Re: Newsgroup back!

In article <0001HW.C2EDF4A8031F725FF0407648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Amy
Guskin <aisling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 12:47:06 -0400, StarFuryG7@xxxxxxx wrote
(in article <1187542026.863519.58680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:05:18 -0400, StarFur...@xxxxxxx wrote

(in article <1187503518.949987.84...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

No, what you're engaging in here is being a deliberate
condescencing snob <<

On Aug 19, 9:57 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. From
http://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. Someone disagreeing with you, and informing you that your
information is not correct, is not "flaming" you. Saying, "You are incorrect
about your understanding of Usenet and the Web" is an allowable post. It is
not insulting. You may indeed be insulted by it, but it's not a personal (ad
hominem) insult.

Everyone who has posted information about the nature of Usenet and the Web,
besides you, has simply been trying to educate you, because whether you
believe it or not, your understanding of this is _incorrect_. Your response
is to continue to insult people. That is why you are now (finally, the
gods/esses bless you, Cheryl!) on hand moderation.

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.

Amy

Something I have learned over the years is: ignorance is curable.
Willful ignorance, like stupidity, cannot be cured by throwing money at
it, legislating against it, or by attempts at medicating it.

Rick (sometimes is a GentleRF and sometimes is not)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why is "shutdown abort", then backup bad
    ... So does the charter of this newsgroup, ... and it prohibits sales and marketing posts as there is a suitable ... as illustrated in my response ... > it doesn't mean they have EARNT some magical right to be rude. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: Screwing around
    ... For your information oh wise one, I am not unaware of the posts that come up ... Go to a different newsgroup (surely you *haven't* ... "sgopus" wrote in message ... >>Adding insult to injury, ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: OT/ For Those Who Believe That The Doctor is Alway Right
    ... a rapid progression onto insulin, but politely and without insulting others, ... that would still be a valid activity for a newsgroup discussing diabetes. ... insult. ... but the back and forth posts I just read between ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Great deal, great product.
    ... The only thing I see in this response is that reasonable discussion is ... the security alarm INDUSTRY... ... The newsgroup was created as a place for ANYONE interested in ... Use them to guide your own posts and everyone will be ...
    (alt.security.alarms)
  • Re: Great deal, great product.
    ... The only thing I see in this response is that reasonable discussion is ... the security alarm INDUSTRY... ... The newsgroup was created as a place for ANYONE interested in ... Use them to guide your own posts and everyone will be ...
    (alt.security.alarms)