Text 17129, 97 rader
Skriven 2007-08-17 00:09:30 av Amy Guskin (3606.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Newsgroup back!
===========================
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:58:02 -0400, StarFuryG7@aol.com wrote
(in article <1187308682.453024.103600@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 16, 7:36 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@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
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)