"StarFuryG7"  wrote in message 
news:7589d54f-b365-4116-8b38-2712ddf883a4@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 6:01 pm, "Nicole Massey"  wrote:
>> ---
>> 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
> 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.

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.
--- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:340/400)