Text 17727, 138 rader
Skriven 2007-08-24 14:56:08 av StarFuryG7 (4204.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 17504 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (3981.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Newsgroup back!
===========================
On Aug 19, 1:22 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:47:06 -0400, StarFur...@aol.com wrote
>
> (in article <1187542026.863519.58...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:05:18 -0400, StarFur...@aol.com wrote
>
> >> (in article <1187503518.949987.84...@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...@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.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)