadically.
>>> 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 can
>> 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 --
> and posts not appearing with no such notifications predated my having
> changed my mail settings. <<
apostrophe in "years ago" and the second part, you're out of my pay grade.
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.
>>>
>>
>> No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I said
>> about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
>>
>
> 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. <<
around in the archives, but couldn't find any conversations between you and I
in that time period, and got bored and gave up.
I don't suppose you will ever believe it, but you are *not* being targeted,
and if posts are going missing, it's a technical problem. If you still want
to post about Claudia, I'd suggest trying again, or if you like, email me the
content of your post and I will post it myself, indicating clearly that it is
*your* post.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Amy Guskin
Nov 16, 2012, 9:44:05 AM11/16/12
to
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:22:05 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<c8f1f969-bc45-4598...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
But that's not what you repeatedly claim is the reason. You repeatedly claim
that you are being targeted, that some shadow moderator is somehow dumping
your posts. But, as I pointed out above, that is not what happened. If a post
didn't show up this year, in the past few months, before I came back to the
newsgroup a couple of days ago, it's likely because I wasn't doing my job.
That is NOT the same as deliberate sabotage.
If, however, the post *never* showed up, not even after I came back, I'm
guessing it is whatever technical problem you are repeatedly having, possibly
something to do with your ISP.
Has anyone else out there had posts go completely missing this year? I'm
curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article
<c8f1f969-bc45-4598...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
that you are being targeted, that some shadow moderator is somehow dumping
your posts. But, as I pointed out above, that is not what happened. If a post
didn't show up this year, in the past few months, before I came back to the
newsgroup a couple of days ago, it's likely because I wasn't doing my job.
That is NOT the same as deliberate sabotage.
If, however, the post *never* showed up, not even after I came back, I'm
guessing it is whatever technical problem you are repeatedly having, possibly
something to do with your ISP.
Has anyone else out there had posts go completely missing this year? I'm
curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
Nicole Massey
Nov 16, 2012, 11:53:57 AM11/16/12
to
"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CCCBBB65...@news.eternal-september.org...
Has anyone else out there had posts go completely missing this year? I'm
curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
---
curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
Yes. It was a post relating to Walter Koenig's comments about the show -- I
forget the exact thing he said, but I remember it was a forward of a link
from Sci-Fi Wire about the comment. A later post came through from someone
else about it, so I didn't worry too much about it. And I didn't get a
reject message, either.
Amy Guskin
Nov 16, 2012, 3:10:19 PM11/16/12
to
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:53:57 -0500, Nicole Massey wrote
(in article <k85r7e$aq6$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Thanks, Nicole. I will poke around a bit myself, and mention it to Jay.
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
(in article <k85r7e$aq6$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Amy
--
Diligent Moderatrix
StarFuryG7
Nov 16, 2012, 5:24:06 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 8:20 am, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> ---
> Well, since I didn't call you a liar, just self delusional,
Now who's being dishonest?
> ---
> Well, since I didn't call you a liar, just self delusional,
You implied both, neither which are at all flattering obviously, so
I'm not even going to waste my time reading the rest of your reply.
I'm really not in the mood.
StarFuryG7
Nov 16, 2012, 5:30:54 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 9:40 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> Because I hadn't been moderating for *months*. "Months," which does include
> late June, July, August, and early September, which qualify as summer here in
> the northern hemisphere.
That qualifies as a Duh! Amy. I did say it was during the summer,
>
> Because I hadn't been moderating for *months*. "Months," which does include
> late June, July, August, and early September, which qualify as summer here in
> the northern hemisphere.
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 complaints
> about a post about Claudia that hadn't appeared. Didn't know *when* you were
> 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
> And incidentally, this is the first I'm hearing
> that it was summer. In the handful of posts I read, all I saw was complaints
> about a post about Claudia that hadn't appeared. Didn't know *when* you were
> talking about, but it didn't *matter*. Why is this so hard to understand?
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,
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 just
> didn't think about it ‹ I was more concerned with assuring you that nobody is
> dumping your posts, which they aren't. So the post *never* appeared? What
> was it about ‹ the release of Claudia's book?
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 thread,
> when we reject a post, the bounce generates an email that goes to you,
> telling you why we rejected the post. If there *is* a way of dumping a post
> without generating a reason, I do not know it.
> > 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 ‹ why are you seemingly the only person suffering this fate? <
> Everyone else who has had posts lost ‹ me included ‹ just sends them again and chalks it up to quirks in the system. <
submit.
> People who have had
> repeated problems usually confer with Jay <
> and sometimes it's found to be a
> problem with their ISP. Dunno. I don't handle 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 this
> special attention from moderators who *barely have time to moderate*, much
> less play a stupid game with someone who only posts extremely sporadically.
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 can
> >> 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 -- and posts not appearing with no such notifications predated my having changed my mail settings. <
>
> Can't parse the first part ‹ pulled the plug on *what*?
that might be sent by a moderator.
> and there is no
> apostrophe in "years ago" ‹
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 ‹ and I even spent about ten minutes yesterday searching around in the archives, but couldn't find any conversations 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 targeted,
> and if posts are going missing, it's a technical problem. If you still want
> to post about Claudia, I'd suggest trying again
No thanks ...it's certainly not worthy the bother after all this time.
StarFuryG7
Nov 16, 2012, 5:34:42 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 9:44 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
> If, however, the post *never* showed up, not even after I came back, I'm
> guessing it is whatever technical problem you are repeatedly having, possibly
> something to do with your ISP.
>
> Has anyone else out there had posts go completely missing this year? I'm
> curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
>
> Amy
>
I thought no one is posting here anymore?
>
> If, however, the post *never* showed up, not even after I came back, I'm
> guessing it is whatever technical problem you are repeatedly having, possibly
> something to do with your ISP.
>
> Has anyone else out there had posts go completely missing this year? I'm
> curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
>
> Amy
>
And I've made clear repeatedly that this is something has spanned many
years and many different ISPs and services.
StarFuryG7
Nov 16, 2012, 5:39:11 PM11/16/12
to
On Nov 16, 3:10 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:53:57 -0500, Nicole Massey wrote
>
> (in article <k85r7e$aq...@news.albasani.net>):
> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:53:57 -0500, Nicole Massey wrote
>
>
>
>
> > "Amy Guskin" <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
> >news:0001HW.CCCBBB65...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Has anyone else out there had posts go completely missing this year? I'm
> > curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
> > ---
> > Yes. It was a post relating to Walter Koenig's comments about the show -- I
> > forget the exact thing he said, but I remember it was a forward of a link
> > from Sci-Fi Wire about the comment. A later post came through from someone
> > else about it, so I didn't worry too much about it. And I didn't get a
> > reject message, either. <<
>
> Thanks, Nicole. I will poke around a bit myself, and mention it to Jay.
>
> Amy
>
> --
> Diligent Moderatrix
And while you're at it you might also want to mention to him that the
> > Has anyone else out there had posts go completely missing this year? I'm
> > curious. And, obviously, if so, I'll want to mention it to Jay.
> > ---
> > Yes. It was a post relating to Walter Koenig's comments about the show -- I
> > forget the exact thing he said, but I remember it was a forward of a link
> > from Sci-Fi Wire about the comment. A later post came through from someone
> > else about it, so I didn't worry too much about it. And I didn't get a
> > reject message, either. <<
>
> Thanks, Nicole. I will poke around a bit myself, and mention it to Jay.
>
> Amy
>
> --
> Diligent Moderatrix
Sci-Fi Wire went of existence years ago.
StarFuryG7
Nov 16, 2012, 5:51:33 PM11/16/12
to
Apologies for the sloppy grammatical and typographical gaffes in those
last few posts. I should have looked them over before sending them
through, but posting from my Android device can be a real headache,
and I'm running short on patience today.
last few posts. I should have looked them over before sending them
through, but posting from my Android device can be a real headache,
and I'm running short on patience today.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages