Text 17207, 194 rader
Skriven 2007-08-17 23:26:55 av Amy Guskin (3684.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Newsgroup back!
===========================
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:58:57 -0400, StarFuryG7@aol.com wrote
(in article <1187391537.195842.16040@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 16, 8:09 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@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.
> 
>         Excuse me--I would be happy to post the confirmation message
> again, as it makes quite clear that that is in fact where it has been
> submitted according to their system, yes. <<

Gah!  You're doing it again!  Google's confirmation only means that it 
successfully left their server.  That's it!

>>> 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."
> 
>         You've read the message yourself --Is it your contention that
> it indicates otherwise? <<

Yes, it IS my contention.  It HAS been my contention since this started.  
Google can only confirm THEIR action -- they sent the note sucessfully.  But 
a lot can happen between Google's server and Jay's server.  Have you really 
never had an e-mail or a Usenet post (besides here in r.a.s.t.b5.mod) go 
astray?  Ever?

>>> 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."
> 
>        Because according to the Groups System, it has been submitted
> to the appropriate place. <<

<banging head against glass coffee table top>

>>> 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.  
> 
>         I can't speak to this latest incident of posted messages that
> have thus far failed to show up. I can however state that Yes, over a
> period of YEARS, there has indeed been that 'curious' pattern, and
> someone in my place might well wonder if the posts were being
> deliberately "lost" as a means of discouraging further posting by me
> to this particular Group. And if there has been a pattern through the
> years which at the very least suggests that as a distinct possibility
> --posts that get "lost in the ether," never to turn up-- that it might
> well lead someone in my place to wonder who else may have had the same
> experience here over the years. <<

Wow.  Seriously.  You couldn't pay me enough to sit here twirling my 
non-existent moustache and rubbing my evil little hands together saying 
"mwa-hahahahaha" as I pore through the messages and decide who is on my shit 
list today, and whose messages I will make go bye-bye without a trace.  
Frankly, I'm just happy to get through moderating, normal moderating, a 
couple of times a day and then get back to work.  Who has time for 
nonsensical grudges like that?

I'll say it again: if your post reaches the moderation server successfully, 
your post will either 1) appear in the newsgroup, or 2) be bounced, thus 
generating an automatic reply to you telling you WHY you were bounced.

If your post doesn't appear and you don't get a bounce message from us, one 
of two things has happened: 1) your post hasn't arrived in the queue, or 2) 
as happened about two weeks ago with another regular here, there is something 
wrong with your ability to receive e-mail from the moderation domain.  I'm 
telling you flat out that I have NOT bounced ANYTHING of yours, EVER, so #2 
does not apply.  Thus, we are left with #1.

>>> Reading this post of yours further, it's quite clear that
>> that _was_ your implication.
> 
>         Oh, I won't deny that--however, I never stated that the system
> was sending me a confirmation that my post(s) had reached Jay's server
> necessarily. <<

Okay, so you're admitting that you were implying that...but you never stated 
it.  But...you _were_ implying it?  What's the difference?  If you _were_ 
implying it, that's the meaning you wanted me to draw from it, n'est-ce pas?

>> No, that was a conclusion you either chose to draw on
> your own, or which you opted to put out there, but was not based on
> anything I had stated. <<

But...but...but...  But you just SAID that that _was_ your implication!  So 
apparently my conclusion was based on a little more than fluff and air.

>> There is a difference between a message being
> sent from one place and it actually being received at another.
> However, if I send an email to you, or you send an email to me, the
> likelihood is that it will be received on the other end. Yes, errors
> happen and no system is perfect, and yes, with a major move happening,
> computer-servers might well just lose information, especially if
> they've been unplugged inadvertently at the wrong moment while
> something is coming through, but again, I've noticed this pattern over
> a long period of time. <<

Look, we can't have this conversation about a magical sometime in the past.  
We're having it about _right now_.  You know, as does everybody else here, 
that Jay and Cheryl just moved.  The server was  unplugged, put in their car, 
and driven across the state, where it was unboxed, plugged in, and started up 
again.  We all know that shit happens when you do that.  So it seems like a 
really dumb time for you to start picking this fight, don't you think?

>> This is not the first time that I've been told
> that perhaps *my* post was just mysteriously "lost in the ether."<<

So you really think that you're the only person who had a post -- or two -- 
lost in the past week or so?  Just because you're the only one posting about 
it?  If you had some sort of _tangible evidence_ to base that on, that you 
were in fact the _only_ person whose post had gone missing during this time 
period, then maybe you'd have something there.  As it is, without those 
facts, it's nothing but tiresome paranoia.

>> It's
> a tired old song basically, and I responded with the kind of reaction
> that's most certainly warranted after all this time. I won't apologize
> for it, because I'm not sorry about it. I have no reason whatsoever to
> be at this point. <<

Right, because insulting the person who has been single-handedly moderating 
during a heavy-posting period, the person who doesn't know you from a hole in 
the wall and thus has NO REASON to maliciously 'disappear' your posts, is 
always in good taste.

>>>> 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?  
> 
>         Because in the past that's what my collective experiences with
> Jay have involved and amounted to: arguing. He sees things one way and
> I see them another, and unfortunately he's in a position to censor
> people --at will basically, be it right or wrong. <<

Since Jay and Cheryl aren't moderating right now due to being very busy, no 
one is looking at content but _me_.  And as I've said repeatedly on this 
thread, I don't have any control over unmoderated posters on unmoderated 
threads.  So unless I have somehow learned how to conquer time and space, I 
didn't 'lose' your posts on this particular thread.  And if I _have_ learned 
to conquer time and space, you can bet that I wouldn't be wasting that skill 
on trying to find ways to annoy you via malicious moderation.

>>> 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.
> 
>        I'll have to take your word on that because up to now I haven't
> heard about it -- But of course, you'd be expected to say that being
> one of the moderators of this newsgroup. <<

Sheesh.  Do you also want to call Dan Dassow a liar?  Because he backed me up 
on that point.  And I happened to be on the phone with someone else from this 
newsgroup earlier today, and we regaled each other with stories of how badly 
Google Groups has worked for us when we've had to use it while traveling.  I 
guess we were lying to each other too, huh?

>> You're only defending your
> own. <<

Neither Jay nor Cheryl need me to defend them.

>> But I've posted to this group from a variety of other places,
> other systems, other services, from different computers through the
> years, and this has always been the song: "Gee, it must have gotten
> lost in the ether perhaps" . . .
> 
> Yeah, right. <<

Dang, I guess you must have found the secret clause in the group's charter 
that talks about the nefarious plan to lose StarFuryG7's posts.

>> *And incidentally, this is basically the message I posted last night,
> but which for some reason never appeared.* <<

Wow, and it appeared now!  So either I'm a very bad evil overlord 
(overmoderator?), or it is, as I have been saying all along, RANDOM ERROR.

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)