[SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop Statistics

[WazoO]

"Dorian Gray" <D.Gray at picture.oscar.wilde> wrote in message
news:D.Gray-B3A26C.18225703022005 at news.cesmail.net...
> In article <ctr8ha$tmn$1 at news.spamcop.net>,
>  "WazoO" <nobody at devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm so confused at this point.  You give me hell for saying
> > "not for public discussion" .. wanting to hear from someone
> > else .... Deputy Ellen states "cannot go into detail" and you
> > offer her thanks. Then strangely enough, continue with the
> > asking of the same questions that you started with.
>
> Now don't take this the wrong way WazoO, but it's a matter of getting it
> from the horse's mouth.  You don't know the reasons for the features in
> the statistics or details of their compilation and can only say that it
> can't be discussed.  That is not authoritative, and anyone could say it.

You have no idea what I know.  You basically started out with a
"who the hell are you" thing, absurdly asking that I "show" you
something already described as 'not for public discussion' .. you
tossed out your apparent disbelief that there is dialog that occurs
outside the confines of this newsgroup, then even challenge even
that possibility after reading some public excerpts posted from
commentary in some of that 'other' dialog, apparently excited that
I didn't post all e-mails in full in defiance of the requests from the
people I was corresponding with ...  funny as it may seem, I
had to edit a user's posting over in the Forum this morning (and
advised said user as to what and why) due to his noticing some
particular details and wrote that up and pointed out that it was
odd that this situation wasn't documented anywhere ... and that's
another one of those that Don had asked that data existing not
be changed, as decisions on that process were still being
evaluated.

> The difference is that Ellen knows what the answer is, and knows why
> some things can't be discussed, if that is the case (which she has
> confirmed).  She went so far as to rule out my suggested reason for the
> big drop since September, which I must admit leaves it as a big mystery,
> but at least she answered my questions directly and authoritatively.

And if it helps, my background comes from an environment in which
you might want to know, you might ask, but the scenario was based
around the magic phrase "need to know" .. and if you didn't meet
that little tidbit, it didn't matter what rank, pay-grade, or clearance
level
you thought you had ....  in the current capacity of moderating and
managing the Forum, sometimes I'll get a heads-up on something,
sometimes I'll get a not-so-nice note about something, sometimes a
bit of a nudge to change a few answers here and there due to .....