Re: OT: Re: Autoconnect a dial-up connection
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> *-* On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:21:02 -0700,
> *-* In Article bdadnSjV_89l5RPb...@mozilla.org,
> *-* Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote
> *-* About Re: OT: Re: Autoconnect a dial-up connection
>
>> squaredancer wrote:
>>> On 06.07.2007 08:03, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Vic
>>> Garcia togenerate the following:? :
>>>> Yuk, tea is for soft Britt's, we are in America.
>>>> And the thing does not make espresso coffee either ......
>
>>>> Nah, the old lady beats that, and from time to time she surprise
>>>> me with a special wake-up call, a LOT better.
>>> espresso is NOT - repeat NOT - repeat *NOT,NOT,NOT* coffee!
>
>>> reg
>
>> and its NOT American
>
> Funny, I'm not seeing Reg's post to this thread. Could it have
> been removed from the server between the time you replied to it and
> the time I came along to read today's posts?
>
> Ken Whiton
>
> FIDO: 1:132/152
> InterNet: kenw...@surfglobal.net.INVAL (remove the obvious to reply)
yes, someone, nay one of the many mozilla.org SpamMooses,
censored it. You can read his post in my last post.
These so-called SpamMooses have a thing with reg. They seem
to do a lot of deleting his messages.
FU set to mo.gen
--
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
one. Thanks!
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
David McRitchie
> censored it. You can read his post in my last post.
>
> These so-called SpamMooses have a thing with reg. They seem
> to do a lot of deleting his messages.
Why is everything a conspiracy. I would suggest that such things
as faulty servers, forwarding to another newsgroup, posting with TB
or a web newsreader (especially when the first post is to Google Groups
instead of mozilla), renaming subject are a much more likely
causes of glitches (not sure fire failures), and in other threads had
EE been involved use of no-archive.
This kind of stuff is really going to really confuse things "Re: OT: Re:"
three reply prefixes. it won't sort properly on subject but shouldn't affect threading.
and that by the way was your doing, and actually looks more like something to check
out as a possible cause than your conspiracy theories..
The entire post is archived:
http://google.com/groups?threadm=S-ydnTMBerFjqBLbnZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d%40mozilla.org
Reg's is missing on server:
news://news.mozilla.org/oL6dnWkFD6jv3BPb...@mozilla.org
your earlier posting is on server, but I don't see it in newsreader
news://news.mozilla.org/GoidnU5ObbpiyRDb...@mozilla.org
in fact the only posting I actually see as still in my newsreader (OE) in
this thread is your last post,
news://news.mozilla.org/S-ydnTMBerFjqBLb...@mozilla.org
--
David McRitchie, Firefox Customizations in pictures
http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/pictures.htm
Chris Ilias
> "Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo"
>> yes, someone, nay one of the many mozilla.org SpamMooses,
>> censored it. You can read his post in my last post.
>>
>> These so-called SpamMooses have a thing with reg. They seem
>> to do a lot of deleting his messages.
>
> Why is everything a conspiracy. I would suggest that such things
> as faulty servers, forwarding to another newsgroup, posting with TB
> or a web newsreader (especially when the first post is to Google Groups
> instead of mozilla), renaming subject are a much more likely
> causes of glitches (not sure fire failures), and in other threads had
> EE been involved use of no-archive.
Reg is just the only one in that thread, who has posted enough OT
messages to receive a second notification, under the cancellation policy
[1]; so his posts are the only ones I'm allowed to remove from that
thread. :-)
[1]<http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia
Terry R.
out on the keyboard
And probably why so many who used to help here have left. Sad that
mozilla.org is the only server "I" subscribe to that feels the need to
remove people and in effect lose the "community" feel. Obviously the
powers that be don't care about that. It's kind of ignorant to think
that those who communicate in groups for many months don't become
"friends" in some way, and happen to carry on conversations as such.
All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q to
set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would be
the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Chris Ilias
> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q to
> set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would be
> the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Why is everything a conspiracy. I would suggest that such things
> as faulty servers, forwarding to another newsgroup, posting with TB
> or a web newsreader (especially when the first post is to Google Groups
> instead of mozilla), renaming subject are a much more likely
> causes of glitches (not sure fire failures), and in other threads had
> EE been involved use of no-archive.
none of what you said has any bearing on whats going on.
How you manage to put the blame onto google I have no idea.
Its not a google problem. Its those who are acting as
server police are doing the removing. I never said the
postings were being removed from google -- only from the server.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
thats true
> Sad that
> mozilla.org is the only server "I" subscribe to that feels the need to
> remove people and in effect lose the "community" feel.
on some servers I use, they are removing the spammers, and I
don't mean the OT Spammer.
> Obviously the
> powers that be don't care about that. It's kind of ignorant to think
> that those who communicate in groups for many months don't become
> "friends" in some way, and happen to carry on conversations as such.
Since I started here in late November 2006, I have seen many
posts removed -- mostly from the TB and FF newsgroups.
Luckily, this doesn't happen in the SM groups; eventhough,
the SM group owner [Robert K] has given Chris I permission
to act as the chief of police there.
Terry R.
> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q to
>> set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would be
>> the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>
> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather than
just deleting the posts.
Terry R.
> In <news:AtCdnTl9FqHuMxLb...@mozilla.org>,
> "Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>> to set the follow up on OT.
>
> It's up to the poster to set Followup-To. No one else can modify the
> post.
>
??? Anyone can set a follow-up. Are you saying you three can't? I don't
think so.
Nir
> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>> to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would
>>> be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>
>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>
> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather than
> just deleting the posts.
>
We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Depending on the NNTP software being used, a thread - partial or whole -
can be "moved" from one group to another. Or even the topic can be split
between groups w/o a f'up being set. Admin privs I would imagine which
leaves you out I guess. No-win either way.
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Terry R.
> In <news:yY2dnf4oZs5Cqg3b...@mozilla.org>,
> "Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/7/2007 9:54 AM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> In <news:AtCdnTl9FqHuMxLb...@mozilla.org>,
>>> "Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>> to set the follow up on OT.
>>> It's up to the poster to set Followup-To. No one else can modify the
>>> post.
>> ??? Anyone can set a follow-up. Are you saying you three can't? I
>> don't think so.
>
> Anyone can set Followup-To for /his own posts/.
>
WHAT! People set fu's in other groups to here all the time! You guys
are just playing dumb here.
Nir
> On 7/7/2007 6:18 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> In <news:yY2dnf4oZs5Cqg3b...@mozilla.org>, "Terry R."
>> <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/7/2007 9:54 AM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> In <news:AtCdnTl9FqHuMxLb...@mozilla.org>, "Terry
>>>> R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris,
>>>>> Nir, or Q to set the follow up on OT.
>>>> It's up to the poster to set Followup-To. No one else can
>>>> modify the post.
>>> ??? Anyone can set a follow-up. Are you saying you three can't?
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> Anyone can set Followup-To for /his own posts/.
>>
>
> WHAT! People set fu's in other groups to here all the time!
Terry , Q actually want to say that once a message get posted , we can't
modify header or body of that message in server. So "Anyone can set
Followup-To for /his own posts/"
So how exactly you want us "to set the follow up on OT" ?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> WHAT! People set fu's in other groups to here all the time! You guys
> are just playing dumb here.
What he's trying to tell you is that once a post is set it can't be
changed to set a f'up. The f'up is set when the message is being
composed and the group address(es) are entered to set the f'up. Once
it's posted, too late.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
sure you can. Its called hitting the Reply button, typing
in OT and setting up the "Follow-up To"
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
click on the Reply button!!!! Its so simple, I don't know
why you so-called police moderators can't get it.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> click on the Reply button!!!! Its so simple, I don't know
> why you so-called police moderators can't get it.
Ok, he clicks on the reply button, now what? He enters a reply that is
set to f'up. Ok, then what? Someone MUST reply to THAT post in order for
the f'up to work. What if they don't but rather replies to the last OT
before the f'up reply is set?
I think you guys are missing the point here. You cannot set a f'up to a
post that's already entered unless you have a bona fide reply in the OT
thread and then set the f'up.
Terry R.
out on the keyboard
> Nir wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>>> to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would
>>>>> be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>>> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather than
>>> just deleting the posts.
>>>
>> We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
>>
>
> sure you can. Its called hitting the Reply button, typing
> in OT and setting up the "Follow-up To"
>
They're making it appear we're suggesting something they can't do...
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Nir wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>>> to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would
>>>>> be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>>> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather than
>>> just deleting the posts.
>>>
>>
>> We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
>>
>
> sure you can. Its called hitting the Reply button, typing
> in OT and setting up the "Follow-up To"
>
That will only set the f'up for subsequent replies to THAT reply/post.
Terry R.
Just like I did in "Re: Junk Mail Folder Sucks-in Good Mail TO NIR CHRIS
& Q"
And they everyone else does it.
Terry R.
> On 08.07.2007 10:19, Terry R. wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> WHAT! People set fu's in other groups to here all the time! You guys
>> are just playing dumb here.
>
> What he's trying to tell you is that once a post is set it can't be
> changed to set a f'up. The f'up is set when the message is being
> composed and the group address(es) are entered to set the f'up. Once
> it's posted, too late.
>
But they're making this something it isn't. ALL I suggested was that
rather than canceling someones post in another group, was to reply to
it, set the F.U. to moz.general, and let it go. There's no need to be
deleting posts like they've been doing. There's a difference between
policing (deleting) and moderating (setting a F.U.).
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 7/8/2007 10:03 AM On a whim, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo pounded
> out on the keyboard
>
>> Nir wrote:
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>>>> to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would
>>>>>> be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>>>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>>>> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather than
>>>> just deleting the posts.
>>>>
>>> We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
>>>
>>
>> sure you can. Its called hitting the Reply button, typing
>> in OT and setting up the "Follow-up To"
>>
>
> They're making it appear we're suggesting something they can't do...
>
We're (I guess) talking about posts that have already been posted, not
new replies where, yes, you CAN set a f'up. When that's done, the rest
of the previous thread does not automagically follow, only new replies
to the f'uped reply.
You're looking for a solution/alternative to cancelling an entire thread
aren't you? Setting a f'up in a reply is not the answer as it will not
move the entire previously posted thread prior to the f'up reply.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> But they're making this something it isn't. ALL I suggested was that
> rather than canceling someones post in another group, was to reply to
> it, set the F.U. to moz.general, and let it go. There's no need to be
> deleting posts like they've been doing. There's a difference between
> policing (deleting) and moderating (setting a F.U.).
Yes, that I agree with but the next poster in the thread that continues
the OT is the one that should set the f'up, not the moderator(s) unless
of course a moderator is the one that's continuing the OT thread. 8-)
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
exactly!!!!
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Yes, that I agree with but the next poster in the thread that continues
> the OT is the one that should set the f'up
agreed, but some of us are old. We tend to forget the
simple things.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 08.07.2007 12:03, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Nir wrote:
>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>>>>> to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would
>>>>>>> be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>>>>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>>>>> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather than
>>>>> just deleting the posts.
>>>>>
>>>> We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
>>>>
>>> sure you can. Its called hitting the Reply button, typing
>>> in OT and setting up the "Follow-up To"
>>>
>>
>> That will only set the f'up for subsequent replies to THAT reply/post.
>>
>
> exactly!!!!
>
Ok, so how is this going to provide an alternative to cancelling the
thread prior to setting of the f'up? In order for this to work, the very
first OT has to have the f'up set and you and I BOTH know the odds of
that happening!! ;-)
Irwin Greenwald
> Nir wrote:
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or
>>>>> Q to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that
>>>>> would be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>>> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather
>>> than just deleting the posts.
>>>
>>
>> We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
>>
>
> sure you can. Its called hitting the Reply button, typing in OT and
> setting up the "Follow-up To"
>
one. Responses to the latter will remain in the current newsgroup.
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Irwin Greenwald
> On 7/7/2007 6:18 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> In <news:yY2dnf4oZs5Cqg3b...@mozilla.org>,
>> "Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/7/2007 9:54 AM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> In <news:AtCdnTl9FqHuMxLb...@mozilla.org>,
>>>> "Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>>> to set the follow up on OT.
>>>> It's up to the poster to set Followup-To. No one else can modify the
>>>> post.
>>> ??? Anyone can set a follow-up. Are you saying you three can't? I
>>> don't think so.
>>
>> Anyone can set Followup-To for /his own posts/.
>>
>
> WHAT! People set fu's in other groups to here all the time! You guys
> are just playing dumb here.
>
entering right now. I CAN NOT set a follow-up to YOUR message.
Chris Ilias
> But they're making this something it isn't. ALL I suggested was that
> rather than canceling someones post in another group, was to reply to
> it, set the F.U. to moz.general, and let it go.
You said nothing about posting a reply.
"All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q to
set the follow up on OT."
> There's no need to be
> deleting posts like they've been doing. There's a difference between
> policing (deleting) and moderating (setting a F.U.).
Before the cancellation policy went into effect, I would reply to OT
threads, telling people to take discussion to mozilla.general, and set
the follow-up to mozilla.general. In most cases, my reply was ignored.
In almost all cases, a person wanting to take part in the OT discussion
would reply to the OT post, before seeing mine.
Besides, the current cancellation policy involves warnings and
notifications, not just message removal.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia
Ken Whiton
*-* In Article SJCdnevx_-2TPhLb...@mozilla.org,
*-* Chris Ilias wrote
*-* About Re: OT: Re: Autoconnect a dial-up connection
[ ... ]
> Reg is just the only one in that thread, who has posted enough OT
> messages to receive a second notification, under the cancellation
> policy [1]; so his posts are the only ones I'm allowed to remove
> from that thread. :-)
> [1]<http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>
Thanks for posting that link. That and the etiquette page it
links to gave me the background to better understand some of the
issues involved both in this situation and in episodes like the
mkbrown32 affair last month.
Christopher Jahn
news:74-dnQl2broE0Qzb...@mozilla.org:
> You said nothing about posting a reply.
> "All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris,
> Nir, or Q to set the follow up on OT."
It's clear to me that he meant that when you posted your reply to
the thread, you could take that opportunity to set the follow-up.
And he's absolutely right.
It's very disappointing that so many posts are being deleted,
something that was once almost unheard of.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
The problem with troubleshooting is that real trouble shoots
back.
Terry R.
Nope. Not a thread. Just when it goes OT, rather than canceling
someone's post, just set the F.U. to general. That's what I understand
they want, and sometimes everyone forgets. They should just do that
rather than cancel someone's post. If they're the "moderators", then if
someone doesn't set the F.U. at the proper time, they can, rather than
just wiping out somebody.
Terry R.
If they've canceled entire threads, I'm unaware of it. I've just heard
that individual posts were canceled, rather than setting a F.U.
Terry R.
> On 7/8/2007 10:03 AM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> Nir wrote:
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or
>>>>>> Q to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that
>>>>>> would be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>>>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>>>> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather
>>>> than just deleting the posts.
>>>>
>>> We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
>>>
>> sure you can. Its called hitting the Reply button, typing in OT and
>> setting up the "Follow-up To"
>>
> That will set the follow-up to *your* message, not the objectionable
> one. Responses to the latter will remain in the current newsgroup.
>
Objectionable has been OT material...
Terry R.
> On 7/8/07 1:15 PM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>> But they're making this something it isn't. ALL I suggested was that
>> rather than canceling someones post in another group, was to reply to
>> it, set the F.U. to moz.general, and let it go.
>
> You said nothing about posting a reply.
> "All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q to
> set the follow up on OT."
So how do you set a F.U.? The ONLY way I know of is to Reply.
>
>> There's no need to be
>> deleting posts like they've been doing. There's a difference between
>> policing (deleting) and moderating (setting a F.U.).
>
> Before the cancellation policy went into effect, I would reply to OT
> threads, telling people to take discussion to mozilla.general, and set
> the follow-up to mozilla.general. In most cases, my reply was ignored.
> In almost all cases, a person wanting to take part in the OT discussion
> would reply to the OT post, before seeing mine.
>
> Besides, the current cancellation policy involves warnings and
> notifications, not just message removal.
Then continue with the F.U. posts until everyone sees it. We're not
idiots. Once someone sees it should be sent to general, everyone will
follow the leader.
Terry R.
> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
> news:74-dnQl2broE0Qzb...@mozilla.org:
>
>> You said nothing about posting a reply.
>> "All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris,
>> Nir, or Q to set the follow up on OT."
>
> It's clear to me that he meant that when you posted your reply to
> the thread, you could take that opportunity to set the follow-up.
> And he's absolutely right.
>
> It's very disappointing that so many posts are being deleted,
> something that was once almost unheard of.
>
Yes, exactly. I didn't think I was saying it in a way no one could
understand.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Not quite on the same page but getting there. You cannot set a f'up to
an already posted post, that's a given. But, if a moderator/whatever
replies to the last OT post in the thread for the purpose of setting the
f'up that also will not work UNLESS the subsequent OT replies reply to
THAT post. Likely? IMHO, no.
The ONLY way to set a f'up is for the OP that starts the OT to set the
f'up thereby maintaining continuity in the f'uped group. If you have,
let's say 6 OT posted replies with no f'up set and the 7th posted OT
sets the f'up. Then what happens to OT 1 thru 6, they're left behind.
The f'up MUST be set in OT #1 or very very early thereafter. Cancelling
posts 1 thru 6 doesn't make any sense either even IF the f'up is set in
post #7.
Terry R.
> On 7/8/2007 8:19 AM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 7/7/2007 6:18 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> In <news:yY2dnf4oZs5Cqg3b...@mozilla.org>,
>>> "Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/7/2007 9:54 AM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> In <news:AtCdnTl9FqHuMxLb...@mozilla.org>,
>>>>> "Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>>>> to set the follow up on OT.
>>>>> It's up to the poster to set Followup-To. No one else can modify the
>>>>> post.
>>>> ??? Anyone can set a follow-up. Are you saying you three can't? I
>>>> don't think so.
>>> Anyone can set Followup-To for /his own posts/.
>>>
>> WHAT! People set fu's in other groups to here all the time! You guys
>> are just playing dumb here.
>>
> You are not listening. I can set a follow up to the message I am
> entering right now. I CAN NOT set a follow-up to YOUR message.
>
Excuse me. I'm listening and I understand completely. OBVIOUSLY that
is what I meant! I don't need the BIG 3 to play dumb and say "No one
else can modify the post". They know exactly what I mean.
YOU CAN set a follow up to my post. BY REPLYING AND SETTING THE F.U.
That's what "follow up" means.
Chris Ilias
> On 7/8/2007 1:44 PM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> "All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>> to set the follow up on OT."
>
> So how do you set a F.U.? The ONLY way I know of is to Reply.
Which is what Nir, Q, and myself were correcting you on. :-)
>> Before the cancellation policy went into effect, I would reply to OT
>> threads, telling people to take discussion to mozilla.general, and set
>> the follow-up to mozilla.general. In most cases, my reply was ignored.
>> In almost all cases, a person wanting to take part in the OT
>> discussion would reply to the OT post, before seeing mine.
>>
>> Besides, the current cancellation policy involves warnings and
>> notifications, not just message removal.
>
> Then continue with the F.U. posts until everyone sees it. We're not
> idiots. Once someone sees it should be sent to general, everyone will
> follow the leader.
As I said, in most cases, my post was ignored. I did that for 14 months;
and the same handful of people kept posting OT messages. You're not
idiots. You knew OT discussion belonged in mozilla.general.
Remember that message removal doesn't happen unless the poster keeps
ignoring warnings. You're making this seem like message removal is the
first action. If it was, all the OT posts in that thread would be
removed, not just Reg's.
Terry R.
I fully understand. I just said it's better to set a F.U. than cancel a
post for being OT, that's all.
Terry R.
> On 7/8/07 9:15 PM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>> On 7/8/2007 1:44 PM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> You said nothing about posting a reply.
>>> "All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>> to set the follow up on OT."
>> So how do you set a F.U.? The ONLY way I know of is to Reply.
>
> Which is what Nir, Q, and myself were correcting you on. :-)
Correction wasn't needed.
>
>>> Before the cancellation policy went into effect, I would reply to OT
>>> threads, telling people to take discussion to mozilla.general, and set
>>> the follow-up to mozilla.general. In most cases, my reply was ignored.
>>> In almost all cases, a person wanting to take part in the OT
>>> discussion would reply to the OT post, before seeing mine.
>>>
>>> Besides, the current cancellation policy involves warnings and
>>> notifications, not just message removal.
>> Then continue with the F.U. posts until everyone sees it. We're not
>> idiots. Once someone sees it should be sent to general, everyone will
>> follow the leader.
>
> As I said, in most cases, my post was ignored. I did that for 14 months;
> and the same handful of people kept posting OT messages. You're not
> idiots. You knew OT discussion belonged in mozilla.general.
>
> Remember that message removal doesn't happen unless the poster keeps
> ignoring warnings. You're making this seem like message removal is the
> first action. If it was, all the OT posts in that thread would be
> removed, not just Reg's.
And now almost all of them are gone. And I saw a lot of F.U.'s set, but
I guess it wasn't enough.
I just think the whole message removal thing is a bit extreme for the
reasons they're being deleted.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
We're on the same page ... ;-)
Chris Ilias
> On 7/8/2007 6:37 PM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>> On 7/8/07 9:15 PM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>
>> Which is what Nir, Q, and myself were correcting you on. :-)
>
> Correction wasn't needed.
When three different people misinterpret your post in the same way,
correction is needed.
>> As I said, in most cases, my post was ignored. I did that for 14
>> months; and the same handful of people kept posting OT messages.
>> You're not idiots. You knew OT discussion belonged in mozilla.general.
>>
>> Remember that message removal doesn't happen unless the poster keeps
>> ignoring warnings. You're making this seem like message removal is the
>> first action. If it was, all the OT posts in that thread would be
>> removed, not just Reg's.
>
> And now almost all of them are gone.
You don't even know which posters have received warnings; and now you're
telling me how many of them have left?
Of the people that have been warned, a large majority (7 of 8) continue
to post, and have greatly improved their amount of OT posts. Heck, our
records indicate, that you haven't posted one OT message in the past
month. :-)
As I look at the list of messages in the past month, that have been
marked as OT (by the OT monitoring team), most of the OT posters are
only have 1-3 OT messages to their name. So, things are fine right now.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
the thing that gets me is when they cancelled regs posting,
I had replied, and his message WAS included in my post. So,
whats the use of cancelling his post in the first place.
Everyone can still see his message. That just doesn't make
sense to me.
Then again, if anyone really wants to see what was said,
they can go to googlegroups and look it up.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> If they've canceled entire threads, I'm unaware of it. I've just heard
> that individual posts were canceled, rather than setting a F.U.
no, entire theads _have_ been cancelled. Hint: Garth and
mkbrown32. Thats entire threads on the Moz Server. If you
googlegroups them, I'm sure they're still there.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> As I said, in most cases, my post was ignored. I did that for 14 months;
> and the same handful of people kept posting OT messages.
I think the problem was you irritated people with your
constant nagging. You were constantly telling people to
take it to mo.gen or to private email. Thats why it didn't
work. Perhaps a short message stating that the thread is OT
and you're putting a "followup to" mo.gen would have been
better. I think this would have been better than you
telling people to take to mo.gen.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> And now almost all of them are gone. And I saw a lot of F.U.'s set, but
> I guess it wasn't enough.
are you talking about the person is gone, or the messages
are gone. If messages, are we talking about the same ones?
I'm talking about the ones under the title of "Autoconnect a
dial-up connection," within the TB newsgroup. There are 11
messages there, and 10 of them are OT. All the messages are
still there except for one and thats regs.
Chris Ilias
> the thing that gets me is when they cancelled regs posting, I had
> replied, and his message WAS included in my post. So, whats the use of
> cancelling his post in the first place. Everyone can still see his
> message. That just doesn't make sense to me.
In order to prevent subjectivity, any message that one of us considers
OT, needs to be confirmed as OT by another person on the OT monitoring
team; and we're not going to be online all the time; so it may take some
to confirm that the message is OT. That's really the main reason we
asked Q to join the OT monitoring team. More manpower equals greater
chance of at least two of us being online, thus faster OT message
processing.
Chris Ilias
>> If they've canceled entire threads, I'm unaware of it. I've just
>> heard that individual posts were canceled, rather than setting a F.U.
>
> no, entire theads _have_ been cancelled. Hint: Garth and mkbrown32.
> Thats entire threads on the Moz Server. If you googlegroups them, I'm
> sure they're still there.
Message removal having anything to do with garth or mkbrown32 had
nothing to do with being OT.
Chris Ilias
>> As I said, in most cases, my post was ignored. I did that for 14
>> months; and the same handful of people kept posting OT messages.
>
> I think the problem was you irritated people with your constant
> nagging. You were constantly telling people to take it to mo.gen or to
> private email. Thats why it didn't work. Perhaps a short message
> stating that the thread is OT and you're putting a "followup to" mo.gen
> would have been better. I think this would have been better than you
> telling people to take to mo.gen.
What's the difference? My "take it to mozilla.general" posts usually
said something to effect of the thread being off-topic; and they always
had a follow-up set to mozilla.general. According to Terry, I should
have posted more.
Not that it matters. The current policy is working.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 7/9/07 12:18 AM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> As I said, in most cases, my post was ignored. I did that for 14
>>> months; and the same handful of people kept posting OT messages.
>> I think the problem was you irritated people with your constant
>> nagging. You were constantly telling people to take it to mo.gen or to
>> private email. Thats why it didn't work. Perhaps a short message
>> stating that the thread is OT and you're putting a "followup to" mo.gen
>> would have been better. I think this would have been better than you
>> telling people to take to mo.gen.
>
> What's the difference? My "take it to mozilla.general" posts usually
> said something to effect of the thread being off-topic; and they always
> had a follow-up set to mozilla.general. According to Terry, I should
> have posted more.
your way, to ordered people to take it to mo.gen; whereas my
way you're politely telling others to take it to mo.gen.
> Not that it matters. The current policy is working.
Yes, now you're really irritating people so much so, that
some of them have left. And now you've really pissed off
people that a lot of them dislike you, nir, and q.
Daniel
> In <news:ILGdneCqSpY5SAzb...@mozilla.org>,
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
>
>>> What's the difference? My "take it to mozilla.general" posts usually
>>> said something to effect of the thread being off-topic; and they
>>> always had a follow-up set to mozilla.general. According to Terry, I
>>> should have posted more.
>> your way, to ordered people to take it to mo.gen; whereas my
>> way you're politely telling others to take it to mo.gen.
>
>
> TO EVERYONE:
> If you can't take this discussion to a forum where it is on topic,
> then please move it to mozilla.general. Thanks. :-)
>
> and
>
> Folks, this thread is getting out of hand. Please take the off-topic
> discussion to mozilla.general.
>
> No matter how politely one tells people to take OT threads to
> m.general, some will see it as "ordering people"; a couple of posters
> routinely vilified Chris the entire time he was doing that. And politely
> telling people they should move OT stuff out of the support groups
> didn't work very well. Since going back to that way, which didn't work,
> is the only alternative proposed, I guess after this post I'll drop out
> of the thread unless something better is put forward.
>
>>> Not that it matters. The current policy is working.
>> Yes, now you're really irritating people so much so, that
>> some of them have left.
>
>
>> And now you've really pissed off people that a lot of them dislike
>> you, nir, and q.
>
> at distinguishing between a policy they don't like and those
> implementing the policy.
>
My suggestion would be as well as setting a Follow-Up (which I don't
think many notice) and "putting F-U set to moz.gen" at the bottom of the
message, how about modifying the subject so people know whats going on,
e.g. Amending the Subject from "RE: OT: Re: Autoconnect a dial-up
connection" to read "RE: F-U SET as OT: Re: Autoconnect a dial-up
connection".
Then the first thing people would read is that a follow up had been set
and would know that the thread had been re-directed.
Just a thought!
Daniel
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>>Yes, now you're really irritating people so much so, that
>>some of them have left.
>
> One, AFAICT.
My count is 6 (via private email), 2 because of policy and the other 4
because of policy and other matters. No need to name names but all 6
were support contributors AND OT'ers to some degree.
>>And now you've really pissed off people that a lot of them dislike
>>you, nir, and q.
>
> I dunno about "a lot". I'd hope people are generally better than that
> at distinguishing between a policy they don't like and those
> implementing the policy.
The 6 mentioned above were not personality related, strictly policy, etc.
My stand as a "user" only is that posts should only be cancelled when
they are of a pornographic nature and/or vulgar language in which case
the latter should be privately emailed aprising them of the nature of
the public group(s) and it's posters of various gender and age groups, etc.
The basic reason that I'm against cancelling posts is that they've
already been posted and have already been read by the majority of
readers unless there is a moderator with their finger on the button at
the time. Most users will simply ignore such posts/threads anyway and
simply mark the thread as "read" and move on. On Secnews OT threads died
their own death.
Moz has chosen their own direction and I wish them all the best. Users
here should show a little more support in that endeavor as they're doing
what they think best for the community. There is nothing wrong with
entering suggestions and feedback to make this a better support venue.
Cheers
Terry R.
out on the keyboard
> Terry R. wrote:
>> And now almost all of them are gone. And I saw a lot of F.U.'s set, but
>> I guess it wasn't enough.
>
> are you talking about the person is gone, or the messages
> are gone. If messages, are we talking about the same ones?
> I'm talking about the ones under the title of "Autoconnect a
> dial-up connection," within the TB newsgroup. There are 11
> messages there, and 10 of them are OT. All the messages are
> still there except for one and thats regs.
>
I was talking about people in general that used to post here. When the
policing started, they just left.
Terry R.
> In <news:eIWdnW5i8vW-EAzb...@mozilla.org>,
> "Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Excuse me. I'm listening and I understand completely. OBVIOUSLY that
>> is what I meant! I don't need the BIG 3 to play dumb and say "No one
>> else can modify the post". They know exactly what I mean.
>
> Now I know. I honestly didn't before.
>
>> YOU CAN set a follow up to my post. BY REPLYING AND SETTING THE F.U.
>> That's what "follow up" means.
>
> That would be setting followup to /my/ post, not yours. If you insist
> on continuing to say someone else can set a followup to /your/ post,
> when what you mean is someone can reply to your post and set followup
> in that reply, the confusion is bound to continue.
>
Anything "following" the post ANYONE is replying to is a follow-up.
Let's not make this more difficult than it is, okay?
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 7/8/2007 9:19 PM On a whim, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo pounded
> out on the keyboard
>
>> Terry R. wrote:
>>> And now almost all of them are gone. And I saw a lot of F.U.'s set, but
>>> I guess it wasn't enough.
>> are you talking about the person is gone, or the messages
>> are gone.
>
> policing started, they just left.
>
can you name names? All I know of is Ed
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> The first two hits Google Groups gave me were:
>
> TO EVERYONE:
> If you can't take this discussion to a forum where it is on topic,
> then please move it to mozilla.general. Thanks. :-)
>
> and
>
> Folks, this thread is getting out of hand. Please take the off-topic
> discussion to mozilla.general.
to me, those two sound like an order rather than a plain
simple statement that followups have been made to the other
group.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Users
> here should show a little more support in that endeavor as they're doing
> what they think best for the community.
the best for the community is NOT deleting messages. Thats
my opinion though
> There is nothing wrong with
> entering suggestions and feedback to make this a better support venue.
thats exactly what we're trying to do.
Terry R.
out on the keyboard
> »Q« wrote:
>> The first two hits Google Groups gave me were:
>>
>> TO EVERYONE:
>> If you can't take this discussion to a forum where it is on topic,
>> then please move it to mozilla.general. Thanks. :-)
>>
>> and
>>
>> Folks, this thread is getting out of hand. Please take the off-topic
>> discussion to mozilla.general.
>
> to me, those two sound like an order rather than a plain
> simple statement that followups have been made to the other
> group.
>
I think Chris was trying to be civil, as best he could.
IMO, a simple, "For the consideration of others, this OT thread is being
set to follow-up in mozilla.general. It is requested that further OT
replies on this thread have the follow up set to moz.general. If you do
not know how to do this, see ..... Thank you."
If posters ignore it, a second one stating, "It has been requested that
the continuing OT replies have the follow up set to moz.general. If
this second request is ignored, further postings will be removed. For
the consideration of all, please follow the guidelines of this server,
located at .....".
The *exact* wording should *always* be used, so no one is offended that
"my warning seemed more severe than so and so". A simple copy and paste
each time and F.U. set.
No one knows whether someone gets a private warning or not, so when a
post is removed, it's a surprise (at least to everyone else). This
would be public and a reminder to all. I personally don't feel anyone
would consciously disregard the above, unless they're just a troll.
Irwin Greenwald
> Anything "following" the post ANYONE is replying to is a follow-up.
> Let's not make this more difficult than it is, okay?
>
So now replies are follow ups! And I can prevent others from replying to
your message in this newsgroup by setting follow up in my message.
Interesting way of using semantic juggling to "not make this more
difficult than it is". Can't argue with someone who twists language
like you do.
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Terry R.
> On 7/9/2007 7:50 AM, Terry R. wrote:
>
>> Anything "following" the post ANYONE is replying to is a follow-up.
>> Let's not make this more difficult than it is, okay?
>>
> So now replies are follow ups! And I can prevent others from replying to
> your message in this newsgroup by setting follow up in my message.
> Interesting way of using semantic juggling to "not make this more
> difficult than it is". Can't argue with someone who twists language
> like you do.
>
Thank you. ;-)
Nir
> IMO, a simple, "For the consideration of others, this OT thread is
> being set to follow-up in mozilla.general. It is requested that
> further OT replies on this thread have the follow up set to
> moz.general. If you do not know how to do this, see ..... Thank
> you."
>
> If posters ignore it, a second one stating, "It has been requested
> that the continuing OT replies have the follow up set to moz.general.
> If this second request is ignored, further postings will be removed.
>
>
>
>
According to newsgroup cancellation policy we can remove OT message of a
poster who has already been warned twice. If a poster doesn't want to
change is current practice even after 2nd warning message , there is
almost no chance that he will respond positively to our request .
> For the consideration of all, please follow the guidelines of this
> server, located at .....".
>
> The *exact* wording should *always* be used, so no one is offended
> that "my warning seemed more severe than so and so". A simple copy
> and paste each time and F.U. set.
>
> No one knows whether someone gets a private warning or not, so when a
> post is removed, it's a surprise (at least to everyone else). This
> would be public and a reminder to all. I personally don't feel
> anyone would consciously disregard the above, unless they're just a
> troll.
>
Generally we don't want to warn anyone in public[1] . We always try to
solve it through private mail . We never want to make it a prestige issue .
In short , it is not a good method to make it "a reminder to all" by
warning someone publicly.
Nir
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> Yes, that I agree with but the next poster in the thread that
>> continues the OT is the one that should set the f'up
>
> agreed, but some of us are old. We tend to forget the simple things.
Ah! Although _those old persons_ generally never forget to advice a
newcomer to post "test" message in m.test instead of m.support but when
_those old persons_ need to go OT , _somehow_ they forget to do it
on m.general instead of m.support .
Terry R.
I think actually they forget that what they're saying is off topic...
Terry R.
I understand how it's currently done. That's why I suggested the set
messages above and them being public. Since we don't know when the BIG
3 sends out private email. We only see a canceled post. If we saw the
public note (which isn't offensive by any means), and then saw a second
one, and THEN saw a cancellation, it would be quite clear. That is a
much better method IMO.
And what if the poster doesn't check the account you're "notifying" them on?
Nir
If you are well aware of Mozilla Forum Etiquette & Mozilla Newsgroups
Message Cancellation Policy then certainly it is already cleared to you
why that message has been deleted.
> And what if the poster doesn't check the account you're "notifying"
> them on?
Well , according to Mozilla Newsgroups Message Cancellation Policy , we
should warn a poster through private mail if mail address is available .
Till now those who has been asked to reconsider his/her current practice
has cared to send a reply to us . And those who doesn't want to reply us
directly , has done it in other way [1].
According to my experience, almost all of them respond to us through
private mail . So we never , till now , needed to warn anyone in public.
--
[1]http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/b7e314b88e7628d9
Nir
>> And now almost all of them are gone. And I saw a lot of F.U.'s
>> set, but I guess it wasn't enough.
>
> are you talking about the person is gone, or the messages are gone.
> If messages, are we talking about the same ones? I'm talking about
> the ones under the title of "Autoconnect a dial-up connection,"
> within the TB newsgroup. There are 11 messages there, and 10 of them
> are OT. All the messages are still there except for one and thats
> regs.
>
And you are well aware of why that only one OT message has been deleted
from server[1] , aren't you ?
--
[1]http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/msg/641629d2b8a2f2db
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
for me, I would like to see some sort of message within that
thread stating why a certain post was cancelled, and that
the individual has been contacted regarding his {OT}
postings. Atleast this way lets "the community" know whats
going on.
The way it is now, "the community" doesn't know why a
message was cancelled until someone, in another group, tells
them why. Further, this will save a lot of conspiracy
imagination running rampant within "the community."
You say you're "doing it for the betterment of the
community." Well, the community wants to know why, and not
in another group. Not everyone in the community is
subscribed to the mo.gen.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 7/9/2007 9:42 AM On a whim, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo pounded
> out on the keyboard
>
>> »Q« wrote:
>>> The first two hits Google Groups gave me were:
>>>
>>> TO EVERYONE:
>>> If you can't take this discussion to a forum where it is on topic,
>>> then please move it to mozilla.general. Thanks. :-)
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> Folks, this thread is getting out of hand. Please take the off-topic
>>> discussion to mozilla.general.
>> to me, those two sound like an order rather than a plain
>> simple statement that followups have been made to the other
>> group.
>>
>
> I think Chris was trying to be civil, as best he could.
>
"as best he could" are the correct words.
> IMO, a simple, "For the consideration of others, this OT thread is being
> set to follow-up in mozilla.general. It is requested that further OT
> replies on this thread have the follow up set to moz.general. If you do
> not know how to do this, see ..... Thank you."
>
> If posters ignore it, a second one stating, "It has been requested that
> the continuing OT replies have the follow up set to moz.general. If
> this second request is ignored, further postings will be removed. For
> the consideration of all, please follow the guidelines of this server,
> located at .....".
>
> The *exact* wording should *always* be used, so no one is offended that
> "my warning seemed more severe than so and so". A simple copy and paste
> each time and F.U. set.
simple and straight forward
> No one knows whether someone gets a private warning or not, so when a
> post is removed, it's a surprise (at least to everyone else). This
> would be public and a reminder to all. I personally don't feel anyone
> would consciously disregard the above, unless they're just a troll.
>
that why I suggested a reason posting as to why a posting
was removed, so "the community" will know why. The way it
is now, "the community" doesn't know the reason, and I think
"the community" should know why.
Terry R.
(Please insert more HR's between replies to be "more clear")
Sending an email to someone telling them to cease and desist isn't
"clear" to anyone but the accused. If my two messages were used, it
would be publicly clear. They are not offensive at all. What IS
offensive is finding out someone's post has been deleted after the fact.
>
>> And what if the poster doesn't check the account you're "notifying"
>> them on?
> Well , according to Mozilla Newsgroups Message Cancellation Policy , we
> should warn a poster through private mail if mail address is available .
> Till now those who has been asked to reconsider his/her current practice
> has cared to send a reply to us . And those who doesn't want to reply us
> directly , has done it in other way [1].
> According to my experience, almost all of them respond to us through
> private mail . So we never , till now , needed to warn anyone in public.
That's why I brought it up, because it's in "The Policy", and it's not a
good remedy. My messages above wouldn't offend nor would they be on the
level of a "warning". More a public "reminder", that's all. And if we
see a 2nd one issued to a poster and then their next message gets
deleted, we'd all know what had happened. Certainly less embarrassing
than your post just disappearing.
Terry R.
out on the keyboard
Yes, privately "warning" isn't working IMO.
Nir
> for me, I would like to see some sort of message within that thread
> stating why a certain post was cancelled, and that the individual has
> been contacted regarding his {OT} postings. Atleast this way lets
> "the community" know whats going on.
>
> The way it is now, "the community" doesn't know why a message was
> cancelled until someone, in another group, tells them why. Further,
> this will save a lot of conspiracy imagination running rampant within
> "the community."
And why your so called "community" thinks that there is a conspiracy
behind removal of OT messages ?
> You say you're "doing it for the betterment of the community." Well,
> the community wants to know why, and not in another group. Not
> everyone in the community is subscribed to the mo.gen.
And how exactly support quality of a support newsgroup depends on the
explanation of removal of OT messages only in that newsgroup?
Ed Mullen
None of it is working for the participants. It might be working for the
admins, but not for the participants. There's a difference.
If you treat your lover as an idiot, one who needs to be managed, your
relationship is doomed.
Sorry to intrude here, and I feel I shouldn't, nor, even, have a right to.
I "went away" many months ago. Primarily because of the policies of the
mozilla.org administration of these groups, but also because I was
busily engaged in several personal issues that demanded my attention.
However, in the last month or so I have begun monitoring, though not
posting to, some of the groups on this server.
My reaction to "the community" arguments here is this:
A community has an ethos, a reason to come together, a common bond, a
'joie de vie' if you will. The existence of the community is dependent
upon that group angst. And any effort to control that angst is doomed
to fail or will kill that angst. And that is contrary to the desired
outcome of the group "managers."
When I began to partake of what I will call "The Mozilla Experience"
many years ago I loved that there was a give and take, and a certain
anarchy to the experience. It was refreshing after a life as an
executive with multi-national corporations and a pioneer in
"multimedia," even before the term was coined. And it was fun. And,
yes, contrary to the current management attitude, I'm intelligent enough
to be able to skip through posts, threads, and messages that aren't
interesting to me (even though they may be "on" or "off" topic) without
any Big Brother helping me. Yes, I can sift through the "cruft" without
any help. In fact, I would contend that, in the open-source community,
almost anything is "on" topic. Hell, we're not a bunch of lemmings who
need to be led through life, leave it be, it'll either die a natural
death of be beaten into non-existence by the majority. Sheesh, stop
trying to freaking control everything.
Be that as it may, I'm no blushing bride, nor an advocate of anarchy.
However, if I wanted to live my life in a regulated, administered,
controlled and subjugated world, I'd have kept living in corporate
America instead of retiring at 52. So, in the brave new world of
Mozilla, I got terribly uneasy. And opted out of participation. Until
now, and, hence, my apology.
What enticed me, originally, about open-source software, the Mozilla
community, and the notion of a global camaraderie was freedom: Freedom
from constraint, freedom from tact (even if I chose to employ it in my
participation), freedom from censorship, freedom from being dictated to
about what was proper to discuss and freedom from, generally, all
asinine controls that insecure people need to impose on others in order
to feel as though they are "in control." So, hey, someone replies: "Yo
Momma!" So what? Does that warrant some controlling entity diving in
to impose controls? Are we (all of us participants) that stupid? If
so, why would you want us to be here?
When this server's groups began to exhibit what I consider oppressive
control of the speech and expression of its members (all volunteers,
please keep in mind) I exited.
Yes, an argument could be made that by not participating I am somehow
contributing to the problem. Sorry, doesn't fly with me. At some point
one has to buy into the group ethos or not. Originally, I did. It's
what kept me here for years. The high-handed attitude of Mozilla drove
me away. At that point I said to myself: "No, been there, done that,
not gonna play that silly-assed game again."
The problem is simple. Mozilla (whoever that is) decided to rein in the
newsgroups and, inherently, all the participants (volunteers, advocates,
lovers of the software, etc.)
Good for you. I hope it's working out ok for you. As Dr. Phil says:
"So. How's that workin' for ya?"
Although, I do notice that the debate goes on to no avail. Yep, good
idea, clamp down on those pesky, opinionated yahoos. God forbid an
off-topic thread might go on for 40 or 50 messages. Because, well, you
know, that's just gonna ... what? Cost Mozilla money? In what terms?
Paying for bytes? Oh come on. In credibility? Hell, ask 100 people on
the street what "Mozilla" is. In danger of losing credibility? I don't
think so. Credibility doesn't exist in a vacuum. Nor without any notice.
the only credibility being damaged here is with the very people
without whom the Mozilla phenomenon does not exist.
You're in danger of losing nothing, Mozilla, other than your history and
your legacy. You've already lost credibility with your core audience:
The lovers of the software and the volunteers who have invested untold
hours in supporting it and you.
Listen, treat your lovers as you will. But don't be surprised if she
winds up in someone else's bed tomorrow.
--
Ed Mullen
"Take me as I am, just take me."
The Real Bev
> You're in danger of losing nothing, Mozilla, other than your history and
> your legacy. You've already lost credibility with your core audience:
> The lovers of the software and the volunteers who have invested untold
> hours in supporting it and you.
>
> Listen, treat your lovers as you will. But don't be surprised if she
> winds up in someone else's bed tomorrow.
Ditto.
I can see how it might be nice to remove some post(er)s, but part of the
goodness of usenet. and by extension more-or-less private fora like these,
is the freedom to say whatever we want. This is sometimes a curse, of
course -- who among us has not suddenly noticed a dumb mistake one second
after hitting 'send'? Still, it's not like we're actually hurting anybody
or destroying anything except, perhaps, our own reputations as sensible and
intelligent people.
Freedom of the press applies only to people who own a press, but still...
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
Cthulhu for President in 2008. Why vote for a lesser evil?
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> Ed Mullen wrote a lot of good stuff:
>
>> You're in danger of losing nothing, Mozilla, other than your history and
>> your legacy. You've already lost credibility with your core audience:
>> The lovers of the software and the volunteers who have invested untold
>> hours in supporting it and you.
>>
>> Listen, treat your lovers as you will. But don't be surprised if she
>> winds up in someone else's bed tomorrow.
>
> Ditto.
>
> I can see how it might be nice to remove some post(er)s, but part of the
> goodness of usenet. and by extension more-or-less private fora like these,
> is the freedom to say whatever we want. This is sometimes a curse, of
> course -- who among us has not suddenly noticed a dumb mistake one second
> after hitting 'send'? Still, it's not like we're actually hurting anybody
> or destroying anything except, perhaps, our own reputations as sensible and
> intelligent people.
>
> Freedom of the press applies only to people who own a press, but still...
"We are, heart and soul, friends to the freedom of the press. It is
however, the prostituted companion of liberty... It corrupts, it deceives,
it inflames. It strips virtue of her honors, and lends to faction its
wildfire and its poisoned arms... It is a precious pest, and a necessary
mischief, and there would be no liberty without it." ---Fisher Ames
--
Pascal, n.:
A programming language named after a man who would turn over in
his grave if he knew about it.
Blinky the Shark
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Freedom of the press applies only to people who own a press, but
>> still...
>
> "We are, heart and soul, friends to the freedom of the press. It is
> however, the prostituted companion of liberty... It corrupts, it deceives,
> it inflames. It strips virtue of her honors, and lends to faction its
> wildfire and its poisoned arms... It is a precious pest, and a necessary
> mischief, and there would be no liberty without it." ---Fisher Ames
"Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" - some kid in a 1930s movie.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Daniel
> Ken Whiton wrote:
>> *-* On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:21:02 -0700,
>> *-* In Article bdadnSjV_89l5RPb...@mozilla.org,
>> *-* Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote
>> *-* About Re: OT: Re: Autoconnect a dial-up connection
>>
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>> On 06.07.2007 08:03, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Vic
>>>> Garcia togenerate the following:? :
<snip>
>
> FU set to mo.gen
>
In other branches of this thread, contributors have posted back and
forth about how to manage this, and other self helps groups on this
server......
And nobody has been able to do anything about this post:-
FREE SEXY WOMEN MOVIES - MEET SEXY WOMEN FOR FREE
Seen it in at least two of the groups on this server. Sure, it comes
from Google but does that stop those with the ability from removing it
from the Mozilla.org server?
(post made to groups-abuse@google. com
Daniel
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> In other branches of this thread, contributors have posted back and
> forth about how to manage this, and other self helps groups on this
> server......
>
> And nobody has been able to do anything about this post:-
>
> FREE SEXY WOMEN MOVIES - MEET SEXY WOMEN FOR FREE
>
> Seen it in at least two of the groups on this server. Sure, it comes
> from Google but does that stop those with the ability from removing it
> from the Mozilla.org server?
>
> (post made to groups-abuse@google. com
>
> Daniel
those type of spam messages are supposed to be deleted from
the Moz Server, especially if nobody replies to them. I
only see them on the mozilla-suite and the mo.gen groups,
and thats about all. But someone isn't doing their job. Are
there other groups?
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> That's why I brought it up, because it's in "The Policy", and it's not a
> good remedy. My messages above wouldn't offend nor would they be on the
> level of a "warning". More a public "reminder", that's all. And if we
> see a 2nd one issued to a poster and then their next message gets
> deleted, we'd all know what had happened. Certainly less embarrassing
> than your post just disappearing.
>
Terry, I hate to say this, but give it up! The "Powers to
Be Mozilla Community" does not want to hear what we have to
say. They are not interested in reading or hearing from us
"Non-Powers to Be Mozilla Community."
The system was created so that the "Powers to Be" will only
listen to other "Powers to Be." If you're not a Powers to
Be, then they will not listen. Everything will fall on
Blind Eyes, and Deaf Ears. The Mozilla Community has been
split into three factions: programmers/developers, the
"Powers to Be" and everyone else.
If you take the etiquette page and the cancellation page:
who wrote them? "The Powers to Be." Months ago when
discussion came up regarding the Cancellation page, who did
they listen to: other "Powers to Be." Did they listen to
the "Non-Powers to Be?" No. Even though some of us came up
with some great suggestion, we were ignored.
No matter what you or I say, because we are "Non-Powers to
Be," we will be ignored.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> in the open-source community,
> almost anything is "on" topic.
there it is right there: open-source community: its not open
anymore. There is no community since this cancellation
policy came into force. The software may be open, but not
the community. This is just my opinion.
Terry R.
That put the nail flush with the wood. Good to see your name on a post
Ed.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> In <news:UP6dncBgpYBBxQ7b...@mozilla.org>,
> Daniel <dx...@albury.net.au> wrote:
>
>>FREE SEXY WOMEN MOVIES - MEET SEXY WOMEN FOR FREE
>>
>>Seen it in at least two of the groups on this server. Sure, it comes
>>from Google but does that stop those with the ability from removing it
>>from the Mozilla.org server?
>
> You can send these, with full headers, to ab...@mozilla.org .
>
So, just for clarification and curiosity, you guys are not able, by job
description or otherwise, to cancel those types of messages? Your only
responsibility is enforcing the guidelines pertaining to OT posts and
violations thereof?
Jay
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> On 08.07.2007 08:53, Nir wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>>
>>> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>>> to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would
>>>>> be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>>>>
>>>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>>>>
>>> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather than
>>> just deleting the posts.
>>>
>>>
>> We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
>>
>>
>
> Depending on the NNTP software being used, a thread - partial or whole -
> can be "moved" from one group to another. Or even the topic can be split
> between groups w/o a f'up being set. Admin privs I would imagine which
> leaves you out I guess. No-win either way.
>
>
Jay - what Grant is saying is - the Mooses can do (an empty??) a reply,
set to FU and the ball starts rolling... but of course, if the horse
doesn't want to drink, it's no good telling it where the creek is, is it!
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> On 7/8/2007 6:18 PM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard
>
>
>> On 08.07.2007 20:08, Terry R. wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 08.07.2007 12:11, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nir wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2007 8:25 AM On a whim, Chris Ilias pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/07 11:17 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All it would take rather than removing posts is for Chris, Nir, or Q
>>>>>>>>>> to set the follow up on OT. If they want to police an ng, that would
>>>>>>>>>> be the way to do it rather than how it's being done now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can't alter posts in newsgroups.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, but you can set the follow-up, just as anyone else does, rather than
>>>>>>>> just deleting the posts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can't modify body or header of any post in server .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in OT and setting up the "Follow-up To"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They're making it appear we're suggesting something they can't do...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> We're (I guess) talking about posts that have already been posted, not
>>>> new replies where, yes, you CAN set a f'up. When that's done, the rest
>>>> of the previous thread does not automagically follow, only new replies
>>>> to the f'uped reply.
>>>>
>>>> You're looking for a solution/alternative to cancelling an entire thread
>>>> aren't you? Setting a f'up in a reply is not the answer as it will not
>>>> move the entire previously posted thread prior to the f'up reply.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nope. Not a thread. Just when it goes OT, rather than canceling
>>> someone's post, just set the F.U. to general. That's what I understand
>>> they want, and sometimes everyone forgets. They should just do that
>>> rather than cancel someone's post. If they're the "moderators", then if
>>> someone doesn't set the F.U. at the proper time, they can, rather than
>>> just wiping out somebody.
>>>
>> Not quite on the same page but getting there. You cannot set a f'up to
>> an already posted post, that's a given. But, if a moderator/whatever
>> replies to the last OT post in the thread for the purpose of setting the
>> f'up that also will not work UNLESS the subsequent OT replies reply to
>> THAT post. Likely? IMHO, no.
>>
>> The ONLY way to set a f'up is for the OP that starts the OT to set the
>> f'up thereby maintaining continuity in the f'uped group. If you have,
>> let's say 6 OT posted replies with no f'up set and the 7th posted OT
>> sets the f'up. Then what happens to OT 1 thru 6, they're left behind.
>> The f'up MUST be set in OT #1 or very very early thereafter. Cancelling
>> posts 1 thru 6 doesn't make any sense either even IF the f'up is set in
>> post #7.
>>
>>
>
> I fully understand. I just said it's better to set a F.U. than cancel a
> post for being OT, that's all.
>
>
Terry - consider yourself "severely reprimanded" for trying to take *all
the fun* out of being a CyberMoose!
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
did I get that "public warning"
QUOTE from above linked thread...
What if you still violates Mozilla Forum Etiquette ?
sorry to say but in that case *we have to warn you publicly* on
corresponding newsgroup and any OT , posted by you after that warning ,
will be removed from server "without any further discussion" .
UNQUOTE
Nope - I sure can't remember... but then again, I was probably laughing
my whatsit off...
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
(That question is [OT] right here, so please FU to whi...@ed.drink)
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
we had much about the same situation a couple of weeks back and we were
told (was it Dave Miller?? is that his name??) that deleting from google
Groups is a complicated matter. Doesn't change the basic trend of your
question though - but altered to read:
Quote and amend...
you guys are not able, by job description or otherwise, to (cancel)
/amend to read/ "Report to ab...@mozilla.org" those types of messages?
UNQUOTE
seems that, IF that is the case, the job of "moderating" is severely
restricted to censoring posts for [OT] elements (recall what Gerv said
about ChrisI's "request"... weeks on end of "requesting" that he be
allowed to do it??)
reg
Chris Ilias
Any person who determines "Mozilla's legacy, and credibility" based
entirely upon the off-topic message moderation policy in the support
newsgroups, is obviously not level headed. Same goes for someone who
sees the policy as trying to control "everything."
Just because you know how to skip through OT messages, doesn't mean you
should have to. You know how to delete junk email, that arrives in your
inbox, correct? Yet, that doesn't stop laws from being created, to
prevent spam, and people being arrested for creating spam.
Do you remember when we discussed the policy in February or March, and I
said that the support-firefox list had almost 100 subscribers. As of
this post, that number is 132. The frequency of subscriptions remains
the same as before; but frequency of people unsubscribing has
dramatically dropped off. The people subscribing are no longer having
their inboxes filled with stuff they didn't ask for.
But if you want to look at the most hurtful consequences, take a look at
the very thread that this discussion originated from, in
mozilla.support.thunderbird. There are 11 posts in that thread. Did
/anyone/ answer the OPs question? ;-)
Not everyone is an idiot; but not all people in the support newsgroups
are adults, either. People who behave like adults, will be treated like
adults. You are not being prevented from posting OT messages; you are
being prevented from letting it take over the newsgroup. In the past
month there have been roughly 70 off-topic messages in the Firefox and
Thunderbird support newsgroups, which were not removed. That's because
each poster, while *free to engage in OT discussion*, didn't let it take
over the newsgroup.
Out of the many contributors, only 8 have received a warning. 6 of them
have responded like adults, by not posting as much OT content as before.
The people who continued to post OT messages, obviously either cannot
control themselves, or refuse to reduce the amount of OT content, they
post. And it's only in those 2 cases (actually one), that message
removal has taken place. But hey, we tried treating everyone like
adults, for 14 months.
Each support venue has rules, when it comes to being on-topic, that are
much older than the news.mozilla.org OT message removal policy. Try
continually posting OT comments in bugzilla, and see how fast you are
*banned*. Go to irc.mozilla.org, and see how quickly you are directed to
the BS channel. Keep posting OT comments in the MozillaZine support
forums, and see how quickly you go from your messages being moved to the
After Dark forum, to being banned. Considering that reg is still allowed
to post at all, the news.mozilla.org policy is /lenient/. Whatever
culture you fell in love with way back when, was not Mozilla. It was
probably usenet. Or you were just naive.
Even if you do go somewhere else, you are not really "in someone else's
bed." No matter where you provide Mozilla support, you are part of the
Mozilla support community, because you are providing Mozilla support.
When are you coming to Toronto? :)
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Do you remember when we discussed the policy in February or March, and I
> said that the support-firefox list had almost 100 subscribers. As of
> this post, that number is 132. The frequency of subscriptions remains
> the same as before; but frequency of people unsubscribing has
> dramatically dropped off. The people subscribing are no longer having
> their inboxes filled with stuff they didn't ask for.
>
Perhaps its because you've stopped whining about OT
messages. ;-)
> But if you want to look at the most hurtful consequences, take a look at
> the very thread that this discussion originated from, in
> mozilla.support.thunderbird. There are 11 posts in that thread. Did
> /anyone/ answer the OPs question? ;-)
>
Did you? Instead of complaining about the OT stuff, why
don't YOU answer the question.
> Keep posting OT comments in the MozillaZine support
> forums, and see how quickly you go from your messages being moved to the
> After Dark forum, to being banned.
MozillaZine is not run by the Mozilla Foundation and is not
an official part of the Mozilla project
[http://mozillazine.org/about/]. Therefore you really can't
call that a true Mozilla Community, like the mozilla.org
newsgroups, which is owned and control by the Mozilla
Foundation/Corporation. Mozillazine is a separate community.
Blinky the Shark
> And nobody has been able to do anything about this post:-
>
> FREE SEXY WOMEN MOVIES - MEET SEXY WOMEN FOR FREE
>
> Seen it in at least two of the groups on this server. Sure, it comes from
> Google but does that stop those with the ability from removing it from the
> Mozilla.org server?
>
> (post made to groups-abuse@google. com
I appreciate that you're giving it your best shot there (Google), but I
think you'll find that their abuse desk is as useful as tits on a boar.
Ed Mullen
>
> When are you coming to Toronto? :)
Well, not any time soon. We had a condo in TO for the last year and a
half and I spent a great deal of time there. My wife retired March 31,
ended her International Assignment with IBM, we closed the condo, moved
all the "stuff" back to Georgia, she had surgery, yadda yadda. Hence my
statement about being "busily engaged in several personal issues" in my
original post. So, to answer your question directly: Probably not any
time soon.
We've got travel planned to Italy, South Carolina, Boulder, CO, Austin,
TX, and Montreal and its environs. And we do have friends in the TO
area. But my wife is needing (tomorrow) yet another test. So, well,
probably no TO trips in the short-term. And after that, hopefully,
she'll be able to learn how to "be retired." And, God help me, I'll
figure out how to do the same! ;-)
However, I really did love TO. Great city. and we had a great Mexican
restaurant just around the corner from us, perhaps the best Mexican
place I've ever found anywhere.
--
Ed