Re: Secnews.Netscape.com
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/18/07 9:48 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>> On 18.08.2007 11:27, BeeNeR wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Out of curiosity - why are we discussing secnews.netscape.com in this
>>> news group?
>>
>> Someone asked how to configure SM to access secnews, that's why. Read
>> the OP.
>
> Discussion about how to use SeaMonkey to access secnews, is on-topic.
> Discussion about why or why not secnews should be renamed, is off-topic.
Please reply to the one that asked about renaming, not a post that
explains the reason why the topic was created as it confuses other
readers, thanks.
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Chris Ilias
I wasn't posting a notice. I was correcting you. BeeNeR was replying to
a post about renaming secnews, not about using SeaMonkey to access secnews.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/19/07 3:40 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>> On 19.08.2007 13:29, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> On 8/18/07 9:48 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>>> On 18.08.2007 11:27, BeeNeR wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>> Out of curiosity - why are we discussing secnews.netscape.com in this
>>>>> news group?
>>>> Someone asked how to configure SM to access secnews, that's why. Read
>>>> the OP.
>>> Discussion about how to use SeaMonkey to access secnews, is on-topic.
>>> Discussion about why or why not secnews should be renamed, is off-topic.
>>
>> Please reply to the one that asked about renaming, not a post that
>> explains the reason why the topic was created as it confuses other
>> readers, thanks.
>
> I wasn't posting a notice. I was correcting you. BeeNeR was replying to
> a post about renaming secnews, not about using SeaMonkey to access secnews.
I was not wrong as the question was asked. It was a general question,
not specific to the renaming issue and I replied pointing the user to
read the OP - original post - in order to get a complete handle on the
subject. If the poster would have been specific to the renaming OT then
I may have, or not have, replied accordingly and set the f'up to .general.
Chris Ilias
> On 19.08.2007 14:50, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 8/19/07 3:40 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>> On 19.08.2007 13:29, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> On 8/18/07 9:48 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>>>> On 18.08.2007 11:27, BeeNeR wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>>
>>>>>> Out of curiosity - why are we discussing secnews.netscape.com in this
>>>>>> news group?
>>>>> Someone asked how to configure SM to access secnews, that's why. Read
>>>>> the OP.
>>>> Discussion about how to use SeaMonkey to access secnews, is on-topic.
>>>> Discussion about why or why not secnews should be renamed, is off-topic.
>>> Please reply to the one that asked about renaming, not a post that
>>> explains the reason why the topic was created as it confuses other
>>> readers, thanks.
>> I wasn't posting a notice. I was correcting you. BeeNeR was replying to
>> a post about renaming secnews, not about using SeaMonkey to access secnews.
>
> I was not wrong as the question was asked. It was a general question,
> not specific to the renaming issue and I replied pointing the user to
> read the OP - original post - in order to get a complete handle on the
> subject.
BeeNeR quoted the message he/she was replying to. You completely ignored
the context.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
I'm not going to argue the point, I posted specific to his inquiry,
didn't miss a thing. It seemed to me that he wanted to know why, in
general, we were discussing secnews. If he would have specifically
pointed out why we were discussing just the renaming that would have
been different and you know that. It's a trivial point at best and
doesn't need to be bashed around any longer. I read the post, made the
call and posted what I thought (and still think) is the best answer. If
it's wrong, then it's wrong, so what, he got what he came for?
Chris Ilias
If it's wrong, don't say you didn't miss a thing. Your answer was wrong,
because you missed the context. What's more important, was correcting
your false impression to others, that the secnews renaming discussion
was on-topic, as if the OP justified not taking the new discussion
somewhere more appropriate.
Irwin Greenwald
> If it's wrong, then it's wrong, so what, he got what he came for?
Jay, you have to understand that that's no longer important around here!
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/19/2007 Jay Garcia wrote:
>> If it's wrong, then it's wrong, so what, he got what he came for?
>
> Jay, you have to understand that that's no longer important around here!
Well, arguing the point isn't going to solve anything, I feel that I was
correct, still do, and Chris feels otherwise, so be it, time to move on.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
No, Jay was correct. BeeNer asked: "Out of curiosity - why
are we discussing secnews.netscape.com in this news group?"
And Jay correctly replied: "Someone asked how to configure
SM to access secnews, that's why. Read the OP."
> What's more important, was correcting
> your false impression to others, that the secnews renaming discussion
> was on-topic, as if the OP justified not taking the new discussion
> somewhere more appropriate.
You should be sending one of those offensive threatening
cancellation message to BeeNer for going off topic.
--
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
or Reply to Author. Thanks!
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> If it's wrong, don't say you didn't miss a thing. Your answer was
>> wrong, because you missed the context.
>
> No, Jay was correct. BeeNer asked: "Out of curiosity - why are we
> discussing secnews.netscape.com in this news group?"
>
> And Jay correctly replied: "Someone asked how to configure SM to access
> secnews, that's why. Read the OP."
I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored what
BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
>> What's more important, was correcting your false impression to others,
>> that the secnews renaming discussion was on-topic, as if the OP
>> justified not taking the new discussion somewhere more appropriate.
>
> You should be sending one of those offensive threatening cancellation
> message to BeeNer for going off topic.
Well, if he/she shows a pattern of often going to OT, and has posted a
high volume of OT message, he/she will get a warning.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
you just can't accept the fact that maybe, just maybe,
you're wrong, can you?
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> On 8/20/07 7:40 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it's wrong, don't say you didn't miss a thing. Your answer was
>>>> wrong, because you missed the context.
>>> No, Jay was correct. BeeNer asked: "Out of curiosity - why are we
>>> discussing secnews.netscape.com in this news group?"
>>>
>>> And Jay correctly replied: "Someone asked how to configure SM to access
>>> secnews, that's why. Read the OP."
>> I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored what
>> BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
>>
>>>> What's more important, was correcting your false impression to others,
>>>> that the secnews renaming discussion was on-topic, as if the OP
>>>> justified not taking the new discussion somewhere more appropriate.
>>> You should be sending one of those offensive threatening cancellation
>>> message to BeeNer for going off topic.
>> Well, if he/she shows a pattern of often going to OT, and has posted a
>> high volume of OT message, he/she will get a warning.
>
> you just can't accept the fact that maybe, just maybe,
> you're wrong, can you?
>
. . . I guess not, cause Chris Ilias has to be right on
everything.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> On 8/20/07 7:40 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it's wrong, don't say you didn't miss a thing. Your answer was
>>>> wrong, because you missed the context.
>>> No, Jay was correct. BeeNer asked: "Out of curiosity - why are we
>>> discussing secnews.netscape.com in this news group?"
>>>
>>> And Jay correctly replied: "Someone asked how to configure SM to
>>> access secnews, that's why. Read the OP."
>>
>> I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored what
>> BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
>>
>>>> What's more important, was correcting your false impression to
>>>> others, that the secnews renaming discussion was on-topic, as if the
>>>> OP justified not taking the new discussion somewhere more appropriate.
>>> You should be sending one of those offensive threatening cancellation
>>> message to BeeNer for going off topic.
>>
>> Well, if he/she shows a pattern of often going to OT, and has posted a
>> high volume of OT message, he/she will get a warning.
>
> you just can't accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong, can
> you?
Where was that attitude, when everyone was telling you that devs read
the support newsgroups; and you refused to accept it, even when you were
proven wrong? :-)
If you honestly feel that way about me, then why do you bother arguing
with me?
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
you're the one who kept the arguing going
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Getting nowhere with this, he thinks I'm wrong and I think I'm right.
He's not gonna budge and neither am I. However, YOU were right when you
said I was right ... :-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored what
> BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
Ok, once more ...
BeeNer quoted the original post, granted. But ... he said "out of
curiosity" and THAT is what prompted my reply. I know what he quoted and
I know what the OP was and ignored nothing. The other "tip-off" that
prompted my reply was " ... in this group" as if he was wondering why we
were discussing another server on THIS server. My response was a basic
response to his basic question, no more no less. I didn't make a
determination that his quote and question was in response to just that
one point concerning secnews. My reply, to most anyone, should have been
recognized as a response in general to his perceived general question.
My reply wasn't condescending or anything like that like some folks
would reply but you already know that don't you ...
Trivial .. move on.
Chris Ilias
Even when you were arguing with other people? ;-)
Chris Ilias
> On 20.08.2007 19:02, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>> I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored what
>> BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
>
> Ok, once more ...
>
> BeeNer quoted the original post, granted.
I assume you meant to say that BeeNer did not quote the original post.
> But ... he said "out of
> curiosity" and THAT is what prompted my reply.
I don't see how "out of curiosity" changes the context. To me, it states
the reason for enquiring. And I don't the reason for your reply as being
important. As I've always understood it, he asked a question, so you
answered. Simple as that.
> I know what he quoted and
> I know what the OP was and ignored nothing. The other "tip-off" that
> prompted my reply was " ... in this group" as if he was wondering why we
> were discussing another server on THIS server.
Again, I don't see how "...in this group" changes what discussion he/she
was referring to. Both discussions were about secnews. One was on-topic.
> My response was a basic
> response to his basic question, no more no less.
I agree with you there. But I was clarifying your false impression to
others, that the secnews renaming discussion was on-topic, as if the OP
justified not taking the new discussion somewhere more appropriate.
> I didn't make a
> determination that his quote and question was in response to just that
> one point concerning secnews. My reply, to most anyone, should have been
> recognized as a response in general to his perceived general question.
> My reply wasn't condescending or anything like that like some folks
> would reply but you already know that don't you ...
>
> Trivial .. move on.
I haven't read anything from anyone, saying your reply was
condescending. That's not my concern.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
You see what's in your own mind obviously even though I told you why I
answered the way I did. And yes, I meant "did not quote". I saw it as a
general question, not specific and I responded in general. And there was
no false impression at all as I was not responding to any single issue
in the discussion.
And besides, the entire thread was on-topic in essence simply because
there was no f'up set and no OT notation made. Since his reply was
on-topic, so was my reply and since my reply was on-topic, I had no
reason to OT it and set a f'up. Therefore, his question seemingly was a
question about why secnews is being discussed. Had the thread been split
off with a specific notation as to the renaming issue, my reply, if any,
would have been specific to that issue. Remember, he said "why is
secnews being discussed", not "why is the renaming issue being discussed".
Chris Ilias
> On 20.08.2007 21:04, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> You see what's in your own mind obviously even though I told you why I
> answered the way I did. And yes, I meant "did not quote". I saw it as a
> general question, not specific and I responded in general. And there was
> no false impression at all as I was not responding to any single issue
> in the discussion.
Why do you think he was curious? What do you think prompted the curiousity?
> And besides, the entire thread was on-topic in essence simply because
> there was no f'up set and no OT notation made.
I'm going to need you to explain that sentence with more detail. Are you
saying that just because a message doesn't have a follow-up set, and
isn't marked as OT, that means it's not OT? You're telling me threads
that start on-topic can't veer off-topic?
> Since his reply was
> on-topic, so was my reply and since my reply was on-topic, I had no
> reason to OT it and set a f'up.
No-one said BeeNer's message, your reply to BeeNer was OT. Those were
not nominated as OT messages for the database. I said that discussion
about renaming secnews was off-topic. Each individual message is
reviewed, based on content and context.
> Therefore, his question seemingly was a
> question about why secnews is being discussed. Had the thread been split
> off with a specific notation as to the renaming issue, my reply, if any,
> would have been specific to that issue. Remember, he said "why is
> secnews being discussed", not "why is the renaming issue being discussed".
Geez, Jay, how many times do I have to say that I don't think you
ignored what BeeNer wrote, but the context. You can quote BeeNer until
kingdom come.
Irwin Greenwald
> you're the one who kept the arguing going
Hippo, that is bull shit! Your refusal to accept the proof presented by
others led to the longest, stupidest thread I have ever seen in these
groups. Now you seem to want to resume it!
Ed Mullen
I'm not posting regularly anymore, although I do scan the group (and the
SeaMonkey one) daily, but it seems to me that this exchange is
indicative of why my participation waned. On one hand, it's nice to be
able to engage in the give-and-take, on the other hand, sigh. For two
people of such repute to be having this kind of argument, which appears
to me to derive from the new era ... ah well.
I never had a problem with OT, silly, inane, rude, etc. posts on Mozilla
groups. It was free-flowing, a tad wild at times, but mostly
intelligent, unfettered, and amusing. Part and parcel of the venue. I
learned how to visually scan, hit "R", "space bar" and move on. None of
it ever troubled me, nor interfered with my enjoyment of, nor ability to
reap knowledge from, the various groups. To me, nothing was wrong then.
To me, now, everything is wrong.
Now it's become tedious. Restricted, even bordering on vindictive from
a policy/management perspective. And very "not fun" with all this
over-management. Sad. Just my three cents but it has changed the entire
experience. And the Mozilla "thing" was just that: An experience,
different, refreshing, professional and wild ... it was fun. I left
when the "fun" dissipated.
Every organization needs to be cognizant of its culture, formal and
informal. In rejecting aspects of the culture an organization (Mozilla)
dis-enfranchises part of its loyal constituency. How many people depend
on me for support? How many people rely on me, and will follow my lead,
when I tell them to change their software? Only I know the answer to
that question. Now, how many people do all of "my" people affect? What
is the extent of the ripple effect in this? Sure, tick off Ed? Who
cares? Tick off Ed and his "x" advisees? Ah, so what? Does no one
involved in this get the ripple effect? Geez. It's marketing 101. Ed
tells 20 people to dump [some Moz-based product]. Those 20 each tell 5
people. Who each tell 5 people ... who ...
Ah well, Brave New World. I find other interesting pursuits to amuse
and interest me. My apologies to anyone who might miss whatever value I
may have provided here, and to anyone who finds this post an intrusion.
But I need to be entertained to spend my time volunteering. This (the
"new" paradigm for managing the groups) is just (to me) over-management
to the point of boredom (at best) or suicide (at worst).
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Love is always bestowed as a gift - freely, willingly and without
expectation. We don't love to be loved; we love to love. - Leo Buscaglia
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 8/20/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> you're the one who kept the arguing going
>
> Hippo, that is bull shit! Your refusal to accept the proof presented by
> others led to the longest, stupidest thread I have ever seen in these
> groups. Now you seem to want to resume it!
>
no, you're the ones who kept the arguing going. All I did
was ask for proof, and you people refused to provide it.
Christopher Jahn
news:O_Kdnby4nvs0tlfb...@mozilla.org:
> On 8/20/07 7:40 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke
> thusly:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> If it's wrong, don't say you didn't miss a thing. Your
>>> answer was wrong, because you missed the context.
>>
>> No, Jay was correct. BeeNer asked: "Out of curiosity - why
>> are we discussing secnews.netscape.com in this news group?"
>>
>> And Jay correctly replied: "Someone asked how to configure SM
>> to access secnews, that's why. Read the OP."
>
> I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored
> what BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
>
It doesn't matter what BeeNer quoted in this case. BeeNer asked
how the topic was raised, and Jay told him.
Sheesh, get some comprehension skills!
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Nice computers don't go down...
Christopher Jahn
>
>> Therefore, his question seemingly was a
>> question about why secnews is being discussed. Had the thread
>> been split off with a specific notation as to the renaming
>> issue, my reply, if any, would have been specific to that
>> issue. Remember, he said "why is secnews being discussed",
>> not "why is the renaming issue being discussed".
>
> Geez, Jay, how many times do I have to say that I don't think
> you ignored what BeeNer wrote, but the context. You can quote
> BeeNer until kingdom come.
Context? You really don't know what you're arguing. Must be
something in the water.
Jay answered a question that was asked. "Context" does not enter
into it.
The bottom line is that you were wrong, and Jay was right, and
it's time for you to say "Oh, I get it!" and move on to something
that actually MATTERS.
You don't even have to BELIEVE it.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather
straps!
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Well said, and I would never have over-persued this argument in anything
other than .general ... ;-)
I, like some others, really enjoy participating in an OT, sometimes
overdone for sure but nonetheless enjoyable like the old days on secnews
where OT was left in the original thread and allowed to die it's own
natural death. Support was never lacking because of an OT and users
didn't fade away because of OT's. In fact, it was Bill Horne (NS Champ)
who coined TID (Thread is Dead) or (Thread is Deteriorated) that was
prepended to an otherwise OT. It worked well .....
Cheers .. and don't let a little adversity cause you to abandon your
great support acumen. Users need you more than forum moderators haunting
your presence.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>> On 8/20/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> you're the one who kept the arguing going
>>
>> Hippo, that is bull shit! Your refusal to accept the proof presented by
>> others led to the longest, stupidest thread I have ever seen in these
>> groups. Now you seem to want to resume it!
>>
>
> no, you're the ones who kept the arguing going. All I did
> was ask for proof, and you people refused to provide it.
>
But when someone of administrative/management proportions familiar with
the venue moreso than most anyone else told you, you didn't believe them
or so it seemed. The argument should have ended there. The possible
violating of a confidence by naming a dev(s) who otherwise may have
wished to remain incognito would have been a violation of ethics. If you
had bothered to privately EMAIL me for instance, I would have named
those devs for you. How would you react to someone posting your REAL
name when you take great lengths to remain anonymous only to be known by
your "handle" (just an example, we know who YOU are).
Ed Mullen
Much appreciated, Jay.
Borrow money from pessimists-they don't expect it back.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
> news:uL2dneJcGfTHx1fb...@mozilla.org:
>
>>> Therefore, his question seemingly was a
>>> question about why secnews is being discussed. Had the thread
>>> been split off with a specific notation as to the renaming
>>> issue, my reply, if any, would have been specific to that
>>> issue. Remember, he said "why is secnews being discussed",
>>> not "why is the renaming issue being discussed".
>> Geez, Jay, how many times do I have to say that I don't think
>> you ignored what BeeNer wrote, but the context. You can quote
>> BeeNer until kingdom come.
>
> Context? You really don't know what you're arguing. Must be
> something in the water.
>
> Jay answered a question that was asked. "Context" does not enter
> into it.
It always enters into it. It's common sense to wonder, "why is this
person asking this question?" Especially if it's a general question.
Other news servers are sometimes mentioned in support seamonkey, and
when they come up, we don't see people questioning why it's being
discussed in support.seamonkey. If BeeNer had read the original post, do
you think he/she would have still asked secnews was being discussed?
Whenever someone asks, "why is such and such being discussed here", they
are wondering if the current discussion is on-topic for the newsgroup.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 21.08.2007 01:06, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>> On 8/20/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>> you're the one who kept the arguing going
>>> Hippo, that is bull shit! Your refusal to accept the proof presented by
>>> others led to the longest, stupidest thread I have ever seen in these
>>> groups. Now you seem to want to resume it!
>>>
>> no, you're the ones who kept the arguing going. All I did
>> was ask for proof, and you people refused to provide it.
>>
>
> But when someone of administrative/management proportions familiar with
> the venue moreso than most anyone else told you, you didn't believe them
> or so it seemed. The argument should have ended there.
it should have, yes. But, CI did drop it. He continued it
until he got his way.
> The possible
> violating of a confidence by naming a dev(s) who otherwise may have
> wished to remain incognito would have been a violation of ethics.
ahh, but are there not devs who post under their real name,
for example Robert K in the SM group. You could have posted
those devs, but nobody did. You people just kept going on
and on and on about devs do monitor and/or post.
> If you
> had bothered to privately EMAIL me for instance, I would have named
> those devs for you.
oh, *now* you tell me!
> How would you react to someone posting your REAL
> name when you take great lengths to remain anonymous only to be known by
> your "handle" (just an example, we know who YOU are).
but you already know who I am.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> If BeeNer had read the original post, do
> you think he/she would have still asked secnews was being discussed?
yes. It depends on where they started the thread at. Maybe
they didn't start at the beginning of the thread. Maybe
they just downloaded it from a certain time period, and that
time period didn't include the beginning of the thread.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> I, like some others, really enjoy participating in an OT, sometimes
> overdone for sure but nonetheless enjoyable
so, you enjoyed giving me a hard time in that other thread
about developers. ;-)
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
blackouts!!
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> On 20.08.2007 21:04, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>> On 8/20/07 9:29 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>
>>> On 20.08.2007 19:02, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored what
>>>> BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
>>>>
>>> Ok, once more ...
>>>
>>> BeeNer quoted the original post, granted.
>>>
>> I assume you meant to say that BeeNer did not quote the original post.
>>
>>
>> I haven't read anything from anyone, saying your reply was
>> condescending. That's not my concern.
>>
>
> You see what's in your own mind obviously even though I told you why I
> answered the way I did. And yes, I meant "did not quote". I saw it as a
> general question, not specific and I responded in general. And there was
> no false impression at all as I was not responding to any single issue
> in the discussion.
>
> And besides, the entire thread was on-topic in essence simply because
> there was no f'up set and no OT notation made. Since his reply was
> on-topic, so was my reply and since my reply was on-topic, I had no
> reason to OT it and set a f'up. Therefore, his question seemingly was a
> question about why secnews is being discussed. Had the thread been split
> off with a specific notation as to the renaming issue, my reply, if any,
> would have been specific to that issue. Remember, he said "why is
> secnews being discussed", not "why is the renaming issue being discussed".
>
>
far less painfull that talking to Chris I
http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=brickwallvc6.jpg
reg
squaredancer
the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> I, like some others, really enjoy participating in an OT, sometimes
>> overdone for sure but nonetheless enjoyable
>>
>
> so, you enjoyed giving me a hard time in that other thread
> about developers. ;-)
>
>
reg
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> On 20.08.2007 21:04, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>
>>> On 8/20/07 9:29 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>>
>>>> On 20.08.2007 19:02, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=brickwallvc6.jpg
and bash your head! It's Chris I you're trying to convince... forget it!
Power-crazy goons can only be "convinced" after a 5-year, all-out war!
I came to Germany for a solid reason.
reg
squaredancer
Jahn to generate the following:? :
> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
> news:O_Kdnby4nvs0tlfb...@mozilla.org:
>
>
>> On 8/20/07 7:40 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke
>> thusly:
>>
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If it's wrong, don't say you didn't miss a thing. Your
>>>> answer was wrong, because you missed the context.
>>>>
>>> No, Jay was correct. BeeNer asked: "Out of curiosity - why
>>> are we discussing secnews.netscape.com in this news group?"
>>>
>>> And Jay correctly replied: "Someone asked how to configure SM
>>> to access secnews, that's why. Read the OP."
>>>
>> I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored
>> what BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
>>
>>
>
> It doesn't matter what BeeNer quoted in this case. BeeNer asked
> how the topic was raised, and Jay told him.
>
> Sheesh, get some comprehension skills!
>
>
as a "Spam Moose" (not of my origin) was founded on his conspicuous
"lack of presence" on these groups! He does *NOT* take the time to read
posts properly and he certainly *does not* take the required time to
digest the contents!
"Lack of comprehension" is due to lack of knowledge, induced by lack of
presence!
My opinion, based on observation.
reg
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
no OT blackouts in the general group. Just in the support ones.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
you're probably not that far off on your observations -- imo
Gus Richter
WTF? Keep that kind of shit out of here!
You were in the British army stationed in Germany. Messed with the
women, married one and liked it better there than on the Island, stayed
even though the women left you because it's better there than back home.
Don't dish out any other "solid reason crap. Please keep your bigoted,
racially intolerant, superior than thou comments to yourself!
Sad that I am forced to respond to that crap when the essence of what Ed
was saying is what I fully agree with.
--
Gus
squaredancer
that supports Bush and consortium??
reg
Christopher Jahn
>> Context? You really don't know what you're arguing. Must be
>> something in the water.
>>
>> Jay answered a question that was asked. "Context" does not
>> enter into it.
>
> It always enters into it.
Not the way you're twisting it. Jay answered the question that
was asked; "context" was not an issue. That's your bizarre lack
of sense kicking in.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Decisions terminate panic.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
> news:gbGdnUjaSaREZ1fb...@mozilla.org:
>
>>> Context? You really don't know what you're arguing. Must be
>>> something in the water.
>>>
>>> Jay answered a question that was asked. "Context" does not
>>> enter into it.
>> It always enters into it.
>
> Not the way you're twisting it. Jay answered the question that
> was asked; "context" was not an issue. That's your bizarre lack
> of sense kicking in.
I never said he didn't answer the question. I said that it gave a false
impression, about what was on-topic and what wasn't on-topic. If he
considered the context, he would have given a less general answer.
How about you answer my question. :-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>> If you
>> had bothered to privately EMAIL me for instance, I would have named
>> those devs for you.
>
> oh, *now* you tell me!
Well, you've emailed me about other matters, why not that one?!
>> How would you react to someone posting your REAL
>> name when you take great lengths to remain anonymous only to be known by
>> your "handle" (just an example, we know who YOU are).
>
> but you already know who I am.
That's what I said and it was just an "example".
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I never said he didn't answer the question. I said that it gave a false
> impression, about what was on-topic and what wasn't on-topic. If he
> considered the context, he would have given a less general answer.
Please tell me how "please read the OP" can be made into less of a
general answer. :-D
Case in point, sorta.
There was once a newspaper reporter that mentioned to President Calvin
Coolidge that he was an extraordinary master of meaningful dialog in few
words. So, he challenged Coolidge with a bet that he couldn't say
anything meaningful in less than three words. Coolidge responded "you
lose". ;-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> I, like some others, really enjoy participating in an OT, sometimes
>> overdone for sure but nonetheless enjoyable
>
> so, you enjoyed giving me a hard time in that other thread
> about developers. ;-)
>
Absolutely !!!! 8-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Blacked out in .general ?? You really have to work hard to do that .. ;-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Cheap shot at best, Reg!! Chris has devoted countless hours supporting
users and has a pretty decent support web site. Sure, we argue about
things from time to time ... so what?
Chris Ilias
> On 21.08.2007 19:12, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> I never said he didn't answer the question. I said that it gave a false
>> impression, about what was on-topic and what wasn't on-topic. If he
>> considered the context, he would have given a less general answer.
>
> Please tell me how "please read the OP" can be made into less of a
> general answer. :-D
Mention that the discussion veered off-topic. Like I said, the
impression you gave was that the OP justified the discussion about
renaming secnews being in the SeaMonkey newsgroup.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo says BeeNer would still have asked why
secnews was being discussed, even after seeing the original post. Could
you please explain to him, why reading the original post would have
answered BeeNer's question, thus negating the need for asking the question?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/21/07 8:41 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>> On 21.08.2007 19:12, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> I never said he didn't answer the question. I said that it gave a false
>>> impression, about what was on-topic and what wasn't on-topic. If he
>>> considered the context, he would have given a less general answer.
>>
>> Please tell me how "please read the OP" can be made into less of a
>> general answer. :-D
>
> Mention that the discussion veered off-topic. Like I said, the
> impression you gave was that the OP justified the discussion about
> renaming secnews being in the SeaMonkey newsgroup.
>
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo says BeeNer would still have asked why
> secnews was being discussed, even after seeing the original post. Could
> you please explain to him, why reading the original post would have
> answered BeeNer's question, thus negating the need for asking the question?
Peter isn't BeeNer. Subjective opinion at best. Dunno, you'll have to
ask BeeNer if reading the OP answered his question.
The BeeNer asked "why are we discussing secnews on this server", simple
and quite general a question without mention of anything OT or anything
to do with any specific part of the discussion.
The answer was in direct response to this direct and general question
"read the OP". How you read more into that is beyond me. What
impression(s) do you get other than to read the OP to find out?
Go find BeeNer and ask him/her why the question was asked as it's
obvious this debate will be everlasting.
My own thought on the subject as to why the question was asked is quite
basic. We were/are posting ON a Mozilla.org news server no matter how
it's accessed, so he wanted to know why we were discussiing another
server, "secnews". Seems simple to me. But that's "me", I tend to look
at the most basic and general questions and reply with the most basic
and general answer(s) in one line or less. He didn't ask why we were
discussing the renaming, did he? Sure, he just so happened to reply in
that part of thread but that was already covered with a fair
explanation. Also notice that he didn't tender a reply, did he, so I
have to assume that his question was answered correctly and to his
satisfaction. To say otherwise would be argumentative and quite a
stretch to say the least.
You're reading a whole lot that isn't there nor was it intended to be there.
Ed Mullen
> squaredancer wrote:
>> and bash your head! It's Chris I you're trying to convince... forget it!
>> Power-crazy goons can only be "convinced" after a 5-year, all-out war!
>> I came to Germany for a solid reason.
>>
>> reg
>
> WTF? Keep that kind of shit out of here!
> You were in the British army stationed in Germany. Messed with the
> women, married one and liked it better there than on the Island, stayed
> even though the women left you because it's better there than back home.
> Don't dish out any other "solid reason crap. Please keep your bigoted,
> racially intolerant, superior than thou comments to yourself!
Geez, Gus! I think was kinda over the top, reaction-wise, to say the least.
You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
----------
> Blacked out in .general ?? You really have to work hard to do that .. ;-)
Good thing I'm not king. I know a couple of threads that would have
gone in the bit bucket by now ;-)
--
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And
vice versa.
Irwin Greenwald
a hard copy medium? Sure a lot of nit pickin' going on lately!
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Chris Ilias
> The BeeNer asked "why are we discussing secnews on this server",
"why are we discussing secnews.netscape.com *in this news group*?"
(bold added by me)
> simple
> and quite general a question without mention of anything OT or anything
> to do with any specific part of the discussion.
<snip>
>
> My own thought on the subject as to why the question was asked is quite
> basic. We were/are posting ON a Mozilla.org news server no matter how
> it's accessed, so he wanted to know why we were discussiing another
> server, "secnews". Seems simple to me.
But as I said, other news servers are sometimes mentioned in
support.seamonkey, and when they come up, we don't see people
questioning why it's being discussed in support.seamonkey. Whenever
someone asks, "why is such and such being discussed here", they are
wondering if the current discussion is on-topic for the newsgroup.
> Also notice that he didn't tender a reply, did he, so I
> have to assume that his question was answered correctly and to his
> satisfaction. To say otherwise would be argumentative and quite a
> stretch to say the least.
Since it's Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo that disagrees with that, not
me, I want to see his rebuttal to that. :-)
My argument is about the false impression you gave. If reading the
original post (which was on news.mozilla.org, but about another server)
would have prevented BeeNer from asking the question, then it was
something else in that thread, that caused him/her to ask the question,
not simply the fact that it was on news.mozilla.org, but about another
server.
Irwin Greenwald
> On 21.08.2007 10:25, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> I, like some others, really enjoy participating in an OT, sometimes
>>> overdone for sure but nonetheless enjoyable
>> so, you enjoyed giving me a hard time in that other thread
>> about developers. ;-)
>>
>
> Absolutely !!!! 8-)
>
Irwin Greenwald
> Cheap shot at best, Reg!! Chris has devoted countless hours
> supporting users and has a pretty decent support web site. Sure, we
> argue about things from time to time ... so what?
Well spoken, Jay.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> My argument is about the false impression you gave. If reading the
> original post (which was on news.mozilla.org, but about another server)
> would have prevented BeeNer from asking the question, then it was
> something else in that thread, that caused him/her to ask the question,
> not simply the fact that it was on news.mozilla.org, but about another
> server.
If that is your argument then you are not correct, I didn't give a false
impression, I just answered the question without anything specific to
being off-topic. The question wasn't about being off-topic. It was a
specific inquiry about why secnews is being discussed. Nothing about
being off-topic was mentioned by ME or BeeNer. You are the one that's
assuming and stretching it as an OT query and hence your wrong
assumption leading to false impression that doesn't exist except
exclusively in your own mind. Seems everyone else that has replied in
this discussion "gets it".
Hey BeeNer !! Where are you, yoo hoooo ...... ;-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I was just wondering how many trees would have been wasted if this were
> a hard copy medium? Sure a lot of nit pickin' going on lately!
Just how far can you go into that forest anyways ?? ;-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/21/2007 5:42 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 21.08.2007 10:25, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> I, like some others, really enjoy participating in an OT, sometimes
>>>> overdone for sure but nonetheless enjoyable
>>> so, you enjoyed giving me a hard time in that other thread
>>> about developers. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely !!!! 8-)
>>
> Giving Hippo a hard time is really enjoyable because he takes it so well!
>
Just have to take my 100mg Toprol prior to the "hard times". :-)
Chris Ilias
Why else would someone wonder why another news server was being
discussed on news.mozilla.org?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Why else would someone wonder why another news server was being
> discussed on news.mozilla.org?
Exactly, why else. BeeNer didn't ask specifically other than why in
general. Also note that I didn't answer a question he didn't ask. You're
harping on the one he didn't ask. :-D
Chris Ilias
> On 21.08.2007 21:53, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Why else would someone wonder why another news server was being
>> discussed on news.mozilla.org?
>
> Exactly, why else. BeeNer didn't ask specifically other than why in
> general.
I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
In other words, if he/she didn't think it was OT, what reason would
he/she have to question another news server being discussed on
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
You'll have to ask BeeNer.
> In other words, if he/she didn't think it was OT, what reason would
> he/she have to question another news server being discussed on
> news.mozilla.org?
The original question was concerning the no-access to secnews. BeeNer
came late into the discussion, doesn't matter at what point, and simply
asked why secnews was being discussed on the mozilla.org server. Since
he didn't mention anything at all about being OT, remember the thread
wasn't marked OT and so why would he be speaking of OT. The assumption
then would reasonably be ascertained as to why secnews was being
discussed on the mozilla server. I reasoned that and responded likewise.
Chris Ilias
> On 21.08.2007 22:23, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
>
> You'll have to ask BeeNer.
What are your guesses? What would you consider to be possible reasons?
Daniel
> On 21.08.2007 21:25, Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> I was just wondering how many trees would have been wasted if this were
>> a hard copy medium? Sure a lot of nit pickin' going on lately!
>
> Just how far can you go into that forest anyways ?? ;-)
>
Half way maximum
But if we're talking paper, we're talking cutting trees down, and if we
start cutting trees from the outside, I guess we would only go a very
little way into the forest.
Daniel
Daniel
> On 21.08.2007 21:25, Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> I was just wondering how many trees would have been wasted if this were
>> a hard copy medium? Sure a lot of nit pickin' going on lately!
>
> Just how far can you go into that forest anyways ?? ;-)
>
Half way maximum.
but if we're talking cutting trees to make the paper, I'm guessing we
would start at the outside of the forest, therefore only need to go in a
very small amount.
Daniel
Chris Ilias
> In <news:-r2dnUsvC9DaMVbb...@mozilla.org>,
> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote:
>
>> I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
>> In other words, if he/she didn't think it was OT, what reason would
>> he/she have to question another news server being discussed on
>> news.mozilla.org?
>
> helped for Jay to have pointed out that the thread had gone OT.
>
> Assuming that BeeNer had the OT-ness of the thread in mind when asking
> the question (and you know what they say about "assume" ;) , ISTM the
> question would be best answered by pointing out that the subject had
> come up originally in an on-topic way, which is what Jay did IMO.
This is where the justification part enters. If BeeNer simply accepted
the fact that it was OT, why ask 'what is it doing in m.s.seamonkey'?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/22/07 12:00 AM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>> On 21.08.2007 22:23, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
>>
>> You'll have to ask BeeNer.
>
> What are your guesses? What would you consider to be possible reasons?
I already stated my guesses many times.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> This is where the justification part enters. If BeeNer simply accepted
> the fact that it was OT, why ask 'what is it doing in m.s.seamonkey'?
OT was never prepended to the subject nor did anyone that I can remember
mention anything about the thread being OT, so why/now would BeeNer
accept something that wasn't in effect, yes we all know it was actually
OT by the time it got past the point of answering the original post. But
I don't consider his question OR my reply as being OT, it was an
on-topic question with an on-topic answer. Again, go back and read his
question and my response, two very basic one-liners that has now grown
into massive proportions of paragraphs of non-issues and
mis-interpretations.
Christopher Jahn
> On 8/21/07 7:57 PM, _Christopher Jahn_ spoke thusly:
>> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
>> news:gbGdnUjaSaREZ1fb...@mozilla.org:
>>
>>>> Context? You really don't know what you're arguing. Must
>>>> be something in the water.
>>>>
>>>> Jay answered a question that was asked. "Context" does not
>>>> enter into it.
>>> It always enters into it.
>>
>> Not the way you're twisting it. Jay answered the question
>> that was asked; "context" was not an issue. That's your
>> bizarre lack of sense kicking in.
>
> I never said he didn't answer the question. I said that it
> gave a false impression, about what was on-topic and what
> wasn't on-topic
1. It didn't give a false impression.
2. The original question WAS on-topic.
3. Answering the question only showed how far off-topic the
discuss had gotten.
4. You are just wrong. Quit being such a huge jackass.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
My father was a good woman.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 21.08.2007 21:25, Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> I was just wondering how many trees would have been wasted if this were
>>> a hard copy medium? Sure a lot of nit pickin' going on lately!
>>
>> Just how far can you go into that forest anyways ?? ;-)
>>
>
> Half way maximum
Right cuz once you pass the halfway point you're on your way OUT .. :-)
> But if we're talking paper, we're talking cutting trees down, and if we
> start cutting trees from the outside, I guess we would only go a very
> little way into the forest.
>
> Daniel
Christopher Jahn
>> Assuming that BeeNer had the OT-ness of the thread in mind
>> when asking the question (and you know what they say about
>> "assume" ;) , ISTM the question would be best answered by
>> pointing out that the subject had come up originally in an
>> on-topic way, which is what Jay did IMO.
>
> This is where the justification part enters. If BeeNer simply
> accepted the fact that it was OT, why ask 'what is it doing in
> m.s.seamonkey'?
To find out how such an off-topic conversation started in the
first place. Duh.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
I haven't lost my mind; it's back up on tape somewhere.
Chris Ilias
> On 21.08.2007 23:04, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 8/22/07 12:00 AM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>> On 21.08.2007 22:23, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
>>> You'll have to ask BeeNer.
>> What are your guesses? What would you consider to be possible reasons?
>
> I already stated my guesses many times.
Could you please repeat them?
Chris Ilias
> On 22.08.2007 06:21, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> This is where the justification part enters. If BeeNer simply accepted
>> the fact that it was OT, why ask 'what is it doing in m.s.seamonkey'?
>
> OT was never prepended to the subject nor did anyone that I can remember
> mention anything about the thread being OT, so why/now would BeeNer
> accept something that wasn't in effect,
I didn't say BeeNer would accept it. In fact, my argument is that he/she
was in effect, asking "isn't this discussion OT?"
> yes we all know it was actually
> OT by the time it got past the point of answering the original post. But
> I don't consider his question OR my reply as being OT, it was an
> on-topic question with an on-topic answer. Again, go back and read his
> question and my response, two very basic one-liners that has now grown
> into massive proportions of paragraphs of non-issues and
> mis-interpretations.
When did I say BeeNer's question, or your response was OT? In fact, I
explicitly said those posts were not OT.
<http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/msg/95e211999e9065f7?q=No-one%20said%20BeeNer's%20message,%20your%20reply%20to%20BeeNer%20was%20OT.>
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
> news:9vydnZ_ttOSwgVHb...@mozilla.org:
>
>>> Assuming that BeeNer had the OT-ness of the thread in mind
>>> when asking the question (and you know what they say about
>>> "assume" ;) , ISTM the question would be best answered by
>>> pointing out that the subject had come up originally in an
>>> on-topic way, which is what Jay did IMO.
>> This is where the justification part enters. If BeeNer simply
>> accepted the fact that it was OT, why ask 'what is it doing in
>> m.s.seamonkey'?
>
> To find out how such an off-topic conversation started in the
> first place. Duh.
How is that more logical than asking whether or not the current
discussion actually belongs in that group? "Duh."
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
> news:2PadnctHHZ_z4lbb...@mozilla.org:
>
>> On 8/21/07 7:57 PM, _Christopher Jahn_ spoke thusly:
>>> Chris Ilias <n...@ilias.ca> wrote in
>>> news:gbGdnUjaSaREZ1fb...@mozilla.org:
>>>
>>>>> Context? You really don't know what you're arguing. Must
>>>>> be something in the water.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay answered a question that was asked. "Context" does not
>>>>> enter into it.
>>>> It always enters into it.
>>> Not the way you're twisting it. Jay answered the question
>>> that was asked; "context" was not an issue. That's your
>>> bizarre lack of sense kicking in.
>> I never said he didn't answer the question. I said that it
>> gave a false impression, about what was on-topic and what
>> wasn't on-topic
>
> 1. It didn't give a false impression.
...because...?
Obviously I disagree; so instead of just saying "It didn't...", how
about telling why you feel it didn't give a false impression.
> 2. The original question WAS on-topic.
Never said it wasn't. In fact, I said that it was on-topic, in my
original post.
<http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.seamonkey/msg/313e83aa69eb8d78>
> 3. Answering the question only showed how far off-topic the
> discuss had gotten.
It may have showed how far it deviated from the original discussion; but
it didn't state that the discussion no longer belonged in m.s.seamonkey.
> 4. You are just wrong. Quit being such a huge jackass.
Chris, I have not resorted to personal insults, and don't intend to. Jay
and I have been trying to explain and understand each other's opinions.
Saying "you are just wrong" isn't very productive; and calling someone a
"huge jackass" isn't going to encourage someone to make an effort to
understand your opinion. It's going to have the opposite effect.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/22/07 8:46 AM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>> On 22.08.2007 06:21, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> This is where the justification part enters. If BeeNer simply accepted
>>> the fact that it was OT, why ask 'what is it doing in m.s.seamonkey'?
>>
>> OT was never prepended to the subject nor did anyone that I can remember
>> mention anything about the thread being OT, so why/now would BeeNer
>> accept something that wasn't in effect,
>
> I didn't say BeeNer would accept it. In fact, my argument is that he/she
> was in effect, asking "isn't this discussion OT?"
Then your argument turns to an opinion that is not shared by me or
anyone else that I know of responding in this discussion.
Opinions noted.
>> yes we all know it was actually
>> OT by the time it got past the point of answering the original post. But
>> I don't consider his question OR my reply as being OT, it was an
>> on-topic question with an on-topic answer. Again, go back and read his
>> question and my response, two very basic one-liners that has now grown
>> into massive proportions of paragraphs of non-issues and
>> mis-interpretations.
>
> When did I say BeeNer's question, or your response was OT? In fact, I
> explicitly said those posts were not OT.
You didn't. Read my response again (above). I said "I" didn't consider
his or my response OT. And that is NOT an opinion based on the question
asked and the reply to same.
You answers and questions are getting too repetitive that I have
responded to repetitively. So I'm outta here, users need support. And
besides, it's already 95 Deg F here with an index way over 100. A/C
working overtime to say the least.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On 8/22/07 8:38 AM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>> On 21.08.2007 23:04, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> On 8/22/07 12:00 AM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>>> On 21.08.2007 22:23, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>
>>>>> I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
>>>> You'll have to ask BeeNer.
>>> What are your guesses? What would you consider to be possible reasons?
>>
>> I already stated my guesses many times.
>
> Could you please repeat them?
Oh c'mon .. geeze ...
Ok, one mo time.
My 'educated' guess was based solely on his question, which in my
opinion, also based on the question taken literally, had nothing to do
with the context above his reply that you pointed out. My guess is that
he wanted to know why we were discussing "secnews" on the "Mozilla"
server. My reply was entered accordingly, short and to the point. My
"opinion" is that you read a whole lot more into his question than was
actually there, and until we hear from BeeNer (doubtful), we can argue
the point(s) until the moon turns blue with no resolution.
There, again .. don't ask again. 8-)
Chris Ilias
> On 22.08.2007 08:30, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 8/22/07 8:38 AM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>> On 21.08.2007 23:04, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/07 12:00 AM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>>>>> On 21.08.2007 22:23, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>>>
>>>>>> I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
>>>>> You'll have to ask BeeNer.
>>>> What are your guesses? What would you consider to be possible reasons?
>>> I already stated my guesses many times.
>> Could you please repeat them?
>
> Oh c'mon .. geeze ...
>
> Ok, one mo time.
>
> My 'educated' guess was based solely on his question, which in my
> opinion, also based on the question taken literally, had nothing to do
> with the context above his reply that you pointed out. My guess is that
> he wanted to know why we were discussing "secnews" on the "Mozilla"
> server.
That's not what I asked you. We both know that he/she wanted to know why
you were discussing secnews on a Mozilla server. I asked you why did he
ask why. If he/she didn't think it was OT, what reason would he/she have
to question secnews being discussed on news.mozilla.org?
Chris Ilias
Here's another way of putting it, if the current phrases aren't
explaining it well:
Why would discussing secnews on a Mozilla server be an issue?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Geeze, you didn't absorb much of what I wrote ...
A little more specific then, just for you.
My guess is that his question had nothing to do with OT or even the
renaming of the secnews server, and since he hasn't bothered to respond,
it remains just a guess on my part and having been involved with user
support for well over a decade my "guess" was an educated one. I can't
get in his head and ascertain "why" he asked "why". I had to rely on
experience in order to formulate my reply. To answer your last sentence
above, I didn't think that he based his question on whether or not the
discussion was OT and the reason (I thought) he asked was because we
were discussing secnews on mozilla, that's it. My reply reflected
exactly why I thought was what he asked. If he wanted to specifically
inquire as to why we were discussing renaming the server which departed
from the original question then he should have stated that, like "why
are we discussing the renaming of the server when the subject was
concerning not being able to access the server". But instead he asked
simply "why are we discussing secnews". My guess is that he didn't read
the original post, came late to the discussion and responded under the
last post. If the last post would have been a continuation of the
original subject then we wouldn't be having this discussion would we if
he had responded with the same exact question. You read a whole lot more
into it than I did, for sure!! Or .. maybe he really did read the
original post and responded under the last post in the thread. Either
way, the question was still valid and my repsonse was the correct one
based on that question with all due considerations taken into account.
A good support person doesn't attempt to ascertain what the user is
thinking but rather answers the question as asked and then the user
hopefully will respond with further details to pinpoint the problem,
etc. How many times have you replied to a question and posted just a
link and the user responds with "that's not what I meant" or "that's
not the problem" instead of "please post more details so we can narrow
this down"? Same thing applies to the discussion at hand. We don't
actually know WHY, we can only answer the best we can based solely on
the question asked. And since we don't know WHY then it's
counterproductive to make guesses as to WHY thereby letting the user
reply with WHY and then go from there and once the user answers WHY it
now becomes a lot more concrete and a more pointed answer will be posted.
It's up to 96 deg F now and climbing.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
I don't/didn't have a problem with it. But apparently (opinion/guess) is
that BeeNer did/does/whatever. That's why I answered the way I did.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 21.08.2007 10:19, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>>> had bothered to privately EMAIL me for instance, I would have named
>>> those devs for you.
>> oh, *now* you tell me!
>
> Well, you've emailed me about other matters, why not that one?!
I have never email anyone about other matters. Just Chris I
to report is broken websites.
--
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
or Reply to Author. Thanks!
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo says BeeNer would still have asked why
> secnews was being discussed, even after seeing the original post. Could
> you please explain to him, why reading the original post would have
> answered BeeNer's question, thus negating the need for asking the question?
Boy you sure do twist things around. I never said that.
What I said was perhaps he [BeeNer] never saw the OP
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
>> Also notice that he didn't tender a reply, did he, so I
>> have to assume that his question was answered correctly and to his
>> satisfaction. To say otherwise would be argumentative and quite a
>> stretch to say the least.
>
> Since it's Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo that disagrees with that, not
> me, I want to see his rebuttal to that. :-)
>
what rebuttal. I agree with Jay, and I didn't say the above.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Hey BeeNer !! Where are you, yoo hoooo ...... ;-)
I don't think he knows this discussion is going on.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Gus Richter wrote:
>> squaredancer wrote:
>
>>> and bash your head! It's Chris I you're trying to convince... forget it!
>>> Power-crazy goons can only be "convinced" after a 5-year, all-out war!
>>> I came to Germany for a solid reason.
>>>
>>> reg
>> WTF? Keep that kind of shit out of here!
>> You were in the British army stationed in Germany. Messed with the
>> women, married one and liked it better there than on the Island, stayed
>> even though the women left you because it's better there than back home.
>> Don't dish out any other "solid reason crap. Please keep your bigoted,
>> racially intolerant, superior than thou comments to yourself!
>
> Geez, Gus! I think was kinda over the top, reaction-wise, to say the least.
>
perhaps he's like me and forget to put in those fricken
smiley faces when they're needed ;-)
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 21.08.2007 15:29, squaredancer wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Jahn to generate the following:? :>>> news:O_Kdnby4nvs0tlfb...@mozilla.org:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 8/20/07 7:40 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke
>>>> thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's wrong, don't say you didn't miss a thing. Your
>>>>>> answer was wrong, because you missed the context.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, Jay was correct. BeeNer asked: "Out of curiosity - why
>>>>> are we discussing secnews.netscape.com in this news group?"
>>>>>
>>>>> And Jay correctly replied: "Someone asked how to configure SM
>>>>> to access secnews, that's why. Read the OP."
>>>>>
>>>> I didn't say Jay ignored what BeeNer wrote. I said he ignored
>>>> what BeeNer quoted (ie. the context). ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what BeeNer quoted in this case. BeeNer asked
>>> how the topic was raised, and Jay told him.
>>>
>>> Sheesh, get some comprehension skills!
>>>
>>>
>> Christopher - one of my most serious doubts as to Chris I's competence
>> as a "Spam Moose" (not of my origin) was founded on his conspicuous
>> "lack of presence" on these groups! He does *NOT* take the time to read
>> posts properly and he certainly *does not* take the required time to
>> digest the contents!
>> "Lack of comprehension" is due to lack of knowledge, induced by lack of
>> presence!
>>
>> My opinion, based on observation.
>>
>> reg
>>
>>
>
> Cheap shot at best, Reg!! Chris has devoted countless hours supporting
> users and has a pretty decent support web site. Sure, we argue about
> things from time to time ... so what?
>
>
sorry, but I have to agree with reg on his statement.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> Hey BeeNer !! Where are you, yoo hoooo ...... ;-)
>
> I don't think he knows this discussion is going on.
>
Or .. he will come late to the discussion and wonder why we're talking
about it and we'll start this all over again .... :-(
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Not surprising but I've known Chris a lot longer and am quite aware of
his accomplishments, etc. He has a problem with some minor bumps in the
road as we all do but his support far outshines his stumbling over those
little bumps.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I have never email anyone about other matters. Just Chris I
> to report is broken websites.
You emailed me a coupla months ago about something, I didn't archive the
message.
Irwin Greenwald
> On 8/21/07 11:18 PM, _Jay Garcia_ spoke thusly:
>> On 21.08.2007 21:53, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> discussed on news.mozilla.org?
>>
>> Exactly, why else. BeeNer didn't ask specifically other than why in
>> general.
> I said /why/ did BeeNer ask /why/?
> he/she have to question another news server being discussed on
> news.mozilla.org?
Sheeeesh! He asked because he thought it was strange. Probably doesn't
even know what OT is.
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 21.08.2007 10:25, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>>> I, like some others, really enjoy participating in an OT, sometimes
>>> overdone for sure but nonetheless enjoyable
>> so, you enjoyed giving me a hard time in that other thread
>> about developers. ;-)
>>
>
> Absolutely !!!! 8-)
>
so now the truth comes out. All of those arguments could
have been avoided, but you so-called current and former Moz
Champs wouldn't let it go.
Perhaps I should mark this part of the thread as OT others
someone will complain that we're diverting from the original
problem. Oh forget it.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
but those bumps cause a lot of irritations: for example in
this thread, and in my developers thread.
> as we all do but his
> support far outshines his stumbling over those little
> bumps.
currently, he doesn't provide much support in the support
groups. Maybe one post once every 2 or 5 weeks.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 22.08.2007 12:19, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> I have never email anyone about other matters. Just Chris I
>> to report is broken websites.
>
> You emailed me a coupla months ago about something, I didn't archive the
> message.
>
>
as I said, I didn't and haven't email you.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> How about you answer my question. :-)
why don't YOU answer my questions!? :-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 21.08.2007 10:25, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> I, like some others, really enjoy participating in an OT, sometimes
>>>> overdone for sure but nonetheless enjoyable
>>> so, you enjoyed giving me a hard time in that other thread
>>> about developers. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely !!!! 8-)
>>
>
> so now the truth comes out. All of those arguments could
> have been avoided, but you so-called current and former Moz
> Champs wouldn't let it go.
If you would have stopped we would have stopped.
> Perhaps I should mark this part of the thread as OT others
> someone will complain that we're diverting from the original
> problem. Oh forget it.
OT to OT ... what's wrong with that?
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
I get on a lot of peoples nerves, so? Keeps the ticker ticking. :-)
>> as we all do but his
>> support far outshines his stumbling over those little
>> bumps.
>
> currently, he doesn't provide much support in the support
> groups. Maybe one post once every 2 or 5 weeks.
>
Maybe all the questions are being aswered correctly, who knows. Or maybe
he's getting new ticket books printed. 8-)
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 22.08.2007 12:19, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> I have never email anyone about other matters. Just Chris I
>>> to report is broken websites.
>>
>> You emailed me a coupla months ago about something, I didn't archive the
>> message.
>>
>>
>
> as I said, I didn't and haven't email you.
>
Then someone used your name AND IP address. The message is gone so I
have no proof ... o well.