"Oh, you doesn't has to call me Johnson. You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Johnny, or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me RayJay, or you can call me RJ, or you can call me RJJ or you can call me RJJ Jr., but you doesn't have to call me Johnson!" - Billy Seluga

I'm not smart enough to remember that all, but I sure know how to google... <s>


>>Try to let it go, Jo-Jo, try to let it go, Jaybird, try to let it go... <g>
>
>Let's see, how does that go? "You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay ... " (I can never remember the rest of it...)
>
>~~Bonnie
>
>>I see that my original "crap" one is still marked, though there are now many more that are not. Not sure why this has gotten under my skin - maybe the transparent way I was trying to be setup - but it really has. Try to let it go, Jo-Jo, try to let it go, Jaybird, try to let it go... <g>
>>
>>>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