On Nov 15, 6:23=A0pm, Amy Guskin  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:01:17 -0500, StarFuryG7 wrote
>
> (in article
> <4dda15d7-c22e-48f8-8f5c-69a91e210...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
> > Call it what you will, but what I found interesting about it was that
> > she acknowledged a specific post which didn't show up as being her
> > fault, as though she had seen it.<<
>
> Duh! =A0At that point, I had read a handful of messages talking about it.=
 =A0How
> does saying "your Claudia post" signify that I had seen it? =A0All I had =
seen
> was your post(s) talking about how it hadn't appeared yet!
>

Then why were you accepting blame for it not having appeared? We're
talking about a post from back during the summer.

And allow me to quote you:

"Ha! It is so funny to come back here after all this time and see what
is going on. StarFury, first of all, you can lay the blame square with
me on your Claudia post not getting through."

Now, if there are various system quirks that might stand to prevent a
post from making it through to this board, as has been claimed, how do
you know the post about her not showing up was attributable to you
directly rather than one of those supposed technical problems that
potentially exist?

And again, it's a post from months ago -- did you see it still stuck
in the queue after all this time? Why accept blame if you didn't--
couldn't--know whether you were actually at fault?

> And, dude, I've gotta say: you have some *severe* contextual comprehensio=
n
> issues with my posts. Not that I've never been snarky, or sarcastic, but =
I
> sure haven't been AT ALL in this particular thread. =A0I'd say, "When I'm
> snarky or sarcastic, you'll *know* it...but apparently you won't.

Ha! It's so funny to come back here and see this!

>
> So *what*? They probably didn't suggest that because I've made a point ov=
er
> the years of saying that I moderate several times a day, every day, which=
 was
> true up until Feb. 2 of this year when I went in for my shoulder
> reconstruction, and then got lax/lazy. It *still* doesn't mean anyone is
> purposefully looking for *your* messages and dumping them.

"Purposely looking"? I see it as more casual and cavalier than that
frankly. "Oh, there he is again." :::Dump:::

> Which, by the
> way, is seriously self-centered;

If there's one thing I'd never be accused of out in the real world by
people who know me, that's it.

> no one is that interested in you or your
> posts.

One doesn't have to be particularly interested in me or my posts to be
spiteful just for the sake of it.

> As someone pointed out earlier up the thread, if
> we bounce something it *automatically generates a reason and emails it to
> you.* Automatically. So you'd know if you were bounced, assuming you can
> receiving email from the modbot (which I think you have to in order to be
> registered in the newsgroup).

Thank yourselves for my having pulled the plug on that year's ago --
and posts not appearing with no such notifications predated my having
changed my mail settings.

>
> >> She owed me an apology five years ago --at least one, and I never got =
it.
> >
>
> No idea. I remember Mac Breck being ticked off at me for something I said
> about the book series, but I have no clue / no memory of this.
>

So you say, but I'm inclined to doubt that. Even if out of simple
curiosity than nothing else, refreshing your memory wouldn't be all
that difficult.
--- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:340/400)