"StarFuryG7"  wrote in message 
news:fe030c38-87b6-45d3-b614-d04553eef008@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 8:00 am, "Nicole Massey"  wrote:
> "StarFuryG7"  wrote in message
>
> news:eb6397c9-706b-42ea-85d0-74677d5c00c3@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 7:12 pm, "Nicole Massey"  wrote:
>
> > ---
> > One man's snarky attitude is another man's honest response, especially 
> > on
> > the internet.
>
> Say hello to the honest man.
> ---
> I will, next time I run into him. Or does self delusion not count against 
> honesty? <

I've not only been completely forthright here, but it turns out that
I've been vindicated to boot. I can understand your unwillingness to
acknowledge that given that you've preferred being adversarial in my
direction, but calling me a liar seriously undermines your snooty
pretense of being 'above it all'.
---
Well, since I didn't call you a liar, just self delusional, based on the 
evidence that you've presented so far, How does that fit your 
self-justification for the myriad filters you're applying to the messages 
here?
I suggest a little experiment. Instead of expecting adversarial interactions 
here, (expectations decrease joy) how about doing a little thought 
experiment and turning the filter around and reading things here as if no 
one is adversarial to you at all? It may not be the truth., but the altered 
perspective might go a long way toward understanding.
And I don't find it the least bit surprising that the suggestion that your 
post didn't get through resulted in you holding the premise that it was 
enemy action while the counter proposals were ones that excluded it. The 
conversation (or if you prefer, argument in either its true meaning or the 
more common one used in social situations) was to present other reasons why 
your post didn't get through, not to present the entire list of 
possibilities, and since you already presented the thought that it was 
moderator action that was already in the list of possibilities. (And thanks 
to prior evidence, which of course happened to not play out this time, the 
wyrd being what it is, it was less than likely that it was what you 
suggested)
You're still clinging to this faulty premise that someone is categorically 
rejecting your posts just because of who you are.  I think the responses 
that have been given from the very person who is in charge of moderation 
puts that to pay. And your decision to filter administrative messages from 
the software does not in any way strengthen your position -- quite the 
contrary. It puts your protests in a category where you are assuming the 
worst from your own actions instead of coming from an informed position 
regarding the particulars of if your posts come through or not.
Finally, I would like to remind you that though you might not be 
categorically moderated by the official channels each person on this 
newsgroup also has the ability to killfile you should you reach a point 
where your messages pass a threshold of annoying to him or her. This runs 
the risk of anything of value or with substantitive content you post here in 
the future once this little whingefest dies down may not get seen, which 
will marginalize you just as much as if you were being singled out for 
rejection by the moderators.
Snooty? Wow, that's a first -- no one has ever called me that before. I'll 
have to add it to the list.
--- SBBSecho 2.20-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:340/400)