Jim,

>KevinG informed the world (accidentally, I know) of certain "transgressions" by myself, using the exact terminologies that rendered messages "sensitive", yet that message remains UNmarked as "sensitive".

Wish I could remember which thread that message was in ... but I remember it clearly. It *had* been marked sensitive ... maybe Michel went back and un-marked it ... when Kevin referred to it as being "tagged", he meant that it was marked sensitive, and it was ... I saw it myself. He did not complain to Michel or anyone else in UT management about it. I know this for a fact (and I'm sure if Kevin notices your post he'll jump in to verify this).

~~Bonnie



>Bonnie,
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>>It is quite clear (now) that someone has to complain about a message first BEFORE any form of review/judgement is done.
>>
>>Just curious here, Jim ... do you *know* this for a fact? Do you have some inside information that the rest of us don't have? I haven't seen that stated anywhere publicly by UT management (unless I missed a post somewhere).
>
>I don't "know" (that's why I used the term 'quite clear', but here's the reasoning...
>
>KevinG informed the world (accidentally, I know) of certain "transgressions" by myself, using the exact terminologies that rendered messages "sensitive", yet that message remains UNmarked as "sensitive".
>
>In that same message KevinG informed the world that I had revised my message but 'not before it had been tagged'. There's really only one way for him to know that - to have been aware that someone has informed UT management and obtained a 'favorable' decision. KevinG happened to know that I had been "tagged" even before I was informed of such tagging.
>
>What else can anyone conclude???
>
>Ideas?
>
>>
>>~~Bonnie