If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Ruby on October 31, 2009, 10:37 am
lucretia borgia wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), Deborah Bonner
>
>> I understand what you were saying now. And I understand why you
>> responded to her the way you did. She just got involved in a bad
>> situation. Why can't we have a moderator ? Is that something that is
>> no longer possible?
>>
> Well I didn't really respond to her, rather to the operator of the
> forum. Probably be better if I had not done so hee hee !
> I am not sure about a moderator - think that would have had to be
> done right at the beginning. If it required a consensus...well the
> mind boggles :) (rare smiley)
>
Not so rare. most of us know that is the real you Sheena . LOL! not
everyone knows that maybe so they are apt to get deeply singed by those
lightning bolts
too early for wine so ducking. LOL!
Ruby
|
|
Posted by Dianne Lewandowski on October 30, 2009, 8:46 am
lucretiaborgia@fl.it wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:41:33 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
>
>> lucretiaborgia@fl.it wrote:
>>> At the least, it is uncommonly bad manners.
>> And you are Miss Manners? Not even close.
>> Dianne
>
>
> Give up Dianne and accept that you didn't know squat about forums
> linking themselves to usenet groups.
No, I didn't know that was happening. Nor do I understand how that's
done or why. That doesn't negate my comment about you based on your
comment to me.
Dianne
|
|
Posted by on October 30, 2009, 8:54 am
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:46:41 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
show/hide quoted text
>lucretiaborgia@fl.it wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:41:33 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
>>
>>> lucretiaborgia@fl.it wrote:
>>>> At the least, it is uncommonly bad manners.
>>> And you are Miss Manners? Not even close.
>>> Dianne
>>
>>
>> Give up Dianne and accept that you didn't know squat about forums
>> linking themselves to usenet groups.
>No, I didn't know that was happening. Nor do I understand how that's
>done or why. That doesn't negate my comment about you based on your
>comment to me.
>Dianne
I have been posting about the subject, you keep posting about me but I
suppose that's okay. Keep going !
|
|
Posted by Dianne Lewandowski on October 30, 2009, 12:27 pm
I can't explain if you won't listen. You insist it's bad manners, and I
intimated that, based on your tone, you are the last person who ought to
be dictating manners.
Jinx responded to me in a civil way, explaining the situation. I think
there's little we can do about it. The web is changing.
By the way, I finally remembered the "keeper" of rctn, Kathy Dyer.
Anyone madly interested in cross stitch should visit:
http://home.comcast.net/~kathydyer/index.html
She no longer has our rctn by-laws, etc, but loads of other material
some may find informative or interesting. She used to be a regular
visitor to rctn, but I haven't seen her appearance (by way of a post) in
years.
Dianne
lucretiaborgia@fl.it wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:46:41 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
>
>> lucretiaborgia@fl.it wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:41:33 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
>>>> lucretiaborgia@fl.it wrote:
>>>>> At the least, it is uncommonly bad manners.
>>>> And you are Miss Manners? Not even close.
>>>> Dianne
>>> Give up Dianne and accept that you didn't know squat about forums
>>> linking themselves to usenet groups.
>> No, I didn't know that was happening. Nor do I understand how that's
>> done or why. That doesn't negate my comment about you based on your
>> comment to me.
>> Dianne
>
> I have been posting about the subject, you keep posting about me but I
> suppose that's okay. Keep going !
|
|
Posted by on October 30, 2009, 1:37 pm
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:27:21 -0500, Dianne Lewandowski
show/hide quoted text
>I can't explain if you won't listen. You insist it's bad manners, and I
>intimated that, based on your tone, you are the last person who ought to
>be dictating manners.
"Tone" eh ? Well do YOU think it is good manners to use rctn and
others for financial gain totally without our permission or blessing ?
Would YOU call that good manners ? I wonder if they suddenly decide
to hijack your web site you will like them so well then !
show/hide quoted text
>Jinx responded to me in a civil way, explaining the situation. I think
>there's little we can do about it. The web is changing.
Sigh - just the other day you claimed everything was my fault !
show/hide quoted text
>By the way, I finally remembered the "keeper" of rctn, Kathy Dyer.
>Anyone madly interested in cross stitch should visit:
>http://home.comcast.net/~kathydyer/index.html
>She no longer has our rctn by-laws, etc, but loads of other material
>some may find informative or interesting. She used to be a regular
>visitor to rctn, but I haven't seen her appearance (by way of a post) in
>years.
>Dianne
I remember Kathy but I would also point out to you that she might have
had suggestions on how things should go, but she did not have
authority to create by-laws etc. There are a few very old usenet
groups that did have charters at inception, but they are few and
pretty soon they learned they had to go to a moderator if they wanted
to enforce the charter.
|
Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: McCalls Needlework and Crafts mitten patterns | October 29, 2009, 2:39 pm |
| Mission style/Arts & Crafts crochet patterns? | December 27, 2007, 9:17 pm |
| Re: Those who love crafts and needlework | June 6, 2008, 11:00 am |
| Re: Those who love crafts and needlework | June 6, 2008, 11:37 am |
| Amy Mitten Samplers | October 2, 2006, 9:50 pm |
| crafts from Nepal | September 14, 2007, 4:04 am |
| crafts very interesting!! | February 21, 2009, 2:18 pm |
| Tea Room crafts, cooking, etc. | July 29, 2005, 2:01 pm |
| Landmark Crafts - still operating? | December 11, 2006, 3:51 pm |
| Looking for double eye needles for crafts | April 12, 2007, 10:20 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>
>> I understand what you were saying now. And I understand why you
>> responded to her the way you did. She just got involved in a bad
>> situation. Why can't we have a moderator ? Is that something that is
>> no longer possible?
>>
> Well I didn't really respond to her, rather to the operator of the
> forum. Probably be better if I had not done so hee hee !
> I am not sure about a moderator - think that would have had to be
> done right at the beginning. If it required a consensus...well the
> mind boggles :) (rare smiley)
>