🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1991May29.150925.6793@mp.cs.niu.edu>, by rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert):
> In article <12569@uwm.edu> jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>>From article <1991May28.203704.5535@mp.cs.niu.edu>, by rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert):
>>> In article <1991May28.200304.25371@solbourne.com> imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh) writes:
>>>>I really wanted to cancel this article, but I didn't.  So this brought
>>>>to mind the following question:
>>
>>>   So did I.  But I wrote an email complaint to {usenet,Postmaster}@uwm.edu
>>> instead.  I haven't seen any action or response though.
>>
>>Hey, Neil!  Give us a break, eh?  :-)   Your message came in over
>>lunch break -- and it _does_ take a _little_ time to process these
>>things.  (Your e-mail message arrived here at 1759 GMT, I answered it
>>at 1843 GMT.)
> 
>  I guess one has to be REALLY careful about what one says.  I suppose, in
> retrospect, I should have added a 'yet' to the end of my sentence on not
> having seen a response.  Still, if I had added a 'yet' this would have
> suggested I was complaining.  My intention was only to report an alternative
> to cancelling an article that originated elsewhere.

Yeah, this news stuff sometimes makes the subtleties of human communication
difficult.  My response, which was intended to be read in a "light-hearted"
tone, was merely a gentle reminder that there is a time lag in these
things.

>  In terms of time, I wrote to you at 1758 GMT.  My posting was at 20:37 GMT.
> I saw the first cancellation at 20:47 GMT, with a posting date of 20:43
> GMT.  Other cancellations trickled through in the afternoon.

One batch of cancels went out fairly quickly.  Another batch took a little
while longer.  I think that by about 1600 local time (2100 GMT) all the
cancels had been generated on our systems.  Then it was a matter of
sending them on to other systems.  This takes varying lengths of time,
as some of our outgoing feeds are batched.  (Even so, I received notice
this morning that we missed a few instances of "The Message".  It's being
taken care of.)
> 
>  In general, this was handled well by uwm.edu.  I am gratified that my letter
> was "answered at 1843 GMT".  Unfortunately I still have not seen this answer.
> If I had seen it by the time of my earlier posting, I am sure my wording
> would have been different.

Thanks for the kind words.   I don't know what the delay was/is in
my e-mail message to you -- it's off all our systems here.  I would
be interested in the timestamps in the headers, when you receive it.
(If you don't receive it in another day, drop me a note and I'll resend it.)

We're sorry about all the 'annoyance' this has caused.  Still and
all, it was an _interesting_ coincidence, coming in the middle of
your discussion about 'cancelling other's postings', no?  :-)
[Gee!  A real-life *example*!  :-) ]
-- 
John G Dobnick  (JGD2) -- News Janitor
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu                      ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire