Bonnie,

I don't wanna start no war about a trivial matter.

The message where I used the verbage of mass distruction was and does remain marked.

The message where KevinG repeated the same stuff and threw in other stuff from another message remains UNmarked to this moment YET it has MORE no-nos in it than does the other wich now has none in it. Remember, the one you and I both wondered how come IT hadn't been marked???

I saw KevinG tell me that he hasn't ever complained to UT management about me myself personally. And I took his word for it. Doesn't mean that he's not aware of others who may have.

Jim

>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