[B5JMS] Newsgroup back!
b5jms at mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu
b5jms at mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu
Mon Aug 27 04:38:48 EDT 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:02:55 GMT
Lines: 24
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:05:35 -0400, StarFuryG7 at aol.com wrote
(in article <1187283935.043404.102870 at 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:42:19 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
>>> That's not the case at all when you're posting from Google
>>> Groups, like I am; Google gives you a confirmation that your post has
>>> been sent to the moderators for review after you hit Send. <<
>
> On Aug 16, 9:09 am, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
>> That may be the _language_ they use, but I don't think it means what you
>> think it means... I think all that means is that Google successfully got it
>> off of their server.
>
> Stating exactly _where_ it's been forwarded to. <<
Yeah, but I think you think it's a confirmation of _receipt_ by the modbot.
Unless I grossly misunderstand something you're saying, it isn't.
Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: StarFuryG7 at aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:00:31 -0700
Lines: 42
On Aug 16, 2:02 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:05:35 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
>
> (in article <1187283935.043404.102... at 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:42:19 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
> >>> That's not the case at all when you're posting from Google
> >>> Groups, like I am; Google gives you a confirmation that your post has
> >>> been sent to the moderators for review after you hit Send. <<
>
> > On Aug 16, 9:09 am, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> That may be the _language_ they use, but I don't think it means what you
> >> think it means... I think all that means is that Google successfully got it
> >> off of their server.
>
> > Stating exactly _where_ it's been forwarded to. <<
>
> Yeah, but I think you think it's a confirmation of _receipt_ by the modbot.
> Unless I grossly misunderstand something you're saying, it isn't.
Uh huh --well here's the bottom line: modbot or not, the
system is informing me as to exactly where the message has been sent.
In fact, I just posted--for a third time--the same message I posted on
Sunday night, but which as yet, still hasn't shown up, and the same
goes for my second attempt of last night, which again, still hasn't
appeared. So here it goes --this is the auto-confirmation response I
get from Google when I post a new topic, or sometimes in the middle of
a thread, depending:
=================================
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
New topic submitted to moderators of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
for review. Your post will appear in this group after it is approved
by moderators.
Return to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
==================================
Seems pretty specific to me -- how about to you?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:36:37 GMT
Lines: 66
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:00:31 -0400, StarFuryG7 at aol.com wrote
(in article <1187305231.681764.224710 at o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
> On Aug 16, 2:02 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:05:35 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
>>
>> (in article <1187283935.043404.102... at 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:42:19 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
>>>>> That's not the case at all when you're posting from Google
>>>>> Groups, like I am; Google gives you a confirmation that your post has
>>>>> been sent to the moderators for review after you hit Send. <<
>>
>>> On Aug 16, 9:09 am, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>>> That may be the _language_ they use, but I don't think it means what you
>>>> think it means... I think all that means is that Google successfully got
>>>> it
>>>> off of their server.
>>
>>> Stating exactly _where_ it's been forwarded to. <<
>>
>> Yeah, but I think you think it's a confirmation of _receipt_ by the modbot.
>>
>> Unless I grossly misunderstand something you're saying, it isn't.
>
> Uh huh --well here's the bottom line: modbot or not, the
> system is informing me as to exactly where the message has been sent.
> In fact, I just posted--for a third time--the same message I posted on
> Sunday night, but which as yet, still hasn't shown up, and the same
> goes for my second attempt of last night, which again, still hasn't
> appeared. So here it goes --this is the auto-confirmation response I
> get from Google when I post a new topic, or sometimes in the middle of
> a thread, depending:
>
> =================================
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>
> New topic submitted to moderators of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> for review. Your post will appear in this group after it is approved
> by moderators.
>
> Return to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> ==================================
>
> Seems pretty specific to me -- how about to you? <<
No, it doesn't. I think you're lacking a fundamental understanding of this.
Google is just telling you that they sent it off to r.a.s.t.b5.mod, not that
they have _confirmation of its actual receipt_ at Jay's server. Honestly,
the technical stuff is over my head, and Jay probably doesn't have time to
chime in, and you really don't want to waste your time asking me to explain
something that I _can't_; but it's just like any other e-mail you send, in
that the _sender_ may believe it's been sent off just fine, but they can't
tell you whether or not the e-mail has actually been received at the other
end.
And I've been moderating regularly and haven't seen your post. I'm about to
go in again right now -- if it's there, I'll approve it (probably). If not,
I'll pop back here and let you know that it's still not been received.
Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: StarFuryG7 at aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:58:02 -0700
Lines: 47
On Aug 16, 7:36 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
> No, it doesn't. I think you're lacking a fundamental understanding of this.
> Google is just telling you that they sent it off to r.a.s.t.b5.mod, not that
> they have _confirmation of its actual receipt_ at Jay's server.
I think you lack a fundamental understanding of what I've been
saying, to wit:
Where have I ever said that the message was a confirmation of
its receipt at Jay's server?
All I've said is that there's a confirmation from the system
as to where it's been sent. That in itself, however, is an indication
that the system knows where to send it.
> Honestly, the technical stuff is over my head, and Jay probably doesn't have time > to chime in,
Jay doesn't want to be bothered arguing with me, and frankly,
I really don't care to be bothered arguing with him either for that
matter. Aside from which, he has other more important matters to
attend to at the moment no doubt.
> and you really don't want to waste your time asking me to explain
> something that I _can't_; but it's just like any other e-mail you send, in
> that the _sender_ may believe it's been sent off just fine, but they can't
> tell you whether or not the e-mail has actually been received at the other
> end.
Yes, and that's a fundamental complaint that I have with this
particular newsgroup quite frankly, because as far back as I can
recall, that has _always_ been the case interestingly enough. One
would think, however, that after all this time, with the clear-cut
undeniable development of the Web and related technologies over the
course of a decade and/or more, that technical issues such as this
would have improved if anything, rather than just staying unreliably
the same.
> And I've been moderating regularly and haven't seen your post. I'm about to
> go in again right now -- if it's there, I'll approve it (probably). If not,
> I'll pop back here and let you know that it's still not been received.
At least this time there would be something of a legitimate
reason behind such a technical problem --namely, the move of equipment
from one place to another and how that might have stood to foul things
up. But as I've said, this has always been the case around here, and
it has been one of the things that have turned me off to this
particular newsgroup in point of fact.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:09:30 GMT
Lines: 96
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:58:02 -0400, StarFuryG7 at aol.com wrote
(in article <1187308682.453024.103600 at g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> On Aug 16, 7:36 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. I think you're lacking a fundamental understanding of
>> this.
>> Google is just telling you that they sent it off to r.a.s.t.b5.mod, not that
>> they have _confirmation of its actual receipt_ at Jay's server.
>
> I think you lack a fundamental understanding of what I've been
> saying, to wit:
> Where have I ever said that the message was a confirmation of
> its receipt at Jay's server?
> All I've said is that there's a confirmation from the system
> as to where it's been sent. That in itself, however, is an indication
> that the system knows where to send it. <<
Yeah, but you've been insisting all through this thread that you have
confirmations from Google that your message has been "submitted" to this
newsgroup. And you initially complained that posts tend to get lost around
here, despite the fact that you'd received "a System confirmation that the
message was submitted to the moderators for review right after posting
it." If you've understood all along what I was saying, and you weren't in
disagreement with it, why did you go on and on, ultimately saying, "Uh huh
--well here's the bottom line: modbot or not, the system is informing me as
to exactly where the message has been sent." The implication there, to
_anyone_ with a basic level of reading comprehension, is that you were
insisting that your messages had gone through and that we were just somehow
'losing' them. Reading this post of yours further, it's quite clear that
that _was_ your implication.
>>> Honestly, the technical stuff is over my head, and Jay probably doesn't
>> have time > to chime in,
>
> Jay doesn't want to be bothered arguing with me, and frankly,
> I really don't care to be bothered arguing with him either for that
> matter. Aside from which, he has other more important matters to
> attend to at the moment no doubt. <<
Why do you say arguing? If you're having trouble getting posts through,
that's what he's here for: to debug any technical problems you're having. We
just went through this with another poster -- just last week -- who was
privately very grateful for the lengths we went to to get this worked out,
and to explain to him exactly what he needed to get changed on his end. No
arguments; just the fine level of customer service posters to this newsgroup
have always been able to expect. Maybe if you didn't have negative
expectations and just _asked_ for some assistance, your approval-requiring
posts would be getting through by now.
>>> and you really don't want to waste your time asking me to explain
>> something that I _can't_; but it's just like any other e-mail you send, in
>> that the _sender_ may believe it's been sent off just fine, but they can't
>> tell you whether or not the e-mail has actually been received at the other
>> end.
>
> Yes, and that's a fundamental complaint that I have with this
> particular newsgroup quite frankly, because as far back as I can
> recall, that has _always_ been the case interestingly enough. One
> would think, however, that after all this time, with the clear-cut
> undeniable development of the Web and related technologies over the
> course of a decade and/or more, that technical issues such as this
> would have improved if anything, rather than just staying unreliably
> the same. <<
Believe me, we hear from people when their posts aren't getting through. And
it is a rarity. If you won't ask for help -- in the usual way, writing to
the moderators address and explaining exactly what's going on, and how you're
posting -- how can anyone help you?
>>> And I've been moderating regularly and haven't seen your post. I'm about
to
>> go in again right now -- if it's there, I'll approve it (probably). If not,
>> I'll pop back here and let you know that it's still not been received.
>
> At least this time there would be something of a legitimate
> reason behind such a technical problem --namely, the move of equipment
> from one place to another and how that might have stood to foul things
> up. But as I've said, this has always been the case around here, and
> it has been one of the things that have turned me off to this
> particular newsgroup in point of fact. <<
Well, as I said, if you don't ask for help, no one can help you. I suggest
you write to the moderators address and provide the necessary details, and
I'm sure one of the more technically-inclined moderators will do their best
to straighten out whatever's going on.
Incidentally, it seems that a high percentage of people with trouble posting
are posting via Google Groups, not that you'd think of blaming _them_ for the
problem.
Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: StarFuryG7 at aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:34:28 -0700
Lines: 14
On Aug 16, 8:09 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but you've been insisting all through this thread that you have
> confirmations from Google that your message has been "submitted" to this
> newsgroup.
You know, let me just add this further little observation: it
is interesting that my last two replies in this thread have shown up,
but not my lengthier initial reply to you in response to this above
message of ours.
Gee, I wonder where it went.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Kyle James Cardoza <admin at zetachannel.com>
Lines: 21
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:37:31 GMT
StarFuryG7 caught my attention on Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:34:28 -0700 by
saying:
> On Aug 16, 8:09 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, but you've been insisting all through this thread that you have
>> confirmations from Google that your message has been "submitted" to this
>> newsgroup.
>
> You know, let me just add this further little observation: it
> is interesting that my last two replies in this thread have shown up,
> but not my lengthier initial reply to you in response to this above
> message of ours.
>
> Gee, I wonder where it went.
That's what a moderated group *is*, man. If your post isn't suitable, it
goes to the round file. Deal with it, and move on.
--
Faith does not, in fact, move mountains; it can't even cure diarrhea, or
clear up acne. It certainly won't protect anyone from his own stupidity.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: StarFuryG7 at aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:50:08 -0700
Lines: 16
On Aug 16, 11:37 pm, Kyle James Cardoza <ad... at zetachannel.com> wrote:
> That's what a moderated group *is*, man. If your post isn't suitable, it
> goes to the round file. Deal with it, and move on.
Well, that's the kicker my friend, because there was nothing
about the post I was referring to which should have had it deemed
"unsuitable." These people just censor who they want, and they also
have the benefit of being able to have the last word whenever they
feel like it, thus, her argument is heard, but mine gets silenced.
That's not "moderation" --it's just out-and-out censorship based on a
purely selfish, self-serving agenda.
And yet they 'wonder' why I dare to complain now.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "James Bell" <jamesbell at embarqmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:35:56 -0400
Lines: 35
<StarFuryG7 at aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187322608.627745.109870 at w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 16, 11:37 pm, Kyle James Cardoza <ad... at zetachannel.com> wrote:
>> That's what a moderated group *is*, man. If your post isn't suitable, it
>> goes to the round file. Deal with it, and move on.
>
> Well, that's the kicker my friend, because there was nothing
> about the post I was referring to which should have had it deemed
> "unsuitable." These people just censor who they want, and they also
> have the benefit of being able to have the last word whenever they
> feel like it, thus, her argument is heard, but mine gets silenced.
>
> That's not "moderation" --it's just out-and-out censorship based on a
> purely selfish, self-serving agenda.
>
> And yet they 'wonder' why I dare to complain now.
Again, that's what a moderated group is. Haven't you been around usenet for
long? A moderated group is a private club with a small, powerful, board of
directors. They can do what they want. Don't like it? Have a nice life
elsewhere. :)
I have found in my experience that the preceived agenda of moderators is
vastly overstated. Their agenda is usually nothing more than keeping the
peace and minimizing their own personal hassle in running the group.
Are they human? Will they lose respect for someone who acts like a jerk?
Will that influence their moderation? Of course. It would be ludicrous to
believe otherwise.
Jim
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: StarFuryG7 at aol.com
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:13:02 -0700
Lines: 11
On Aug 17, 11:35 am, "James Bell" <jamesb... at embarqmail.com> wrote:
> I have found in my experience that the preceived agenda of moderators is
> vastly overstated. Their agenda is usually nothing more than keeping the
> peace and minimizing their own personal hassle in running the group.
Have you ever tried discussing politics with one of them?
See how far you'd get then.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Rob Perkins <rrperkin at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:54:10 -0700
Lines: 38
On 8/17/07 5:13 PM, in article
1187395982.023099.215910 at 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, "StarFuryG7 at aol.com"
<StarFuryG7 at aol.com> wrote:
> Have you ever tried discussing politics with one of them?
>
> See how far you'd get then.
I have. I've also discussed religion, and the various levels of morality
associated with this or that issue or practice. I find, frankly, that
they're very reasonable people who are willing to agree to disagree.
I like them, which transcends our differences of opinion. I've decided to
never change my mind about that.
And then we're sitting here faced with the irony of *you*, "StarFuryG7", who
(in the eyes of *this* particular Usenet old-timer; I've once wrote my own
NNTP client in C++) has not displayed any sufficiently correct knowledge of
how Usenet works, but continues to claim otherwise.
And in a further spasm of historically interesting hilarity, you appear to
also be ignorant of the ability to get AOL mail from a browser while
simultaneously claiming to post through Google Groups!
You don't know what you're talking about, so it is only polite of me to
plead with you to choose at least the lesser of an adult's reaction, and
keep your silence about the low regard in which you hold my friends. If the
censorship you claim for them actually existed, I would not have seen any
one of your posts in this auto-moderated thread.
But if you want to see how we discuss politics around here, I'm happy to
start a thread about Mitt Romney, so you can watch! Any topic with him in it
doubles as a religion and rich-person-bashing thread!
Rob, still probably misunderstood about the modest dress thing
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: StarFuryG7 at aol.com
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:05:18 -0700
Lines: 96
On Aug 18, 11:54 pm, Rob Perkins <rrper... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/17/07 5:13 PM, in article
> 1187395982.023099.215... at 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com, "StarFur... at aol.com"
>
> <StarFur... at aol.com> wrote:
> > Have you ever tried discussing politics with one of them?
>
> > See how far you'd get then.
>
> I have. I've also discussed religion, and the various levels of morality
> associated with this or that issue or practice. I find, frankly, that
> they're very reasonable people who are willing to agree to disagree.
That's your experience, Rob. You've been around for a long
time. I recognize your name. You're a part of this little clique.
> I like them, which transcends our differences of opinion. I've decided to
> never change my mind about that.
Good for you, although I take it you'll allow me the benefit
of a different view based on personal experience regardless of how far
back said experience may go, along with the ability to change my mind
should I see fit at some future point, although the way things have
been going, I see no reason to in the broadest sense.
> And then we're sitting here faced with the irony of *you*, "StarFuryG7", who
> (in the eyes of *this* particular Usenet old-timer; I've once wrote my own
> NNTP client in C++)
Oh, well, geez --am I supposed to bow here?
Big whoop. Those who are truly knowledgeable need not brag
after all.
> has not displayed any sufficiently correct knowledge of
> how Usenet works, but continues to claim otherwise.
And once again, the game is afoot, and it's obvious,
regardless of the nonsense you assert about my supposed lack of
knowledge as to what Usenet is or how it works, or what Google Groups
does or does not mean when issues a blatantly clear-cut message to a
poster about what was done after they've clicked Send on a posting..
> And in a further spasm of historically interesting hilarity, you appear to
> also be ignorant of the ability to get AOL mail from a browser while
> simultaneously claiming to post through Google Groups!
I have AIM buddy, and I can easily configure it to
automatically sign on every time I turn on my computer, but I don't,
and do you know why? Because I really don't care. If I get any email
whatsoever on this particular account I know what it will usually
entail, and I'll get to it when I get to it, in my own good time.
That's a little thing called "personal preference," perhaps you've
heard of it ...and here's a little tip: it's called that for a reason;
it means that a person gets to exercise _their own discretion_ as to
how they want to configure something, such as their PC, without having
to conform to the dictates of someone who supposedly knows all, and
knows better.
Is that okay with you? If not, I really couldn't care less.
Nor will I tolerate your personal insults or anyone else's
here for that matter.
> You don't know what you're talking about, so it is only polite of me to
> plead with you to choose at least the lesser of an adult's reaction,
No, what you're engaging in here is being a deliberate
condescencing snob in hopes of getting under my skin, hoping I'll just
go away, which just isn't going to happen, especially not now. I'm
wise to you - I see what you're doing, and it isn't going to work.
> and
> keep your silence about the low regard in which you hold my friends. If the
> censorship you claim for them actually existed, I would not have seen any
> one of your posts in this auto-moderated thread.
Two of your moderator friends have just moved, and have
apparently not been around, or if they have, they simply haven't
gotten involved, and if you think I view them with low regard, chances
are that's for a very good reason despite all your back-slapping and
high-fiving with the rest of the peanut gallery here.
> But if you want to see how we discuss politics around here, I'm happy to
> start a thread about Mitt Romney, so you can watch! Any topic with him in it
> doubles as a religion and rich-person-bashing thread!
I have no interest in discussing politics or anything else
with you frankly, Rob. You've already sufficiently turned me off for
me to not want to bother ...but that doesn't mean I'll just disappear
into "the ether" along with a bunch of missing posts. I just won't
waste my time on you, and feel free to feel the same way about me for
all I care.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:57:02 GMT
Lines: 21
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:05:18 -0400, StarFuryG7 at aol.com wrote
(in article <1187503518.949987.84320 at g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> No, what you're engaging in here is being a deliberate
> condescencing snob <<
My deepest apologies to everyone here. It seems as though the move of the
server must have caused some technical problem or other, as I am
apparently_not_ seeing all of this person's posts in order to moderate them
in advance of their appearing here on the newsgroup. I really, really
apologize to you, Rob. This should _not_ have gotten out. I haven't gotten
through all of this morning's posts yet, but let me just offer my apologies
in advance to anyone else who suffers similarly from unkind words. I've
alerted Jay to the problem, and hopefully he can take care of it quickly.
Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: StarFuryG7 at aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:47:06 -0700
Lines: 27
> >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:05:18 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
>
> (in article <1187503518.949987.84... at g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > No, what you're engaging in here is being a deliberate
> > condescencing snob <<
On Aug 19, 9:57 am, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
> My deepest apologies to everyone here. It seems as though the move of the
> server must have caused some technical problem or other, as I am
> apparently_not_ seeing all of this person's posts in order to moderate them
> in advance of their appearing here on the newsgroup. I really, really
> apologize to you, Rob. This should _not_ have gotten out.
So Amy, am I therefore understand that his arrogant,
sarcastic, utterly insulting message in my direction, which was
deliberate and calculated, and intended to evoke an angry response,
and which I was responding to there appropriately taking that into
account, should have shown up without a problem, but my post reacting
to him in response should _not_ have appeared?
Where's your apology to me for what you just said and what you
just confirmed?
You people are just confirming what I've said about this
place.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:22:51 GMT
Lines: 66
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:47:06 -0400, StarFuryG7 at aol.com wrote
(in article <1187542026.863519.58680 at g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:05:18 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
>>
>> (in article <1187503518.949987.84... at g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> No, what you're engaging in here is being a deliberate
>>> condescencing snob <<
>
> On Aug 19, 9:57 am, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
>> My deepest apologies to everyone here. It seems as though the move of the
>> server must have caused some technical problem or other, as I am
>> apparently_not_ seeing all of this person's posts in order to moderate them
>> in advance of their appearing here on the newsgroup. I really, really
>> apologize to you, Rob. This should _not_ have gotten out.
>
> So Amy, am I therefore understand that his arrogant,
> sarcastic, utterly insulting message in my direction, which was
> deliberate and calculated, and intended to evoke an angry response,
> and which I was responding to there appropriately taking that into
> account, should have shown up without a problem, but my post reacting
> to him in response should _not_ have appeared?
> Where's your apology to me for what you just said and what you
> just confirmed? <<
You are getting no apology, because none is due. Add to the list of holes in
your education the information from the group's moderation FAQ that describes
what sort of posts will be disallowed on the newsgroup. From
http://members.aol.com/rastb5mod/mod-faq.html#Disallowed:
>> Flames are defined as posts which:
1. personally insult or hurt one of the members of the newsgroup; or
2. make allegations, without corroborating evidence, concerning a
person/poster in the newsgroup, in a deliberate and repetitive manner
(resembling a common sense definition of libel/slander, but not specifically
limited to the legal interpretation of those terms). <<
You and Matt each made one transgression, at which point I warned you both.
You are the only one who has continued to personally insult members of the
newsgroup. Someone disagreeing with you, and informing you that your
information is not correct, is not "flaming" you. Saying, "You are incorrect
about your understanding of Usenet and the Web" is an allowable post. It is
not insulting. You may indeed be insulted by it, but it's not a personal (ad
hominem) insult.
Everyone who has posted information about the nature of Usenet and the Web,
besides you, has simply been trying to educate you, because whether you
believe it or not, your understanding of this is _incorrect_. Your response
is to continue to insult people. That is why you are now (finally, the
gods/esses bless you, Cheryl!) on hand moderation.
As a side note, it would be very easy for you to go off to one of your other
online haunts, or to e-mail, or your local coffee shop, and to ask some of
your own friends about this. Unless they have a vested interest in letting
you continue to be deluded, or they have very little technical savy, I'd be
surprised if you don't know _someone_ who can affirm for you what we are all
saying, repeatedly. Heck, go someplace where they _hate_ this newsgroup and
the people in it, and they'll tell you you're wrong, too. Guaranteed.
Amy
--
"In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over
again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda." - George
W. Bush, May 24, 2005
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: StarFuryG7 at aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:56:08 -0700
Lines: 135
On Aug 19, 1:22 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:47:06 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
>
> (in article <1187542026.863519.58... at g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:05:18 -0400, StarFur... at aol.com wrote
>
> >> (in article <1187503518.949987.84... at g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> No, what you're engaging in here is being a deliberate
> >>> condescencing snob <<
>
> > On Aug 19, 9:57 am, Amy Guskin <aisl... at fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> My deepest apologies to everyone here. It seems as though the move of the
> >> server must have caused some technical problem or other, as I am
> >> apparently_not_ seeing all of this person's posts in order to moderate them
> >> in advance of their appearing here on the newsgroup. I really, really
> >> apologize to you, Rob. This should _not_ have gotten out.
>
> > So Amy, am I therefore understand that his arrogant,
> > sarcastic, utterly insulting message in my direction, which was
> > deliberate and calculated, and intended to evoke an angry response,
> > and which I was responding to there appropriately taking that into
> > account, should have shown up without a problem, but my post reacting
> > to him in response should _not_ have appeared?
> > Where's your apology to me for what you just said and what you
> > just confirmed? <<
>
> You are getting no apology, because none is due. Add to the list of holes in
> your education the information from the group's moderation FAQ that describes
> what sort of posts will be disallowed on the newsgroup. Fromhttp://members.aol.com/rastb5mod/mod-faq.html#Disallowed:
>
> >> Flames are defined as posts which:
>
> 1. personally insult or hurt one of the members of the newsgroup; or
> 2. make allegations, without corroborating evidence, concerning a
> person/poster in the newsgroup, in a deliberate and repetitive manner
> (resembling a common sense definition of libel/slander, but not specifically
> limited to the legal interpretation of those terms). <<
>
> You and Matt each made one transgression, at which point I warned you both.
> You are the only one who has continued to personally insult members of the
> newsgroup.
Baloney --you are full of Baloney.
Yes, Miss Guskin, you most certainly do owe me an apology even
according to the FAQ definition you chose to cite because his post was
insulting and denigrating in my direction, was intended to be that
way, and you not only condoned it, you encouraged it by your continued
actions. You allowed this place to become a mob rules shooting gallery
aimed at one guy in hopes of taking him out, and you stood by and
condoned ALL of it. You want to talk about flames and insults? You
were content to see it all as long as it was aimed in my direction, so
don't give me this garbage about how I was supposedly the only person
who insulted members of this group. You allowed all sorts of crap to
be dished my way, and you were more than happy to do it, so yes my
dear, you do owe me an apology even according to your own FAQ
guidelines as cited.
> Someone disagreeing with you, and informing you that your
> information is not correct, is not "flaming" you.
Actually it is, depending how it's done. If it's condescending
and arrogant, along with being insulting in the process, then yes,
that would i fact constitute flaming and/or insulting me. So now let's
see you actually live up to your own stated standards.
> Saying, "You are incorrect
> about your understanding of Usenet and the Web" is an allowable post.
However, it most certainly went beyond that is you darn well
know.
> Everyone who has posted information about the nature of Usenet and the Web,
> besides you, has simply been trying to educate you,
"Educate" me, or talk down to me?
There is a difference you know.
> because whether you
> believe it or not, your understanding of this is _incorrect_.
Then show me with irrefutable, incontrovertible evidence --
cite a source, provide a link, do _something_ rather than expecting me
to just take your words for it necessarily.
> Your response
> is to continue to insult people.
No, my response was to insult people who were insulting me
regardless of how you'd like to classify it. I was being berated left
and right by your little mob, but according to you I should have just
tolerated it all without fighting back, defending myself, and firing
back.
That is why you are now (finally, the
> gods/esses bless you, Cheryl!) on hand moderation.
Translation: Because we don't like you and the way you express
yourself, we'll decide whether or not to let your posts through while
everyone else piles on you and has free reign in that regard.
That's what you're really saying, otherwise, just let me have
my say like everyone else who's been lobbing grenades at me; and they
know who they are --and so do you.
> As a side note, it would be very easy for you to go off to one of your other
> online haunts, or to e-mail, or your local coffee shop, and to ask some of
> your own friends about this. Unless they have a vested interest in letting
> you continue to be deluded, or they have very little technical savy, I'd be
> surprised if you don't know _someone_ who can affirm for you what we are all
> saying, repeatedly. Heck, go someplace where they _hate_ this newsgroup and
> the people in it, and they'll tell you you're wrong, too. Guaranteed.
Yeah, right up to the moment that I provide any kind of piece
of information which demonstrates you and your cronies to be wrong, at
which time you'll all go apeshit on me, insisting you've all been
right all along, and the hell with me, right?
Just how far are you prepared to go with this, telling me what I know
or don't know? To what extent are you willing to acknowledge anything
I may have to say here as accurate? Because up to now I've seen my
words twisted, my statements contorted to mean things I never said (to
wit, for instance: where exactly did I supposedly call you _a liar_ by
the way, since you were insisting that all last weekend?), and I'm
supposed to acknowledge that there's a willingness on the part of any
of you to even hear a word I have to say without somehow taking it
deliberately out of context?
Just to what extent will I be allowed to speak for myself
around here without being censored besides? Let's hear it, because I'd
sure like to know before I proceed any further and waste my time.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "jmsatb5 at aol.com" <jmsatb5 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:04:47 -0700
Lines: 63
On Aug 24, 1:56 pm, StarFur... at aol.com wrote:
Much silliness.
Against my better judgment, as the person for whose benefit this group
was formed in the first place, let me chime in here for a moment.
It's been said, repeatedly, that this group functions for all intents
and purposes as a private party. Those who the group want to hang
around are invited in to play; those who the group doesn't want to
hang around, or who behave in ways obnoxious to the hosts and guests
are not invited in to play. This keeps out the stalkers, the
obsessed, the dysfunctional, the abusive, and the general, all-around
jerks who get off on turning a group so toxic that nobody's left after
a while but the person and some of his associates or collaborators.
It's the slow poisoning of a group.
This newsgroup has been along for a very long time, operating under
the most onerous and difficult circumstances, and always honorably,
the moderators always ready to give the benefit of the doubt
repeatedly, despite often doubting the benefit.
And every so often, some loudmouth breezes into town and tries to make
the discussion all about himself, about how he thinks he should be
treated...he shouts at the moderators to maintain standards that he
himself shows no desire to meet, as though they were employees
answerable to him...when in fact they are not answerable to anyone
other than the quiet turning of their own considered conscience.
You say you got dog piled. Well, yeah, when you crash a party and
start behaving obnoxiously toward the guests and the hosts, you get
dog-piled. Where in this is the surprise? Where the unfairness? You
seem to feel you can act any way you want, and if anybody so much as
says a word about your boorish and inappropriate behavior, it's
*their* fault, *they're* being bad and unfair and censorious.
Nonsense.
The problem is you. You like being at the center of attention. You
like twisting arguments around so that you look like the offended
party when you are the one being offensive. You like making people
upset so that when they *act* upset you can gleefully point out that
they're being upset.
You want the discussion to be about *you*, about how other people
should live up to *your* standards (which are nonexistent) and justify
why *you* should remain here before you "waste your time" in the
company of such individuals. (In terms, I might add, that I find
curiously familiar.)
The people in this group have nothing to prove to you. The moderators
have nothing to prove to you. They have worked for *years* to make
and preserve this as a pleasant place for people to come and talk.
You are the one who has to demonstrate that he is capable of doing the
same.
You are a guest in someone else's home. Act like it. Or frankly, get
out.
jms
More information about the B5JMS
mailing list