X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jun 17 03:12:20 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cdf.5015f947.37698ae6@aol.com>
References: <cdf.5015f947.37698ae6@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:11:59 +1000
Message-ID: <4f045a880906161811r2fd11702ree50a39650ee0ec0@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.3
X-Spam_score_int: -2
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  I think Digwuren's message was reasonable,
	and the fact
	that PU deleted it with ??? in his edit comment is extra evidence of
	WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so it is all good. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM, 
	<PetersJV@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 6/16/2009 7:21:08 A.M.
	Eastern Daylight Time, > digwuren@gmail.com writes: > > Speaking of
	provocations, is my last notice to PU over the top? I want it > to look
	like an innocent attempt to "reach over the aisle" to any reasonable >
	third party. Any irritative effect will need to be contextual. > > Oh, 
	I'm sure there was a bad way of taking it, whatever communication we >
	have with PU is bound to be regarded as an irritant and not heard. Any
	>
	reaching out is bound to be viewed as taunting (being that he "knows"
	we're > not serious, being enemies to the death). > > Of course he
	couldn't admit he misquoted his beloved page 20 (for anyone for > whom
	that reference is a mystery, read the last section in his talk page). >
	/Peters > > An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
	Steps! > > Wikipedia statistics discussion list >
	folks@wikipedometer.net >
	http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks > > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] "reaching out" to PU
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.3
X-Spam_score_int: -2
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  I think Digwuren's message was reasonable, and the fact
	that PU deleted it with ??? in his edit comment is extra evidence of
	WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so it is all good. On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM,
	<PetersJV@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 6/16/2009 7:21:08 A.M.
	Eastern Daylight Time, > digwuren@gmail.com writes: > > Speaking of
	provocations, is my last notice to PU over the top? I want it > to look
	like an innocent attempt to "reach over the aisle" to any reasonable >
	third party. Any irritative effect will need to be contextual. > > Oh,
	I'm sure there was a bad way of taking it, whatever communication we >
	have with PU is bound to be regarded as an irritant and not heard. Any >
	reaching out is bound to be viewed as taunting (being that he "knows"
	we're > not serious, being enemies to the death). > > Of course he
	couldn't admit he misquoted his beloved page 20 (for anyone for > whom
	that reference is a mystery, read the last section in his talk page). >
	/Peters > > An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
	Steps! > > Wikipedia statistics discussion list >
	folks@wikipedometer.net >
	http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks > > [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.6 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

I think Digwuren's message was reasonable, and the fact that PU
deleted it with ??? in his edit comment is extra evidence of
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so it is all good.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM, <PetersJV@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 6/16/2009 7:21:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> digwuren@gmail.com writes:
>
> Speaking of provocations, is my last notice to PU over the top?  I want it
> to look like an innocent attempt to "reach over the aisle" to any reasonable
> third party.  Any irritative effect will need to be contextual.
>
> Oh, I'm sure there was a bad way of taking it, whatever communication we
> have with PU is bound to be regarded as an irritant and not heard. Any
> reaching out is bound to be viewed as taunting (being that he "knows" we're
> not serious, being enemies to the death).
>
> Of course he couldn't admit he misquoted his beloved page 20 (for anyone for
> whom that reference is a mystery, read the last section in his talk page).
> /Peters
> ________________________________
> An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

