Jim,

I dunno ... maybe we're both thinking about different messages. You got a link to the one you're talking about? Kevin has not complained about you and I'm pretty sure that he is not aware of others who have (if there are any).

I don't want to start a war either ... guess we oughta just drop it.

~~Bonnie




>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