Re: Firefox 1.5.0.2 Dosen't open pages.
Matt Nordhoff
> What is really outrageous is that if you have an off-the-shelf system
> that came with XP preloaded, and need to replace the motherboard at some
> point, you have two choices:
>
> 1. Buy the replacement from the computer manufacturer.
>
> 2. Buy a new motherboard *AND* a new copy of XP!
>
> My experience with the "recovery" cd's that they ship with a new PC is
> that if the BIOS ID string doesn't match what is coded into their
> recovery system, it will not allow you to proceed.
>
> So you have paid for XP by virtue of it being preloaded on the PC you
> bought, but you can only use it on that system!
>
> If you had the retail version, under the same scenario, you can
> re-install it with no problem, (umm, let me rephrase that, it will allow
> you to reinstall it, whether there are problems or not, cross your
> fingers) although you will have to go through their authorization hoops.
AFAIK, you can call up Microsoft and ask for a new registration key.
Also AFAIK, various websites give instructions on how to preserve your
old one, though I don't know if they work for hardware changes or just
reinstalls.
(Crossposted to and Followup-To mozilla.general. Everybody seems to have
forgotten that group exists.)
--
Matt Nordhoff
(aka Peng on IRC & the forums)
Matt Nordhoff
> Come on, admit it, penguins are cute. What I really want is a machine
> that JUST WORKS, preferably easily-configurable to work the way I want
> it to. Remember the joke about "I don't want to learn that technical
> stuff, I just want to drive the car"? That's me. I used to like
> learning that technical stuff, but now it's just an unpleasant chore and
> a means to the end...
>
> Another quote: "I have always depended upon the kindness of strangers..."
....And you use *nix?
Matt Nordhoff
> That's the way it SHOULD work and the way it DOES work with linux. Even
> easier, actually. Every once in a while I run a linux backup to one of
> two partitions on a second HD. Should disaster strike, all I need to do
> is reboot, choose to run the system on one of the backup partitions, and
> then either fix the disaster or copy over whatever I think is important
> -- like my mail files.
Unless that disaster be a hard drive failure, of course.
(Crossposted to and Followup-To mozilla.general. Everybody seems to have
forgotten that group exists. And I'm getting tired of copying and
pasting this.)
Matt Nordhoff
> I have never found command line interfaces to be in any way, shape, or
> form, 'convenient'. W2K and WinXP both have quite accessible command
> line interfaces for those times when they are needed. I suspect that
> many of the 'nay-sayers' concerning WinXP are just not aware of the full
> facilities of the OS.
Sometimes I find a command with a few arguments is a lot easier than
figuring out how to do the equivalent task in a GUI. They're both good
at different things.
(Crossposted to and Followup-To mozilla.general. Everybody seems to have
forgotten that group exists. And I'm getting tired of copying and
pasting this. Seriously.)
Matt Nordhoff
> Err, Reg? Where /should/ one backup? The odds of both a primary drive
> and a separate backup drive going together are pretty darned slim,
> especially if the backup drive is only used for that.
To multiple redundant RAID 1-using servers in multiple secure locations
with redundant backup power! 8-)
And DVDs (Blu-ray? ;-) ) in multiple locations, and multiple other hard
drives on-site for more convenience.
(Crossposted to and Followup-To mozilla.general. Everybody seems to have
forgotten that group exists. And I'm getting tired of copying and
pasting this. Seriously. God.)
squaredancer
to generate the following:? :
re-named Matt to read "Post-Police" (stop "cutting and pasting" and
reply to this group)
reg
gwtc
> (Crossposted to and Followup-To mozilla.general. Everybody seems to have
> forgotten that group exists.)
No, its too much trouble to go from one newsgroup where the
conversation is going on in, to another. Only you can Chris I do this.
--
Things to Ponder about: Why do toasters always have a setting that
burns the toast to a horrible crisp, which no decent human being would
eat?
gwtc
>>(Crossposted to and Followup-To mozilla.general. Everybody seems to
>>have forgotten that group exists. And I'm getting tired of copying and
>>pasting this. Seriously. God.)
>
>
> re-named Matt to read "Post-Police" (stop "cutting and pasting" and
> reply to this group)
>
> reg
No, maybe he should change his name to Chris II
The Real Bev
> On 04/21/06 13:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>> Come on, admit it, penguins are cute. What I really want is a machine
>> that JUST WORKS, preferably easily-configurable to work the way I want
>> it to. Remember the joke about "I don't want to learn that technical
>> stuff, I just want to drive the car"? That's me. I used to like
>> learning that technical stuff, but now it's just an unpleasant chore and
>> a means to the end...
>>
>> Another quote: "I have always depended upon the kindness of strangers..."
>
> ....And you use *nix?
Yeah, well...
My live-in consultant is a linux addict, as is our son. The consultant,
however, exhibits actual pain when asked about anything not involving
slackware and a command line (not even an xterm; I just copied over my
.fvwm95rc and he uses only a few bits of it) and uses Mozilla (which I
installed for him a couple of years ago) only when forced. Accordingly,
"I have always depended..."
Sometimes ya just gotta bite the bullet and go with the flow. Or
something... I really LIKE linux for a lot of reasons, there are just a
lot of things about which I'm totally ignorant. Really basic things. I
don't do basic, at least not very well. "Thou shalt get programmers,
though thou be none."
> (Crossposted to and Followup-To mozilla.general. Everybody seems to have
> forgotten that group exists.)
Yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah...
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 10.2)
===========================================================
An organizer for the "Million Agoraphobics March" expressed
disappointment in the turnout for last weekend's event.
Chris Ilias
> No, its too much trouble to go from one newsgroup where the conversation
> is going on in, to another. Only you can Chris I do this.
User says to spammer, "Please remove my email address from your mailing
list."
Spammer replies, "No, it's too much trouble to remove an address, just
because the owner of that address requests it."
Conversely, it's inconvenient for people who use the support groups to
give and receive tech support, to weed through many posts of pointless
chatter.
This has nothing to do with convenience. It's about the people in
control of this server requesting that you take OT posts to a place
where it is on topic, or mozilla.general. (and the mozilla.general
option was very nice of Gerv.)
There was a lot of work put into setting up these groups, and
maintaining them. The purpose of which was not to give you, Reg, and Bev
a general chat room. If you abuse this support tool, why would the
owners care about your requests?
Consider this: The more OT discussion there is, the more likely MoFo is
to grant me the ability to remove other's posts, or ban certain posters.
--
Chris Ilias
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
Mozilla links <http://ilias.ca>
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Matt Nordhoff
> No, its too much trouble to go from one newsgroup where the conversation
> is going on in, to another. Only you can Chris I do this.
At least mark off-topic messages [OT].
gwtc
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 23/04/2006 2:05 PM:
>
>>No, its too much trouble to go from one newsgroup where the conversation
>>is going on in, to another. Only you can Chris I do this.
>
>
> User says to spammer, "Please remove my email address from your mailing
> list."
> Spammer replies, "No, it's too much trouble to remove an address, just
> because the owner of that address requests it."
>
> Conversely, it's inconvenient for people who use the support groups to
> give and receive tech support, to weed through many posts of pointless
> chatter.
>
> This has nothing to do with convenience. It's about the people in
> control of this server requesting that you take OT posts to a place
> where it is on topic, or mozilla.general. (and the mozilla.general
> option was very nice of Gerv.)
>
> There was a lot of work put into setting up these groups, and
> maintaining them. The purpose of which was not to give you, Reg, and Bev
> a general chat room. If you abuse this support tool, why would the
> owners care about your requests?
>
> Consider this: The more OT discussion there is, the more likely MoFo is
> to grant me the ability to remove other's posts, or ban certain posters.
so these groups ARE moderated. And, why grant you that power!?
--
Things to Ponder about: If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make
a radio out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
gwtc
> The purpose of which was not to give you, Reg, and Bev
> a general chat room. If you abuse this support tool, why would the
> owners care about your requests?
>
I wonder why didn't you also include the Champs in that list, after
all, they too provide lots of chit-chat. Champs like Jay, Dan, Irwin,
and yes, even yourself. Only you do it sneaky. You respond, giving
your 2cents and then put a followup to the general group.
"why would the owners care about your requests?" I've already noticed
it now!
--
Matt Nordhoff
> No, maybe he should change his name to Chris II
I'm not against off-topic posts at all, though, I just move threads
around a lot.
Matt Nordhoff
> I wonder why didn't you also include the Champs in that list, after all,
> they too provide lots of chit-chat. Champs like Jay, Dan, Irwin, and
> yes, even yourself. Only you do it sneaky. You respond, giving your
> 2cents and then put a followup to the general group.
By setting a followup-to, he only spams the on-topic groups with one
message and forces all replies to go to mozilla.general. That's the best
you can do, short of not replying at all.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> Consider this: The more OT discussion there is, the more likely MoFo is
>> to grant me the ability to remove other's posts, or ban certain posters.
> so these groups ARE moderated. And, why grant you that power!?
As it has always said on <http://ilias.ca/newsserverinfo>, "Posting
messages will not require approval, but the Mozilla Foundation can
remove messages."
When I asked about having moderators, the reply I got was that message
removal would be an exceptional and unusual event, starting with one or
two people having that power on the entire server, and people emailing
them as necessary. The approach is very much a "Let's see if we need it
first" philosophy.
Why me? It doesn't have to be me; but right now, no-one with that power
is looking after the support groups, and I'm the 'list-owner' of the
support lists, where the OT problems are.
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-firefox
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
Right now, I think banning a couple of poster would be the simplest, and
most affective method. Some people like to take discussions off topic,
while others just take part in whatever is being discussed. The best
evidence of this was on secnews, when Reg had computer problems for a
couple weeks last July. I remember noting in the Champs group that
during that time secnews had no OT problems whatsoever.
gwtc
> Right now, I think banning a couple of poster would be the simplest, and
> most affective method.
I don't think too many people would like that! I for one wouldn't. I
guess we should get the one or two that were banned from the secnews
in on this one, too. I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
Mozilla banning people.
gwtc
Some people like to take discussions off topic,
> while others just take part in whatever is being discussed. The best
> evidence of this was on secnews, when Reg had computer problems for a
> couple weeks last July. I remember noting in the Champs group that
> during that time secnews had no OT problems whatsoever.
I sure don't remember that. Or maybe, when its a topic that I'm not
interested in, like Linux, Macs, or every OT, I colour code it orange.
That way when a message pops up in that group, I see the rest of the
thread is orange, so I'm not interested in that, and I move on. I for
one don't make a big fuss about it being OT or what.
As for OT before July, sure there was, and lots of it. I remember one
thread that had over 600 posts. The topic started off with "Moz 1.7.3
[being] released," but ended up with other topics that ranged from
politic lessons, to history lessons, to language lessons, and we even
had some cooking lessons, especially the Beverly Hillbillies' type of
cookin'. That was just a few of the topics that was in that one.
Remember that one Chris. You started that thread. And that was way
back sometime in 2004.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> Right now, I think banning a couple of poster would be the simplest, and
>> most affective method.
> I don't think too many people would like that! I for one wouldn't.
Have you got a solution that will work and please *everyone*? Fixing the
problem without upsetting anyone, would be ideal.
> I guess we should get the one or two that were banned from the secnews in
> on this one, too.
Only one person is banned from secnews, and that person (so far) has not
posted on news.mozilla.org.
> I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
> Mozilla banning people.
I don't know who "A and L" is.
Chris Ilias
> As for OT before July, sure there was, and lots of it. I remember one
> thread that had over 600 posts. The topic started off with "Moz 1.7.3
> [being] released," but ended up with other topics that ranged from
> politic lessons, to history lessons, to language lessons, and we even
> had some cooking lessons, especially the Beverly Hillbillies' type of
> cookin'. That was just a few of the topics that was in that one.
> Remember that one Chris. You started that thread. And that was way back
> sometime in 2004.
I don't see your point. Are you saying I was to blame for that OT
discussion, because I started the thread? Almost none of the threads
begin OT.
gwtc
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 24/04/2006 4:57 PM:
>
>>Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Right now, I think banning a couple of poster would be the simplest, and
>>>most affective method.
>>
>>I don't think too many people would like that! I for one wouldn't.
>
>
> Have you got a solution that will work and please *everyone*? Fixing the
> problem without upsetting anyone, would be ideal.
>
let me think about it
>
>>I guess we should get the one or two that were banned from the secnews in
>>on this one, too.
>
>
> Only one person is banned from secnews, and that person (so far) has not
> posted on news.mozilla.org.
>
>
>> I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
>>Mozilla banning people.
>
>
> I don't know who "A and L" is.
A is the guy who owns the Silly site, and isn't L the person [woman]
who was banned.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 24/04/2006 4:57 PM:
>>
>>> Mozilla banning people.
>>
>> I don't know who "A and L" is.
> A is the guy who owns the Silly site, and isn't L the person [woman] who
> was banned.
Obviously, you don't want to discuss it, or you would just say who, and
get on with the discussion, rather than giving me silly riddles.
Name names, or don't waste my time.
gwtc
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 24/04/2006 8:41 PM:
>
>>Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>>_gwtc_ spoke thusly on 24/04/2006 4:57 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
>>>>Mozilla banning people.
>>>
>>>I don't know who "A and L" is.
>>
>>A is the guy who owns the Silly site, and isn't L the person [woman] who
>>was banned.
>
>
> Obviously, you don't want to discuss it, or you would just say who, and
> get on with the discussion, rather than giving me silly riddles.
> Name names, or don't waste my time.
Chris Ilias
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 24/04/2006 4:57 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
>>>>> Mozilla banning people.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know who "A and L" is.
>
If anyone were to be banned from the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would
Antony and Lorraine love to hear it?
gwtc
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 25/04/2006 2:41 AM:
>
>>>>Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>_gwtc_ spoke thusly on 24/04/2006 4:57 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
>>>>>>Mozilla banning people.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know who "A and L" is.
>>
>>Oh for cryin-out-loud -- its Antony and Lorraine!!!!
>
>
> If anyone were to be banned from the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would
> Antony and Lorraine love to hear it?
haven't you been reading? Both of them have been banned from the
secnews groups.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> If anyone were to be banned from the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would
>> Antony and Lorraine love to hear it?
> haven't you been reading? Both of them have been banned from the
> secnews groups.
Actually, Antony has never been banned from secnews; and Lorraine's ban
was lifted years ago. Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. If anyone were to
be banned from the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and
Lorraine heard about it?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> Right now, I think banning a couple of poster would be the simplest, and
>> most affective method.
> I don't think too many people would like that! I for one wouldn't. I
> guess we should get the one or two that were banned from the secnews
> in on this one, too. I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
> Mozilla banning people.
>
Butting in ...
There was/is only ONE poster that was/is banned officially and unable to
post on secnews.
Butting out ...
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>> If anyone were to be banned from the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would
>> Antony and Lorraine love to hear it?
> haven't you been reading? Both of them have been banned from the
> secnews groups.
>
Butting in again ...
Neither Antony OR Lorraine have been banned.
Butting out again ...
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Actually, Antony has never been banned from secnews; and Lorraine's ban
> was lifted years ago. Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. If anyone were to
> be banned from the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and
> Lorraine heard about it?
Correction ...
Lorraine was never officially banned although she was encouraged to
cease posting. It was she that assumed that she was officially banned,
continued posting anyway and is still posting today.
And just for the record, Antony is and always has been, welcomed to post
on secnews.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>> Have you got a solution that will work and please *everyone*? Fixing the
>> problem without upsetting anyone, would be ideal.
>>
>
> let me think about it
The ONLY workable solution is to private mail the individual(s) that
perpetuates or is most responsible for OT discussion's lengthy diatribes
in an otherwise dedicated support venue. The problem with OT
discussions is that there seems to be no end to it/them and usually
transgress to OT OT OT OT OT in the same thread. And THAT is what is the
point of taking OT elsewhere, not the occasional two or three reply OT,
IMHO of course.
gwtc
> On 24.04.2006 15:57, gwtc wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>>Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Right now, I think banning a couple of poster would be the simplest, and
>>>most affective method.
>>
>>I don't think too many people would like that! I for one wouldn't. I
>>guess we should get the one or two that were banned from the secnews
>>in on this one, too. I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
>>Mozilla banning people.
>>
>
>
> Butting in ...
>
> There was/is only ONE poster that was/is banned officially and unable to
> post on secnews.
>
> Butting out ...
>
--
Things to Ponder about: Why do people point to their wrist when asking
for the time, but don't point to their crotch when they ask where the
bathroom is?
gwtc
server. I remember many times when I replied to one of her posts,
then the next hour [or so], either all her messages were removed, or
the entire thread had vanished. If thats not banning someone, then
what is.
--
gwtc
> The ONLY workable solution is to private mail the individual(s) that
> perpetuates or is most responsible for OT discussion's lengthy diatribes
the problem to that is not everyone is using their real address.
--
The Real Bev
> Then what do you call it when her messages are removed from the
> server. I remember many times when I replied to one of her posts,
> then the next hour [or so], either all her messages were removed, or
> the entire thread had vanished. If thats not banning someone, then
> what is.
For the benefit of us outsiders, is there a 50-word explanation? The
story sounds fascinating...
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 10.2)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American Public." -- H.L. Mencken
gwtc
> gwtc wrote:
>
> > Then what do you call it when her messages are removed from the
>
>>server. I remember many times when I replied to one of her posts,
>>then the next hour [or so], either all her messages were removed, or
>>the entire thread had vanished. If thats not banning someone, then
>>what is.
>
>
> For the benefit of us outsiders, is there a 50-word explanation? The
> story sounds fascinating...
>
I'm not sure, but I believe its because she want compatible with the
newsgroup. Or maybe she complained to much. Otherwise, Jay, Chris or
someone else will tell us. Or, go to the Sillydog.org forums and ask
her yourself.
I think that was under 50 words
Chris Ilias
> Then what do you call it when her messages are removed from the server.
> I remember many times when I replied to one of her posts, then the next
> hour [or so], either all her messages were removed, or the entire thread
> had vanished. If thats not banning someone, then what is.
You never answered my question. If anyone were to be banned from the
mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and Lorraine heard
about it?
gwtc
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 25/04/2006 11:18 AM:
>
>>Then what do you call it when her messages are removed from the server.
>>I remember many times when I replied to one of her posts, then the next
>>hour [or so], either all her messages were removed, or the entire thread
>>had vanished. If thats not banning someone, then what is.
>
>
> You never answered my question. If anyone were to be banned from the
> mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and Lorraine heard
> about it?
I really don't care whether you care or not.
I'm sure that Antony and Lorraine would love to hear how Mozilla [or
their champs] are banning people from their newsgroup servers. It was
done on the old secnews.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> You never answered my question. If anyone were to be banned from the
>> mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and Lorraine heard
>> about it?
> I really don't care whether you care or not.
I didn't ask if you cared. I asked why you think I would care. In other
words, why bring it into the discussion? What was the purpose? What's
your point?
> I'm sure that Antony and Lorraine would love to hear how Mozilla [or
> their champs] are banning people from their newsgroup servers. It was
> done on the old secnews.
Well, as I said, Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. I'll add to that by
saying Mozilla never ran secnews; and the Champs are not moderators on
news.mozilla.org.
gwtc
> Well, as I said, Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. I'll add to that by
> saying Mozilla never ran secnews; and the Champs are not moderators on
> news.mozilla.org.
but, if you start banning people from these newsgroups, then that
makes the groups moderated.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> Well, as I said, Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. I'll add to that by
>> saying Mozilla never ran secnews; and the Champs are not moderators on
>> news.mozilla.org.
> but, if you start banning people from these newsgroups, then that makes
> the groups moderated.
I've already addressed that here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/msg/e3bd9afe622080a>
Again, you never answered my question. If anyone were to be banned from
the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and Lorraine heard
about it? In other words, why bring it into the discussion? What was the
purpose? What was your point?
gwtc
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 25/04/2006 3:56 PM:
>
>>Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, as I said, Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. I'll add to that by
>>>saying Mozilla never ran secnews; and the Champs are not moderators on
>>>news.mozilla.org.
>>
>>but, if you start banning people from these newsgroups, then that makes
>>the groups moderated.
>
>
> I've already addressed that here:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/msg/e3bd9afe622080a>
oh for christ sake Chris, you keep twisting things. I'm saying that if
you [or whoever] starts to ban people from the mozilla.org news
servers, then that make these newsgroups moderated.
Quote: "starting with one or two people having that power on the
entire server." Unquote. That sounds like moderating to me.
>
> Again, you never answered my question. If anyone were to be banned from
> the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and Lorraine heard
> about it? In other words, why bring it into the discussion? What was the
> purpose? What was your point?
I was trying to avoid this, but for them, it just goes to show people
the stupiditiness that will go on within the mozilla newsgroups that
you have to ban people because they go off topic.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> I've already addressed that here:
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/msg/e3bd9afe622080a>
>
> oh for christ sake Chris, you keep twisting things. I'm saying that if
> you [or whoever] starts to ban people from the mozilla.org news servers,
> then that make these newsgroups moderated.
>
> Quote: "starting with one or two people having that power on the entire
> server." Unquote. That sounds like moderating to me.
If you consider that moderating, then consider the mozilla.* newsgroups
to be moderated. Technically, a moderated newsgroup is one in which
posts require moderator approval before making it to the newsgroup.
Because your definition of a moderated newsgroup is different, I would
appreciate it, if you explained your definition, whenever you tell
someone that these groups are "moderated."
>> Again, you never answered my question. If anyone were to be banned
>> from the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and Lorraine
>> heard about it? In other words, why bring it into the discussion? What
>> was the purpose? What was your point?
> I was trying to avoid this, but for them, it just goes to show people
> the stupiditiness that will go on within the mozilla newsgroups that you
> have to ban people because they go off topic.
As I said Antony was never banned, and whatever happened with Lorraine
(whether Jay wants to call it an official ban or not) had nothing to do
with OT content. Are you saying the stupidity is that people would
refuse to move OT discussion to an appropriate newsgroup, or that anyone
would be willing to ban someone because of it?
BTW, I really wish you would stop jumping to conclusions, such as who
controls which server, who is banned, what 'moderated' means, etc.. You
assumed that closed threads on secnews had server side filters,
preventing people from posting in those threads, then went nuts went you
saw a couple of new posts in a closed thread, before I had a chance to
remove them. Your crusade to give me a hard time is based on incorrect
assumptions.
JanWillem
Quoting Chris Ilias:
<Well, as I said, Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. I'll add to that by
saying Mozilla never ran secnews; and the Champs are not moderators on
news.mozilla.org.>
The above should be enough for all of you (and me) at the moment. Let's
hope it won't change in the future.
FYI I started to participate (sometimes more, sometimes not at all) in
NTMM after Hallie was banned. I lurked before.
Reading off line, as I always do, has the advantage of being better
informed and the possibility of making back ups.
Last year I unsubscribed to NTMM and the rest of secnews completely.
What happened in the years between is a very, very nasty story.
I don't think the same can happen in MTMM or other Mozilla groups
because this server can't be used as a "private house".
So please, do use the Mozilla newsgroups on this server for what they
are meant for!
Nanny Deleu
gwtc
> FYI I started to participate (sometimes more, sometimes not at all) in
> NTMM after Hallie was banned. I lurked before.
Interesting, but then I don't use NTMM or MTMM. Thanks for that info.
I wonder how many others have been banned, since the champs won't
reveal anything.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>
>> Well, as I said, Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. I'll add to that by
>> saying Mozilla never ran secnews; and the Champs are not moderators on
>> news.mozilla.org.
> but, if you start banning people from these newsgroups, then that
> makes the groups moderated.
>
NO, it doesn't. Makes 'em "policed" but not "moderated" - by definition.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> JanWillem wrote:
>
>> FYI I started to participate (sometimes more, sometimes not at all) in
>> NTMM after Hallie was banned. I lurked before.
>
> Interesting, but then I don't use NTMM or MTMM. Thanks for that info.
> I wonder how many others have been banned, since the champs won't
> reveal anything.
I've been hanging around secnews/mozilla.org for approximately ten
years. Unless there was something done totally off any public map,
there has been one person (the aforementioned) banned in all those years.
There were, however, some hellacious (TID) flame wars in those years
long passed. And only one Champ who remained totally above the fray.
Rinaldi
--
Good advice is something a man gives when he is too old to set a bad
example.
-- La Rouchefoucauld
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> JanWillem wrote:
>
>> FYI I started to participate (sometimes more, sometimes not at all) in
>> NTMM after Hallie was banned. I lurked before.
>
> Interesting, but then I don't use NTMM or MTMM. Thanks for that info.
> I wonder how many others have been banned, since the champs won't
> reveal anything.
>
Err, a miraculous revelation from the deep dark dungeons of Champdom
Castle is about to occur ...
Only ONE user was banned from posting on secnews since it came online in
1995 .. there, happy? or how many more times do I have to say that here?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 24.04.2006 15:57, gwtc wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>>Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Right now, I think banning a couple of poster would be the simplest, and
>>>>most affective method.
>>>
>>>I don't think too many people would like that! I for one wouldn't. I
>>>guess we should get the one or two that were banned from the secnews
>>>in on this one, too. I'm sure that A and L would love to hear this --
>>>Mozilla banning people.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Butting in ...
>>
>> There was/is only ONE poster that was/is banned officially and unable to
>> post on secnews.
>>
>> Butting out ...
>>
> and who was that.
>
Not a secret by any means - Hallie Freedle.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>
>> Well, as I said, Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. I'll add to that by
>> saying Mozilla never ran secnews; and the Champs are not moderators on
>> news.mozilla.org.
> but, if you start banning people from these newsgroups, then that
> makes the groups moderated.
Splitting hairs there. Normally moderation is as Chris has defined.
Poster -> Moderator -> Group. You seem to be expanding that to include
Poster -> Group -> Moderator (or Bot) cancel.
Not sure that fits the definition of moderated. Server level filtering
(kill filing), maybe. But under mozilla's current news structure, I
believe that would take direct intervention on the part of giganews.
And in the anarchy of USENET something they are probably not too
disposed towards doing.
Apparently giganews has given mozilla with Chris as their agent access
to the control group.
Rinaldi
--
Pushing 40 is exercise enough.
Chris Ilias
> Apparently giganews has given mozilla with Chris as their agent access
> to the control group.
No, I do not have access to the control group.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> _Rinaldi J. Montessi_ spoke thusly on 25/04/2006 9:15 PM:
>> Apparently giganews has given mozilla with Chris as their agent access
>> to the control group.
>
> No, I do not have access to the control group.
Oh. I thought access to control was necessary for cancellations.
Apologies.
Rinaldi
--
Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.
gwtc
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>>_Rinaldi J. Montessi_ spoke thusly on 25/04/2006 9:15 PM:
>>
>>>Apparently giganews has given mozilla with Chris as their agent access
>>>to the control group.
>>
>>No, I do not have access to the control group.
>
>
> Oh. I thought access to control was necessary for cancellations.
> Apologies.
>
> Rinaldi
From my understanding, no one can cancel, not even the champs. Maybe
Gerv or Dave can do that.
gwtc
everytime she posted, her posts mysteriously vanished.
Ray Booysen
> _gwtc_ spoke thusly on 25/04/2006 3:56 PM:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> Well, as I said, Secnews is not news.mozilla.org. I'll add to that
>>> by saying Mozilla never ran secnews; and the Champs are not
>>> moderators on news.mozilla.org.
>> but, if you start banning people from these newsgroups, then that
>> makes the groups moderated.
>
> I've already addressed that here:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/msg/e3bd9afe622080a>
>
> Again, you never answered my question. If anyone were to be banned
> from the mozilla.* newsgroups, why would I care if Antony and Lorraine
> heard about it? In other words, why bring it into the discussion? What
> was the purpose? What was your point?
-- Ray Booysen rj_bo...@rjb.za.net
JanWillem
> gwtc wrote:
>> JanWillem wrote:
>>
>>> FYI I started to participate (sometimes more, sometimes not at all) in
>>> NTMM after Hallie was banned. I lurked before.
>>
>> Interesting, but then I don't use NTMM or MTMM. Thanks for that
>> info. I wonder how many others have been banned, since the champs
>> won't reveal anything.
>
> I've been hanging around secnews/mozilla.org for approximately ten
> years. Unless there was something done totally off any public map,
> there has been one person (the aforementioned) banned in all those years.
>
> There were, however, some hellacious (TID) flame wars in those years
> long passed. And only one Champ who remained totally above the fray.
>
> Rinaldi
There were flaming wars, nurtured by some so called Champions. Messages
were removed to their (Champions') whim or whenever it was to their own
advantage.
The only Champ in NTMM, who behaved as a Champ should, was John
McWilliams: he applied the news group etiquette rules not only to the
users but also to himself.
Unfortunately he was absent for long periods.
As for me it's past and: TID
Nanny
gwtc
thank you for that interesting tid-bit
--
Things to Ponder about: If Wiley E. Coyote had enough money to buy all
that ACME crap, why didn't he just buy dinner?
PeEmm
Let me sneak in for a second, being a secnews *boycotter* for at least a
year or so, ever since Chris removed a post of mine, by which I tried to
question the hilarious idea of "closing threads" -- well, that's it,
sneaking out again.
--
/P.M.
gwtc
I was wonder why I never saw you there.
--
How to Get a Life
Difficulty Level: Hard
Tip #3: Play a game of solitaire with a real deck of cards
gwtc
I should add: I thought I was the only one complaining about the close
of threads and removing posts. I see I'm not alone.
PeEmm
You are definitely not alone. I'm sure there are soooo many, but, like
me, deciding to keep a low profile about it, thereby avoiding to end up
in fruitless disputes like A and L did.
--
/P.M.
gwtc
Fruitless disputes is right!
--
How to Get a Life
Difficulty Level: Hard
Tip #4: Eat something other than taco chips
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
And let me respond to one of the responses above from "Nanny" and
"Rinaldi" .. Just using your reply quotes, PeEmm as I don't want to hoop
through 'read' messages .. :-)
Yes, there was ONE "Champ" who remained "above" and that was/is " hb ".
JPMcW could be considered another IHMO and so could a few other "Champs"
as well.
Champs did NOT cancel posts on a "whim" to serve one's ego, etc. but
rather were cancelled by order of Netscape Management for whatever
reason(s) or by ME, the server administrator in order to preserve some
degree of order and to not perpetuate some flame wars that were destined
to live forever, etc.
So, P.M., you would rather *boycot* what you term a ridiculous situation
rather than helping support users? Situations are bound to happen in
most every venue. Sometimes you just have to continue on to the next
post remembering that this is only an electronic medium and with a
single click, the baddies can disappear, not like the barroom where you
can hurl empty beer bottles at the offender ... ;-)
PeEmm
You never know beforehand where OT threads are going to land. When you
skim through the posts, you either give it up and move on to another
thread or think it might turn constructive again, so read on.
It should be my decision as a reader to decide if a thread turns towards
a dead end. I don't need Chris to decide this for me.
Of course a news group could be so invaded by pointless posts, so there
is a real problem finding anything useful. However, that was never the
case at secnews.
Anyway, it's been a while, so it's about time to *end* the boycott :-)
--
/P.M.
Matt Nordhoff
> --
> How to Get a Life
> Difficulty Level: Hard
> Tip #4: Eat something other than taco chips
Hey, I had Pringles Cheezums, too! And those taco chips are really good,
and I only started eating them yesterday. :-(
--
Matt Nordhoff
(aka Peng on IRC & the forums)
gwtc
> It should be my decision as a reader to decide if a thread turns towards
> a dead end. I don't need Chris to decide this for me.
>
you've got my vote on that
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> You never know beforehand where OT threads are going to land. When you
> skim through the posts, you either give it up and move on to another
> thread or think it might turn constructive again, so read on.
Actually, a true [OT] really does have some relationship to the on-topic
material but has nothing to do with the actual requested support as such.
> It should be my decision as a reader to decide if a thread turns towards
> a dead end. I don't need Chris to decide this for me.
"Your decision" ? Yes and a certain degree of responsibility goes along
with the territory of creating and/or perpetuating an [OT] discussion.
Chris steps in when nobody takes that responsibility, IMHO.
> Of course a news group could be so invaded by pointless posts, so there
> is a real problem finding anything useful. However, that was never the
> case at secnews.
> Anyway, it's been a while, so it's about time to *end* the boycott :-)
Whewww. :-)
Chris Ilias
> Let me sneak in for a second, being a secnews *boycotter* for at least a
> year or so, ever since Chris removed a post of mine, by which I tried to
> question the hilarious idea of "closing threads" -- well, that's it,
> sneaking out again.
The whole point of stopping OT discussion is to improve the signal to
noise ratio; so I removed complaints that were posted in the support
newsgroups. Why didn't you use the designated venues?
- post in the mozillachampions public newsgroup
- send a message to the mozillachampions mailing list
- comment on my "Closing threads on secnews" blog post
- or just email me
PeEmm
> _PeEmm_ spoke thusly on 29/04/2006 5:21 PM:
>
>> Let me sneak in for a second, being a secnews *boycotter* for at least
>> a year or so, ever since Chris removed a post of mine, by which I
>> tried to question the hilarious idea of "closing threads" -- well,
>> that's it, sneaking out again.
>
>
> The whole point of stopping OT discussion is to improve the signal to
> noise ratio; so I removed complaints that were posted in the support
> newsgroups. Why didn't you use the designated venues?
> - post in the mozillachampions public newsgroup
> - send a message to the mozillachampions mailing list
> - comment on my "Closing threads on secnews" blog post
> - or just email me
The best place to discuss the change was the place where it was being
imposed. The "designated venues" were not part of the news server's
structure and I could not reach the intended subscribers by using either
of those.
A discussion about news group policies is not "noise". If it's
restricted to a couple of threads, it's easily ignored by those not
interested in it.
Free speech is a wonderful thing - not for the sake of upholding a
principle, but for what would potentially come out of it - not only in
public areas, but in private conversations as well.
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
> PeEmm wrote:
>
>> It should be my decision as a reader to decide if a thread turns
>> towards a dead end. I don't need Chris to decide this for me.
>>
> you've got my vote on that
>
Thank you - maybe I should file a bug about it... :-)
--
/P.M.
gwtc
hehehe, just let me know and I'll vote on it ;-)
--
How to Get a Life
Difficulty Level: Hard
Tip #6: Next time you wake up in the middle of the night to go to the
bathroom, don't tell everyone on your buddy list about it
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> The whole point of stopping OT discussion is to improve the signal to
>> noise ratio; so I removed complaints that were posted in the support
>> newsgroups. Why didn't you use the designated venues?
>> - post in the mozillachampions public newsgroup
>> - send a message to the mozillachampions mailing list
>> - comment on my "Closing threads on secnews" blog post
>> - or just email me
>
> The best place to discuss the change was the place where it was being
> imposed. The "designated venues" were not part of the news server's
> structure and I could not reach the intended subscribers by using either
> of those.
Oh, I thought you wanted to complain *to the Champions* (or at least me,
the person closing threads). The OT problem and thread closing policy
was on a handful of newsgroups, not just one; so posting a message in
just one of those groups is not reaching the entire subscriber base
(that is affected by it).
When you were in school, and you wanted to discuss something with the
whole class, did you try use class time to do it? I assume you'd have to
get that approved by the teacher first.
> A discussion about news group policies is not "noise". If it's
> restricted to a couple of threads, it's easily ignored by those not
> interested in it.
Any OT discussion restricted to a couple of threads, can easily be
ignored; so that's not what defines it as 'not noise'. Each newsgroup
has an intended purpose. If it is not being used for that purpose,
that's noise.
> Free speech is a wonderful thing - not for the sake of upholding a
> principle, but for what would potentially come out of it - not only in
> public areas, but in private conversations as well.
No-one had been denied free speech. If anyone had any opinion regarding
closing threads, they were able to voice those opinions. Heck, you were
even /given/ venues to voice your opinions.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> hehehe, just let me know and I'll vote on it ;-)
The problem as I see it is that [OT] discussion doesn't remain ON topic
for which the topic was flagged as [OT] in the first place. OT
discussions tend to wander off-course into areas of politics, human
rights, religion, etc. and then EVERYbody has to have a "say" regardless
of whether or not the OP was considered or not. The whole purpose of an
[OT] discussion, IMHO, is to veer just slightly away from the original
posted topic, keeping it short, but still remaining in the same context
so to speak. Chris didn't say it that way but I think that's what his
concern is centered around .. I think .. Chris?
When secnews was born and Champ Bill Horne came on board, he created the
flag [TID] = Thread Is Deteriorated or Thread Is Dead / whatever. TID
discussions were short, to the point and rarely erupted in mayhem.
Sometimes human nature occured and TID's perpetuated but were quickly ended.
PeEmm
> _PeEmm_ spoke thusly on 02/05/2006 4:56 PM:
>
>>
>> imposed. The "designated venues" were not part of the news server's
>> structure and I could not reach the intended subscribers by using
>> either of those.
>
>
> Oh, I thought you wanted to complain *to the Champions* (or at least me,
> the person closing threads). The OT problem and thread closing policy
> was on a handful of newsgroups, not just one; so posting a message in
> just one of those groups is not reaching the entire subscriber base
> (that is affected by it).
>
> When you were in school, and you wanted to discuss something with the
> whole class, did you try use class time to do it? I assume you'd have to
> get that approved by the teacher first.
>
Ah, the good old days in school. The thing is, most do not consider
themselves being the pupil and you being the teacher in regard to those
news groups.
>> A discussion about news group policies is not "noise". If it's
>> restricted to a couple of threads, it's easily ignored by those not
>> interested in it.
>
>
> Any OT discussion restricted to a couple of threads, can easily be
> ignored; so that's not what defines it as 'not noise'. Each newsgroup
> has an intended purpose. If it is not being used for that purpose,
> that's noise.
>
OK, it seems you and I have different perceptions here. I never
perceived that problem.
>> Free speech is a wonderful thing - not for the sake of upholding a
>> principle, but for what would potentially come out of it - not only in
>> public areas, but in private conversations as well.
>
>
> No-one had been denied free speech. If anyone had any opinion regarding
> closing threads, they were able to voice those opinions. Heck, you were
> even /given/ venues to voice your opinions.
I've already answered that.
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
> The problem as I see it is that [OT] discussion doesn't remain ON topic
> for which the topic was flagged as [OT] in the first place. OT
> discussions tend to wander off-course into areas of politics, human
> rights, religion, etc. and then EVERYbody has to have a "say" regardless
> of whether or not the OP was considered or not. The whole purpose of an
> [OT] discussion, IMHO, is to veer just slightly away from the original
> posted topic, keeping it short, but still remaining in the same context
> so to speak.
You are a true philosopher, Jay ;-)
> Chris didn't say it that way but I think that's what his
> concern is centered around .. I think .. Chris?
>
> When secnews was born and Champ Bill Horne came on board, he created the
> flag [TID] = Thread Is Deteriorated or Thread Is Dead / whatever. TID
> discussions were short, to the point and rarely erupted in mayhem.
> Sometimes human nature occured and TID's perpetuated but were quickly ended.
>
That's an excellent idea! If Chris simply renamed the threads to
"TID:[whatever]" instead of closing them and removing posts, everyone
would know that the particular thread was then being frowned upon, and
even if it's allowed to continue replying, the one actually doing it is
taking the chance to be frowned upon also.
Now, see what a perfect turn this OT thread is currently taking ^_+
If it had been on secnews, it would never have reached that turn,
because it would already have been closed down.
--
/P.M.
Chris Ilias
> That's an excellent idea! If Chris simply renamed the threads to
> "TID:[whatever]" instead of closing them and removing posts, everyone
> would know that the particular thread was then being frowned upon, and
> even if it's allowed to continue replying, the one actually doing it is
> taking the chance to be frowned upon also.
If only people were that respectful. :-(
> Now, see what a perfect turn this OT thread is currently taking ^_+
> If it had been on secnews, it would never have reached that turn,
> because it would already have been closed down.
Huh? This thread (since it was moved to mozilla.general) has never
changed topic of discussion: off-topic posting and how to treat it. If
it were on a secnews support newsgroup, it wouldn't have reached the
first post. :-) You seem to be satisfied with the content of this
thread, and I'm glad you are. It shows that you don't have to have such
discussion in the user support newsgroups, in order for you to be happy
with it.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> When you were in school, and you wanted to discuss something with the
>> whole class, did you try use class time to do it? I assume you'd have
>> to get that approved by the teacher first.
>>
> Ah, the good old days in school. The thing is, most do not consider
> themselves being the pupil and you being the teacher in regard to those
> news groups.
Geeze, it's an analogy. A news server isn't a school either, but it's
the respect for where you are and who is in charge, that is similar.
Netscape owns, maintains, and *pays for* the secnews server. Netscape
created those newsgroups for end-user support. Netscape dictates what is
and isn't appropriate content for those newsgroups. If you want to use
the newsgroups for something other than Netscape's intended purpose, you
should have enough respect to request approval by those in charge.
I should also add that the OT problem was discussed with users on
secnews, before the policy to close threads was conceived.
gwtc
> I should also add that the OT problem was discussed with users on
> secnews, before the policy to close threads was conceived.
Not in the newsgroups I was in!
--
How to Get a Life
Difficulty Level: Hard
Tip #8: If you see someone, say "Hi" to them instead of trying to make
the modem connect sound.
Matt Nordhoff
of it anymore.
On 05/05/06 03:56, Chris Ilias wrote:
> This thread (since it was moved to mozilla.general) has never
> changed topic of discussion: off-topic posting and how to treat it.
... :-P
The Real Bev
> Now, see what a perfect turn this OT thread is currently taking ^_+
> If it had been on secnews, it would never have reached that turn,
> because it would already have been closed down.
As an aside, I don't think anybody ever cared about what happened in
secnews/netscape.communicator.unix. People asked and answered questions
and also engaged in a certain amount -- perhaps even a preponderance --
of bullshitting, just like at real-life work. I don't think anybody
ever got angry, though...
Aarrgghh, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was all just a seething mass of
impotent rage beneath the friendly surface. How could I have been so
stupid?
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 10.2)
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the straps.
The Real Bev
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> I should also add that the OT problem was discussed with users on
>> secnews, before the policy to close threads was conceived.
>
> Not in the newsgroups I was in!
Me too, er, neither.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> PeEmm wrote:
>
>> Now, see what a perfect turn this OT thread is currently taking ^_+
>> If it had been on secnews, it would never have reached that turn,
>> because it would already have been closed down.
>
> As an aside, I don't think anybody ever cared about what happened in
> secnews/netscape.communicator.unix. People asked and answered questions
> and also engaged in a certain amount -- perhaps even a preponderance --
> of bullshitting, just like at real-life work. I don't think anybody
> ever got angry, though...
>
> Aarrgghh, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was all just a seething mass of
> impotent rage beneath the friendly surface. How could I have been so
> stupid?
I think a few of us abused that group for quite a while :-) I know I
learned an awful lot there that had absolutely nothing to do with
Netscape/Mozilla. But much to do with linux.
Rinaldi
--
Alone, adj.:
In bad company.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> I should also add that the OT problem was discussed with users on
>> secnews, before the policy to close threads was conceived.
> Not in the newsgroups I was in!
Were you using a different name then?
Rinaldi
--
A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is
not worth knowing.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> Wow! This thread is so long that the the tree is so wide I can't see all
> of it anymore.
>
> On 05/05/06 03:56, Chris Ilias wrote:
>> This thread (since it was moved to mozilla.general) has never
>> changed topic of discussion: off-topic posting and how to treat it.
>
> ... :-P
It's a test to see if the line count turns into a pumpkin at about the
1000 character point in references. NS 4.xx used to do that.
Rinaldi
--
Fuch's Warning:
If you actually look like your passport photo, you aren't well
enough to travel.
gwtc
> gwtc wrote:
>
>>Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I should also add that the OT problem was discussed with users on
>>>secnews, before the policy to close threads was conceived.
>>
>>Not in the newsgroups I was in!
>
>
> Were you using a different name then?
>
> Rinaldi
I've been in the newsgroups since the Moz 1.2.1 days, and yes, I have
been under several different names. The groups I was in were general,
win32, and Net 7. Then in the last couple of years FF and TB. I
never saw anything posted about the off topic problem. It just
happened. All of a sudden I just started seeing these Thread Close
[or was it Close Thread] messages. And that irked me at the time, and
it still does.
Chris Ilias
> As an aside, I don't think anybody ever cared about what happened in
> secnews/netscape.communicator.unix.
I asked if the other champs wanted me to look after the unix groups, and
the result I got was a unanimous "don't bother."
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> _The Real Bev_ spoke thusly on 05/05/2006 1:54 PM:
>> As an aside, I don't think anybody ever cared about what happened in
>> secnews/netscape.communicator.unix.
>
> I asked if the other champs wanted me to look after the unix groups, and
> the result I got was a unanimous "don't bother."
They know we're incorrigible ;-)
Rinaldi
--
He was a fiddler, and consequently a rogue.
-- Jonathon Swift
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> I should also add that the OT problem was discussed with users on
>> secnews, before the policy to close threads was conceived.
> Not in the newsgroups I was in!
The OP of that thread was...
Newsgroup: netscape.mozilla.firefox
Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 13:17:55 -0400
Subject: Doesn't anyone on this newsgroup have a delete key on their
keyboard?
From: Grant Baxter
Perhaps you forgot about it, in the same way you forgot about every
instance of me telling other Champs to take OT discussion here. ;-)
Matt Nordhoff
> It's a test to see if the line count turns into a pumpkin at about the
> 1000 character point in references. NS 4.xx used to do that.
Ooh, I didn't think of the awful amount of References. We need to keep
this thread going and see what explodes. :-)
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> PeEmm wrote:
>>
>>> Now, see what a perfect turn this OT thread is currently taking ^_+
>>> If it had been on secnews, it would never have reached that turn,
>>> because it would already have been closed down.
>>
>> As an aside, I don't think anybody ever cared about what happened in
>> secnews/netscape.communicator.unix. People asked and answered questions
>> and also engaged in a certain amount -- perhaps even a preponderance --
>> of bullshitting, just like at real-life work. I don't think anybody
>> ever got angry, though...
>>
>> Aarrgghh, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was all just a seething mass of
>> impotent rage beneath the friendly surface. How could I have been so
>> stupid?
>
> I think a few of us abused that group for quite a while :-)
It ain't abuse until somebody screams.
> I know I
> learned an awful lot there that had absolutely nothing to do with
> Netscape/Mozilla. But much to do with linux.
I believe you taught more than you learned.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 10.2)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do.
They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy,
they'd have indoor plumbing by now." -- Ann Coulter
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> PeEmm wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, see what a perfect turn this OT thread is currently taking ^_+
>>>> If it had been on secnews, it would never have reached that turn,
>>>> because it would already have been closed down.
>>>
>>> As an aside, I don't think anybody ever cared about what happened in
>>> secnews/netscape.communicator.unix. People asked and answered questions
>>> and also engaged in a certain amount -- perhaps even a preponderance --
>>> of bullshitting, just like at real-life work. I don't think anybody
>>> ever got angry, though...
>>>
>>> Aarrgghh, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was all just a seething mass of
>>> impotent rage beneath the friendly surface. How could I have been so
>>> stupid?
>>
>> I think a few of us abused that group for quite a while :-)
>
> It ain't abuse until somebody screams.
>
>> I know I
>> learned an awful lot there that had absolutely nothing to do with
>> Netscape/Mozilla. But much to do with linux.
>
> I believe you taught more than you learned.
Hardly. Chuck Simmons and TenThumbs took turns being Master Po to my
Grasshopper.
The unwritten rule is you have to give back.
Rinaldi
--
Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out
twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages.
-- H. L. Mencken
PeEmm
> _PeEmm_ spoke thusly on 04/05/2006 7:29 AM:
>
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> When you were in school, and you wanted to discuss something with the
>>> whole class, did you try use class time to do it? I assume you'd have
>>> to get that approved by the teacher first.
>>>
>> Ah, the good old days in school. The thing is, most do not consider
>> themselves being the pupil and you being the teacher in regard to
>> those news groups.
>
>
> Geeze, it's an analogy. A news server isn't a school either, but it's
> the respect for where you are and who is in charge, that is similar.
Aha... I think I just learned something. Just like in school.
> Netscape owns, maintains, and *pays for* the secnews server. Netscape
> created those newsgroups for end-user support. Netscape dictates what is
> and isn't appropriate content for those newsgroups. If you want to use
> the newsgroups for something other than Netscape's intended purpose, you
> should have enough respect to request approval by those in charge.
>
I've never ever had any problems whatsoever with Netscape.
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
> _PeEmm_ spoke thusly on 04/05/2006 7:44 AM:
>> If it had been on secnews, it would never have reached that turn,
>> because it would already have been closed down.
>
>
> Huh? This thread (since it was moved to mozilla.general) has never
> changed topic of discussion: off-topic posting and how to treat it. If
> it were on a secnews support newsgroup, it wouldn't have reached the
> first post. :-) You seem to be satisfied with the content of this
> thread, and I'm glad you are. It shows that you don't have to have such
> discussion in the user support newsgroups, in order for you to be happy
> with it.
I'm just trying to help out. If you think I'm here in order to make
myself happy, I guess you've missed my point entirely. As I see it, I
take a *chance* when participating in a thread leading nowhere like this
one. Other posters might think I must be a *nut* trying to convince a
mozilla champion.
--
/P.M.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> Netscape owns, maintains, and *pays for* the secnews server. Netscape
>> created those newsgroups for end-user support. Netscape dictates what
>> is and isn't appropriate content for those newsgroups. If you want to
>> use the newsgroups for something other than Netscape's intended
>> purpose, you should have enough respect to request approval by those
>> in charge.
>
> I've never ever had any problems whatsoever with Netscape.
That's completely beside the point.
Chris Ilias
> I'm just trying to help out. If you think I'm here in order to make
> myself happy, I guess you've missed my point entirely. As I see it, I
> take a *chance* when participating in a thread leading nowhere like this
> one. Other posters might think I must be a *nut* trying to convince a
> mozilla champion.
Take a chance on what?
If you don't think the percentage of OT discussion in the secnews
support groups was too high, then yes, trying to convince *me* (not the
Champs in general) is a lost cause.
If you don't agree with how the OT discussion was dealt with, then I'm
completely willing to consider what you have to say.
You were adamant about having such a discussion in secnews support
groups, and according to you, this thread (which is on a completely
separate server, and not in a user support newsgroup) has been productive.
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> PeEmm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now, see what a perfect turn this OT thread is currently taking ^_+
>>>>> If it had been on secnews, it would never have reached that turn,
>>>>> because it would already have been closed down.
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, I don't think anybody ever cared about what happened in
>>>> secnews/netscape.communicator.unix. People asked and answered questions
>>>> and also engaged in a certain amount -- perhaps even a preponderance --
>>>> of bullshitting, just like at real-life work. I don't think anybody
>>>> ever got angry, though...
>>>>
>>>> Aarrgghh, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it was all just a seething mass of
>>>> impotent rage beneath the friendly surface. How could I have been so
>>>> stupid?
>>>
>>> I think a few of us abused that group for quite a while :-)
>>
>> It ain't abuse until somebody screams.
>>
>>> I know I
>>> learned an awful lot there that had absolutely nothing to do with
>>> Netscape/Mozilla. But much to do with linux.
>>
>> I believe you taught more than you learned.
>
> Hardly. Chuck Simmons and TenThumbs took turns being Master Po to my
> Grasshopper.
Did they assume new identities or just dry up and blow away?
> The unwritten rule is you have to give back.
AARRGGHH. You wrote it. Now we're all doomed.
A thing I noticed when I read other groups without resident Official
Experts -- the beginner questions were generally answered by people who
had maybe 2 months more experience than the beginners. I think this
says something good about humans.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 10.2)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Friends help you move. *Real* friends help you move bodies."
--A. Walker
PeEmm
> _PeEmm_ spoke thusly on 06/05/2006 4:43 AM:
>
>> I'm just trying to help out. If you think I'm here in order to make
>> myself happy, I guess you've missed my point entirely. As I see it, I
>> take a *chance* when participating in a thread leading nowhere like
>> this one. Other posters might think I must be a *nut* trying to
>> convince a mozilla champion.
>
>
> Take a chance on what?
> If you don't think the percentage of OT discussion in the secnews
> support groups was too high, then yes, trying to convince *me* (not the
> Champs in general) is a lost cause.
I didn't think the OT discussion was annoying.
> If you don't agree with how the OT discussion was dealt with, then I'm
> completely willing to consider what you have to say.
I also didn't agree with how it was dealt with.
>
> You were adamant about having such a discussion in secnews support
> groups, and according to you, this thread (which is on a completely
> separate server, and not in a user support newsgroup) has been productive.
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
> _PeEmm_ spoke thusly on 06/05/2006 4:32 AM:
>
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> Netscape owns, maintains, and *pays for* the secnews server. Netscape
>>> created those newsgroups for end-user support. Netscape dictates what
>>> is and isn't appropriate content for those newsgroups. If you want to
>>> use the newsgroups for something other than Netscape's intended
>>> purpose, you should have enough respect to request approval by those
>>> in charge.
>>
>>
>> I've never ever had any problems whatsoever with Netscape.
>
>
> That's completely beside the point.
So why do you bring it up, then?
Netscape doesn't close threads, not even Netscape Champions do AFAIK.
But *you* do it, and you are not a Netscape, but a *Mozilla* Champion.
I understand that the task of sort-of policing the secnews server has
been trickling down the hierarchy to land on your shoulders, and that
you thereby have the formal right to do what you are doing. Even so, to
go from there to hide behind what "Netscape dictates" is completely out
of order. You may be a "designated representative" of Netscape, but the
"determination" of what should be labelled as "argumentative material
outside of reasonable use of the groups" (quoting the guidelines) is
still *your* determinations. In sum, I don't dispute your right to act
as a representative of Netscape, I question your attempt to imply that
your decisions on which threads to close or which posts to remove,
depend on a Netscape dictate. They do not. Netscape is first and
foremost concerned about spam, advertising, solicitation, profanity and
pornography and the like.
I just can't believe that Netscape would mind that a few posters are
being carried away some times to make posts about weather conditions or
even posting pictures of themselves...
Well, by now I think I've made my point, and since I don't wish to be
too much associated with this lost news group policy discussion, I'll
try to refrain from making any more comments.
--
/P.M.
gwtc
Thats right. I remember that Chris even posted a pic of him and some
baby.
> Well, by now I think I've made my point, and since I don't wish to be
> too much associated with this lost news group policy discussion, I'll
> try to refrain from making any more comments.
>
As for the secnews, Chris is no longer there, so there's no longer any
closed threads. As a matter of fact, most of the so-called champs are
not there any more. The only ones still there are Jay and Dan, and
thats it. I wonder what would happen if a thread there did go OT. I
don't think Dan will close it, cause he'd be the first to go OT. I
guess Jay will close it then.
--
How to Get a Life
Difficulty Level: Hard
Tip #11: Have ".com" officially removed from behind your name.
and Tip #12: Go on a date with someone you didn't meet in a chat room.
The End of How to Get a Life Tips.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>> Hardly. Chuck Simmons and TenThumbs took turns being Master Po to my
>> Grasshopper.
>
> Did they assume new identities or just dry up and blow away?
>
Chuck passed last year. TenThumbs, I dunno, maybe just on extended vacation.
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
PeEmm
> PeEmm wrote:
>>
>> I just can't believe that Netscape would mind that a few posters are
>> being carried away some times to make posts about weather conditions
>> or even posting pictures of themselves...
>>
>
> Thats right. I remember that Chris even posted a pic of him and some baby.
>
I think it was his nephew 8-)
>> Well, by now I think I've made my point, and since I don't wish to be
>> too much associated with this lost news group policy discussion, I'll
>> try to refrain from making any more comments.
>>
>
> As for the secnews, Chris is no longer there, so there's no longer any
> closed threads. As a matter of fact, most of the so-called champs are
> not there any more. The only ones still there are Jay and Dan, and
> thats it. I wonder what would happen if a thread there did go OT. I
> don't think Dan will close it, cause he'd be the first to go OT. I guess
> Jay will close it then.
>
Wohoo! Time to go secnews! And I don't think Jay is the closing kind :-\
--
/P.M.