Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
of my messages as OT. However, these messages have been
dated as far back as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told
about this now!!!! Don't you think I should have been
contacted and warned back then, and not now. What are you
doing, saving them up until you build up a file of them?
Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and
that everyone who posted after my OT messages have been
contacted as well and warned.
This message that was sent to me I considered it was very
*offensive* and very threatening. I think it should be
reworded a little properly and tackful -- otherwise get rid
of it. Or better yet, get rid of the Newsgroup Police.
It also says "Please note we don't want to lose any support
volunteers . . . " Well, if you keep sending out these
disgusting messages you will. I'd sure like to know how
many have left because of this retardation. I know of one
person who left. Is this how the Mozilla community treats
its volunteers? If so, with threats and offensive emails
like this, you will lose them.
--
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
> In <news:pqqdndV83dSY6DPb...@mozilla.org>,
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> <peter.potamus.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and
>> that everyone who posted after my OT messages have been
>> contacted as well and warned.
>>
>> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very
>> *offensive* and very threatening.
>
>
thats where you're wrong. It was on both accounts.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> In <news:pqqdndV83dSY6DPb...@mozilla.org>,
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> <peter.potamus.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> that everyone who posted after my OT messages have been
>> contacted as well and warned.
>>
>> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very
>> *offensive* and very threatening.
>
>
how would you know!? You're one of the Spam Moose Cops
Larry Gusaas
> Apparently, one of the idiot spam mooses has considered 17 of my
> messages as OT. However, these messages have been dated as far back
> as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told about this now!!!! Don't you
> think I should have been contacted and warned back then, and not now.
> What are you doing, saving them up until you build up a file of them?
>
> Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and that
> everyone who posted after my OT messages have been contacted as well
> and warned.
>
> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very *offensive*
> and very threatening. I think it should be reworded a little properly
> and tackful -- otherwise get rid of it. Or better yet, get rid of the
> Newsgroup Police.
>
> It also says "Please note we don't want to lose any support volunteers
> . . . " Well, if you keep sending out these disgusting messages you
> will. I'd sure like to know how many have left because of this
> retardation. I know of one person who left. Is this how the Mozilla
> community treats its volunteers? If so, with threats and offensive
> emails like this, you will lose them.
>
Only 17? You are slipping .
What i find offensive is your constant and insulting use of the phrase
"idiot spam mooses".
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
and why not? Its backwardness having Newsgroup Police. What
other News Server have Newsgroup Police? What other server
has someone send you an offensive email, threatening to
remove your postings from the server? Is this what this
Community wants to be known for -- "oh, you better
becareful, that news server have Newsgroup Police! They'll
remove your postings!"
It was only one person that hates OT messages, and he's
conned others into doing his dirty job and act as Idiot Spam
Mooses [aka Newsgroup Police].
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
It's hard for me to enter comments on the running of this server as a
"user" because of my involvement with AOL/Netscape. However, you really
need to take this to email and yes, you deserve an explanation in
detail. This is the way we did it and continue to do it, if necessary,
on Secnews.
Try to keep in mind that these folks are trying to keep order on this
server the best they know how, following the outline of the etiquette
guidelines, etc. If it doesn't work then it will die a natural death on
it's own and the admin(s) will come up with another plan hopefully
suitable to all users.
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> you really
> need to take this to email and yes, you deserve an explanation in
> detail.
no, I think the rest of the Community should know whats
going on and how it can affect them. Thats why I deserve an
explanation here. Otherwise, what are they affraid of?
This is the way we did it and continue to do it, if necessary,
> on Secnews.
I thought you said there was no Police and no
deleting/removing of messages on that server.
Unfortunately, I can't provide proof of that because the
messages on that server have expired.
> Try to keep in mind that these folks are trying to keep order on this
> server the best they know how, following the outline of the etiquette
> guidelines, etc.
sending out *offensive* and threating messages isn't
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
Some of us myself included are considering the possibility of looking
for alternative products other than Mozilla products.
I got a notice and out of 3 1/2 months there were 10 items cited; of
the 10, 3 I admitted to being frivolous. the other 7 I responding to
the reply immediate to the last comment I made in the thread shown. and
Explanation given.
I also commented that I will try and Make and effort. I think this will
be my third comment or post the entire day. And am fearful that I will
be thrown of the groups.
I also read and comment to office 2004 groups (Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
they note that the difference between them and other groups and servers
They state "we consider ourselves as Communities, and its sad the others
want to tightly control free thought"
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Some of us myself included are considering the possibility of looking
> for alternative products other than Mozilla products.
yuppers, thats very correct. Opera is starting to look good
about now.
> I also commented that I will try and Make and effort. I think this will
> be my third comment or post the entire day. And am fearful that I will
> be thrown of the groups.
thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
server.
> I also read and comment to office 2004 groups (Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
> they note that the difference between them and other groups and servers
> They state "we consider ourselves as Communities, and its sad the others
> want to tightly control free thought"
got any postings of those messages? Because of the attitude
of the Head Spam Moose, he is giving the Mozilla Community
here a bad rep.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> This is the way we did it and continue to do it, if necessary,
>> on Secnews.
>
> I thought you said there was no Police and no
> deleting/removing of messages on that server.
> Unfortunately, I can't provide proof of that because the
> messages on that server have expired.
There is no Police Department, the Champs watch the server, there are no
warnings sent out, no posts deleted other than offensive porn-type
stuff, etc. Users are allowed to dig their own hole in full view of
their peers or vice-versa.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
> server.
Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
have the final say-so.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
>> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
>> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
>> server.
>
> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
> have the final say-so.
Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it exacerbated
the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure that resolved the
situation.
Would you recommend doing the same today?
--
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and, whatever you hit,
call it the target.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
>> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
>> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
>> server.
>
> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
> have the final say-so.
>
thats not what the emails I've been saying. According to
them, several were ban.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
>>> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
>>> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
>>> server.
>>
>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
>> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
>> have the final say-so.
>
> Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
> effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it exacerbated
> the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure that resolved the
> situation.
>
> Would you recommend doing the same today?
>
After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
any attempts in over 2 years now.
Would I recommend doing the same today?
Depends on the user and the infraction(s). However, in the case you
mention, no, it didn't exacerbate the issue as it was well out of hand
regardless. It wasn't until the user starting using profanity and
posting the same message hundreds of times in the same session that
Netscape/AOL decided to deny access to the server altogether. There is
always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and still
are today.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
> thats not what the emails I've been saying. According to
> them, several were ban.
Well, as admin for secnews, there was only one that was officially
banned since 1995 when the server went live and I've been an admin since
the beginning. There were some that were scolded and threatened but only
ONE was actually banned. The others just left on their own with no fanfare.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews
>>>> server and they may just do it here too. Just remember
>>>> this: one of the Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews
>>>> server.
>>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official ban
>>> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but didn't
>>> have the final say-so.
>> Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
>> effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it exacerbated
>> the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure that resolved the
>> situation.
>>
>> Would you recommend doing the same today?
>>
>
> After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
> authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
> worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
> any attempts in over 2 years now.
I don't this script would work here on the mozilla.org
server. After all, one can post from googlegroups.
> There is
> always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
> before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and still
> are today.
you couldn't have been that tolerant if you had to ban that
person.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
I don't know if you were around in those days since you are somewhat of
a NymShyfter, but if you are at all familiar with what was going on, it
was quite tolerant up to a point. Specifically on Jay's part. He was
the subject of voluminous profane postings.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
You sure know how to stretch a point. One user out of several thousand
is "tolerant" in my book seeing as how the tolerance threshold was
crossed by only that one user.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
No I wasn't, but I know people who was, and they're telling
me another story. Interesting that all these people who are
telling the same story about more than one being banned
can't be all wrong.
Interesting how these people are telling me that it was more
involved than Jay. As a matter of fact, it was several
Netscape Champs who was involved.
Further, its interesting how those same banned people from
the secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within
the moz server.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
I was there then, I'm here now. I have no dog in this fight. I can
tell you only *one*person was banned.
> Interesting how these people are telling me that it was more involved
> than Jay. As a matter of fact, it was several Netscape Champs who was
> involved.
I can't/won't assign motive to those telling you otherwise. I can tell
you I disagreed with the decision and made my opinion known. Others who
disagreed stopped posting to secnews.
> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the secnews
> server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz server.
Apples and oranges.
Irwin Greenwald
> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
> server.
I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
--
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 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>> server.
>
> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>
sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
names. If I had, I sure would.
Larry Gusaas
> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>> server.
>>
>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>
>
> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
> had, I sure would.
>
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 8/1/07 1:35 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>>> server.
>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>>
>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
>> had, I sure would.
>>
> Once again you do not provide proof to back up your statements.
>
Do you not read: I would if I could, but I don't have their
permission.
Blinky the Shark
> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>> server.
>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>
>
> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
> names. If I had, I sure would.
Have you requested it?
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>> server.
>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>
>
> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
> names. If I had, I sure would.
>
and before anyone jumps on me, these are private
individuals, unlike the programmers, where their names are
all over the credits, wiki websites, some on the Moz
website, and so forth. There is no comparison between the two.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the
so-called Champs found out all hell would break out. If you
think the flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen
nothin' yet! My understanding is some very bad stuff was
said back then.
Chris Ilias
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>>>> server.
>>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>>>
>>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
>>> had, I sure would.
>>
>> Have you requested it?
>
> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
> found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad in
> this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is some
> very bad stuff was said back then.
Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>>>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>>>>>> server.
>>>>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>>>>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>>>>>
>>>>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If
>>>>> I had, I sure would.
>>>> Have you requested it?
>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
>>> found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad
>>> in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is
>>> some very bad stuff was said back then.
>>
>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
>
> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these people; so
when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out who, that would
imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
I didn't say any sort of thing. Only you're implying that,
not me.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Oh, btw: its amazing how you twist things around to suit
your own purpose.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> On 8/1/07 4:47 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>>>> Champs found out all hell would break out. If you think the
>>>>> flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My
>>>>> understanding is some very bad stuff was said back then.
>>>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
>>> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these people;
>> so when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out who, that
>> would imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.
>
> I didn't say any sort of thing. Only you're implying that, not me.
Okay; so could you please clarify the details for me? Who did the
banning, and what detail did you not want the Champs to find out?
Irwin Greenwald
> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz server.
>>
>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>
>
> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
> had, I sure would.
>
don't exist.
Irwin Greenwald
> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>>> server.
>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>>
>>
>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
>> had, I sure would.
>>
>
> and before anyone jumps on me, these are private individuals, unlike the
> programmers, where their names are all over the credits, wiki websites,
> some on the Moz website, and so forth. There is no comparison between
> the two.
>
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
As admin I know what was going on, who was involved and who was banned
and that was only ONE person that was banned, PERIOD, end of story.
There is no need whatsoever to revive this, thanks.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>> server.
>>
>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>
>
> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
> names. If I had, I sure would.
>
You won't have their permission simply because they weren't banned,
simple as that. The one person that WAS banned hasn't posted here and on
secnews for well over 2 years now. There were a few others that were
"asked" to leave but not officially or otherwise banned. There is no
need to bring this up again.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the
> so-called Champs found out all hell would break out. If you
> think the flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen
> nothin' yet! My understanding is some very bad stuff was
> said back then.
Found out what? You're not listening to me - Officially From Netscape as
a paid representative of Netscape. There was only ONE user that was banned.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
>
> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Put this to rest!
The "Champs" did NOT have the authority to BAN anyone from the Netscape
Secnews Server. We (Champs) could only make recommendations and the rest
was up to Netscape. And we (Champs) only made ONE recommendation and
THAT user was the only ONE that was banned.
Now, answer your own question ...
Chris Jahn
news:fdednZC4td4HQi3b...@mozilla.org:
>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned
>> from secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>
>
> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
> names. If I had, I sure would.
What a copout.
The fact is that you can't name them, because they do not exist.
--
Mozilla & Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey solutions: http://ilias.ca/
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
What's so funny 'bout Peace, Love, and Understanding?
Christopher Jahn
news:XfednePkkKjMaS3b...@mozilla.org:
> Reason: If the so-called Champs
>>>>> found out all hell would break out. If you think the
>>>>> flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin'
>>>>> yet! My understanding is some very bad stuff was said
>>>>> back then.
>>>>
>>>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned
>>>> these people?
>>>
>>> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these
>> people; so when you say that you don't want the Champs to
>> find out who, that would imply that the Champs don't know who
>> they banned.
>
> I didn't say any sort of thing.
Actually, you said exactly that. Along with a lot of other
idiotic things you can't back up with anything resembling facts.
One person was banned from SecNews, period. We all knew who it
was. We all know why it happened. Not all of us approved. We'd
have noticed if someone else was banned; I certainly know of some
people who were ripe targets, and they were allowed to keep
posting.
But only one person consistently went over the line, and only one
person was banned. If someone has told you different, they lied.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
A rose by any other name would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault
vegetation."
Chris Jahn
>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an
>> official ban from Netscape, not from the Champs although we
>> were consulted but didn't have the final say-so.
>>
>
> thats not what the emails I've been saying. According to
> them, several were ban.
I was there. They are lying to you. Or you are lying about
recieving emails.
--
Mozilla & Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey solutions: http://ilias.ca/
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
You won't know anything for certain until you look in the box.
And by then, of course, it's too late!
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 8/1/07 5:03 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> On 8/1/07 4:47 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>>>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called
>>>>>> Champs found out all hell would break out. If you think the
>>>>>> flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My
>>>>>> understanding is some very bad stuff was said back then.
>>>>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
>>>> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these people;
>>> so when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out who, that
>>> would imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.
>> I didn't say any sort of thing. Only you're implying that, not me.
>
> Okay; so could you please clarify the details for me? Who did the
> banning, and what detail did you not want the Champs to find out?
I'm not answering any more of your questions until you Spam
Mooses answer the ones I've made in previous postings.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 01.08.2007 15:20, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the
>> so-called Champs found out all hell would break out. If you
>> think the flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen
>> nothin' yet! My understanding is some very bad stuff was
>> said back then.
>
> Found out what? You're not listening to me - Officially From Netscape as
> a paid representative of Netscape. There was only ONE user that was banned.
>
well, thats what you say.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 01.08.2007 14:35, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>>> server.
>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>>
>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
>> names. If I had, I sure would.
>>
>
> You won't have their permission simply because they weren't banned,
> simple as that. The one person that WAS banned hasn't posted here and on
> secnews for well over 2 years now.
shows you how much you know about who's posting.
> There were a few others that were
> "asked" to leave but not officially or otherwise banned. There is no
> need to bring this up again.
>
getting a little testy, aren't we?
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like
you're trying to hide something.
Larry Gusaas
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 01.08.2007 15:20, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called
>>> Champs found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming
>>> is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My
>>> understanding is some very bad stuff was said back then.
>>
>> Found out what? You're not listening to me - Officially From Netscape as
>> a paid representative of Netscape. There was only ONE user that was
>> banned.
>>
>
> well, thats what you say.
As far as I am concerned if you can't provide the names, they don't exist.
--
Unblocked
news:stCdnSu0MZC1zCzb...@mozilla.org:
> becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like
> you're trying to hide something.
No, it sounds like he's getting irritated by a snarky jerk who
makes accusations that he can't back up.
Jay has posted the proof of his statements, and you haven't
posted one fact. You relentlessly demand proofs, they are
provided, you claim that they don't prove anything. You make
claims, and then refuse to back them up.
A lot of energy has been wasted on you. You're not worth it.
You're just some little arrogant snot with no life, and it's time
everyone just killfiled you. Then you can rant on all you like
about the fictitious victims of "banning."
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
looks like chrissy jahn is doing his stupid little things
again. Trying to hide under another name.
Irwin Greenwald
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> On 8/1/07 5:03 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>> On 8/1/07 4:47 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
>>>>>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called
>>>>>>> Champs found out all hell would break out. If you think the
>>>>>>> flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My
>>>>>>> understanding is some very bad stuff was said back then.
>>>>>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
>>>>> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these
>>>> people; so when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out
>>>> who, that would imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.
>>> I didn't say any sort of thing. Only you're implying that, not me.
>>
>> Okay; so could you please clarify the details for me? Who did the
>> banning, and what detail did you not want the Champs to find out?
>
> I'm not answering any more of your questions until you Spam Mooses
> answer the ones I've made in previous postings.
>
be able to play?
Irwin Greenwald
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 01.08.2007 15:20, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
>>> found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad
>>> in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is
>>> some very bad stuff was said back then.
>>
>> Found out what? You're not listening to me - Officially From Netscape as
>> a paid representative of Netscape. There was only ONE user that was
>> banned.
>>
>
> well, thats what you say.
>
Irwin Greenwald
liars. It's your only way out of a stupid situation of your own creation.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like you're
> trying to hide something.
Tell you what I'll do to try to end this, Peter.
You claim to have people telling you they were banned from secnews. I
have been active on secnews since around 1996/7 when I first downloaded
Netscape 1.x from a BBS using minicom over a dial up.
I was very involved in the particular group that the banned individual
was active in, it was kind of a coffee klatch where various and sundry
experiments with coding were conducted. This means I am familiar with
all the people involved.
Ask those who claim to also have been banned to contact me at
rinaldij.at.gmail.com and refresh my memory. It will be nice hearing
from old friends. I guarantee the information will go no further than
my computer.
--
You are here:
***
***
*********
*******
*****
***
*
But you're not all there.
JoeS
I was kind of newbie during that period, and got pretty put-off by the whole experience, but I survived.
Quite a few key talented contributors left the group as a result of the whole experience.
As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some developed life long friendships there.
I've seen comments here and there (not from anyone official) about "that club" as if it was a bad thing.
I would say the opposite. What's wrong with having fun while you learn and experiment.
We need to have a little more of that camaraderie here. Which certainly should not include name calling.
There were 2 main characters in the "drama"
One I'll call "bigmouth" the other "whiner" Both were very disruptive, and was never sure they weren't the same
person in a schizophrenic way. In fact that might be why some folks think more that one person was banned.
"Bigmouth was banned"
"whiner" still posts occasionally.
JoeS
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 01.08.2007 14:35, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
>>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
>>>>> server.
>>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
>>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
>>>>
>>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
>>> names. If I had, I sure would.
>>>
>>
>> You won't have their permission simply because they weren't banned,
>> simple as that. The one person that WAS banned hasn't posted here and on
>> secnews for well over 2 years now.
>
> shows you how much you know about who's posting.
Yes it does, thank you.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>
You guys only know what was going on in the group, there was a lot more
behind the scenes. The person that was banned was not banned because of
posting to the group. The person was banned by Netscape Legal Dept., not
by the Champs or anyone representing the Champs or the Champs program.
I'll have to leave it at that. And the "Bigmouth" you refer to was the
main cause of another server's group being taken out of commission
altogether, not just banning the user.
And yes, I believe I know who the "whiner" is and that person was never
banned, official or otherwise and yes still posting.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> As to "coffee klatch" it was a
> little more than that, as some developed life long
> friendships there. I've seen comments here and there (not
> from anyone official) about "that club" as if it was a
> bad thing. I would say the opposite. What's wrong with
> having fun while you learn and experiment. We need to
> have a little more of that camaraderie here.
we try, but because of the Spam Mooses, camaraderie will
never happen on the Mozilla servers.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
if those that are posting here sees this message, then its
up to them to contact you.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
> developed life long friendships there.
And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
--
$100 invested at 7% interest for 100 years will become $100,000, at
which time it will be worth absolutely nothing.
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
Blinky the Shark
> JoeS wrote:
>
>> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
>> developed life long friendships there.
>
> And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
Is there some kind of insurance I can buy against that? I already have
three exes. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that way.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Fred W.
> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>> JoeS wrote:
>>
>>> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
>>> developed life long friendships there.
>>
>> And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
>
> Is there some kind of insurance I can buy against that? I already have
> three exes. :)
>
Stop bathing?
Rinaldi J. Montessi
> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>> JoeS wrote:
>>
>>> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
>>> developed life long friendships there.
>>
>> And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
>
> Is there some kind of insurance I can buy against that? I already have
> three exes. :)
I've found curmudgeonhood to be helpful. Women seem to like it in small
doses but shy away from a steady diet of it. Perfect!
--
If God had intended Man to Watch TV, He would have given him Rabbit
Ears.
The Real Bev
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>>> JoeS wrote:
>>>
>>>> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
>>>> developed life long friendships there.
>>>
>>> And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
>>
>> Is there some kind of insurance I can buy against that? I already have
>> three exes. :)
>
> I've found curmudgeonhood to be helpful. Women seem to like it in small
> doses but shy away from a steady diet of it. Perfect!
Well, maybe I'll get sick of it in another 45 years. There are worse things
than curmudgeonhood and if I concentrate for a while I'm sure I can come up
with one...
I am personally thankful for the secnews groups I read -- I guess *n*x
people are way more tolerant of OTness than windows or mac people.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala,
it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet." -- Anon.
Rinaldi J. Montessi
-------------
> I am personally thankful for the secnews groups I read -- I guess *n*x
> people are way more tolerant of OTness than windows or mac people.
It's hard to stay on topic when you're trained to think sideways :-)
I also miss the discussions we used to have in n.test and n.c.unix.
Once in a while we'll get off on a tangent in one of the support groups,
but knowing it's frowned upon I try to keep it short.
--
Some people in this department wouldn't recognize subtlety if it hit
them on the head.
Blinky the Shark
I still have to live with *myself*.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>>> JoeS wrote:
>>>
>>>> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
>>>> developed life long friendships there.
>>> And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
>> Is there some kind of insurance I can buy against that? I already have
>> three exes. :)
>
> I've found curmudgeonhood to be helpful. Women seem to like it in small
> doses but shy away from a steady diet of it. Perfect!
*That* I've been doing since 1989, and you're right -- to far it's
worked almost perfectly.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> I am personally thankful for the secnews groups I read -- I guess *n*x
> people are way more tolerant of OTness than windows or mac people.
'scuse me ... I am a "Windows" person and I am the admin of secnews. :-)
squaredancer
Shark to generate the following:? :
> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>
>> JoeS wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
>>> developed life long friendships there.
>>>
>> And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
>>
>
> Is there some kind of insurance I can buy against that? I already have
> three exes. :)
>
>
reg
squaredancer
Montessi to generate the following:? :
> The Real Bev wrote:
> -------------
>
>> I am personally thankful for the secnews groups I read -- I guess *n*x
>> people are way more tolerant of OTness than windows or mac people.
>>
>
> It's hard to stay on topic when you're trained to think sideways :-)
>
> I also miss the discussions we used to have in n.test and n.c.unix.
> Once in a while we'll get off on a tangent in one of the support groups,
> but knowing it's frowned upon I try to keep it short.
>
>
1) have a *LIFE* outside Moz
2) be capable of smiling
two aspects that seem to exist on the secnews server!
reg
squaredancer
the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>
>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like you're
>>> trying to hide something.
>>>
>> Tell you what I'll do to try to end this, Peter.
>>
>> You claim to have people telling you they were banned from secnews. I
>> have been active on secnews since around 1996/7 when I first downloaded
>> Netscape 1.x from a BBS using minicom over a dial up.
>>
>> I was very involved in the particular group that the banned individual
>> was active in, it was kind of a coffee klatch where various and sundry
>> experiments with coding were conducted. This means I am familiar with
>> all the people involved.
>>
>> Ask those who claim to also have been banned to contact me at
>> rinaldij.at.gmail.com and refresh my memory. It will be nice hearing
>> from old friends. I guarantee the information will go no further than
>> my computer.
>>
>>
>
> if those that are posting here sees this message, then its
> up to them to contact you.
>
>
persistantly foulmouthing. A guy named Antony S. was "asked" to post
elsewhere - despite some very good help (and a *very* good website) he
persisted in engaging in long personalised attacks on (in particular on
"one of") the Champs...
The first was very much justified, the second probably also but it was a
shame to lose him and his help!
reg
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
No need for the ***'s ... Lorraine was not banned but she posted that
she was. Interesting how someone could post if they were banned! ;-)
Lorraine still posts on secnews btw.
Antony Shen was not asked to post elsewhere, at least not by any of the
Champs or Netscape. Antony did not participate in any personal attacks
on any of the Champs but rather did go round and round with ChrisI, who
by the way is not a Netscape Champ and at the time the Mozilla Champs
hadn't been formed yet. Antony was and still is a respected member of
the support community who, like others, has donated his time and efforts
to make life a lot easier for the users out there with support
questions, etc.
If you want the true and factual stories, ask ME, the secnews admin.
Everything else is conjecture and rumor and needs to be stopped. There
is no point in bringing this up again.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Fred W. > wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>>>> JoeS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
>>>>> developed life long friendships there.
>>>> And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
>>> Is there some kind of insurance I can buy against that? I already have
>>> three exes. :)
>>>
>> Stop bathing?
>
> I still have to live with *myself*.
>
Queen Elizabeth I never took a bath in her life. She said:
"Water will not touch the royal body." Did she stink? You
bet and in more ways than one. What she did was douse
herself with perfume. But the perfume was so over whelming,
whenever she left the room, the smell of the perfume was
still there.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Fred W. > wrote:
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
>>>>> JoeS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some
>>>>>> developed life long friendships there.
>>>>> And at least one marriage, IIRC :-)
>>>> Is there some kind of insurance I can buy against that? I already have
>>>> three exes. :)
>>>>
>>> Stop bathing?
>>
>> I still have to live with *myself*.
>>
>
> Queen Elizabeth I never took a bath in her life. She said:
> "Water will not touch the royal body." Did she stink? You
> bet and in more ways than one. What she did was douse
> herself with perfume. But the perfume was so over whelming,
> whenever she left the room, the smell of the perfume was
> still there.
>
From a personal interview with QE-I:
Personal Hygiene: I do bathe frequently, and much to the dismay of Lady
Kat, I do insist on having my own bathing tub travel with us wherever we
go! I cannot tolerate any unpleasantry in smells and do insist on good
hygiene of those in our presence. I do love the smell of Lavender as
well as Amber.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Queen Elizabeth I never took a bath in her life. She said:
> "Water will not touch the royal body." Did she stink? You
> bet and in more ways than one. What she did was douse
> herself with perfume. But the perfume was so over whelming,
> whenever she left the room, the smell of the perfume was
> still there.
>
And more ...
Peter, the Hermit of the First Crusade, had "no water touch his body for
forty years". Henry IV opined that those who had been conferred state
honour should bathe once in a lifetime. Queen Elizabeth bathed only once
a month while the Spanish Queen Isabella washed her body twice in her
life. Louis XII imposed a ban on bathing.
Bathing was officially introduced in England by Eleanot of Castle.
Surprisingly, the 1600-built Palace of Versailles does not contain a
single bathroom! But, interestingly, Napoleon Bonaparte gifted a bath
tub to Josephine.
Seems somebody got their stories mixed up .. Or maybe quite regularly to
QE-I means once a month. :-D
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> In <news:G7Sdnda7wtR0_C7b...@mozilla.org>,
> I think that first quote you cited is actually from a performer at a
> Renaissance festival.
> <http://www.kcrenfest.com/Performer/CharacterSurveys/2007/QueenElizabeth.htm>
>
> In an interview with the director of the HBO file, he talks about the
> set design and mentions her bathing chamber in Whitehall.
> <http://www.hbo.com/films/elizabeth/interviews/tom_hooper.html>
>
> Not exactly the same kind of bathing, but according to this book review,
> she was responsible for reviving the popularity of Bath.
> <http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikatotimes/4112560a14336.html>
>
> "Queen Elizabeth I made bathing fashionable in 1591, when she would
> enter the roman baths in Bath fully clothed.
> "Previously it had been thought to immerse your body in water would
> cause death and disease."
>
> The Wikipedia article on bathtubs says bathing didn't fall out of favor
> until after the Renaissance. It also says ER had one of the first two
> WCs in Europe.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub>
>
Correct but the script was taken directly from QE-I or so it's believed.
Nonetheless there are many semi-factual accounts from a myriad of
sources, some believable and some not, who knows, I wasn't there. :-)
Irwin Greenwald
The Real Bev
> On 03.08.2007 00:08, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> I am personally thankful for the secnews groups I read -- I guess *n*x
>> people are way more tolerant of OTness than windows or mac people.
>
> 'scuse me ... I am a "Windows" person and I am the admin of secnews. :-)
Nobody ever tried to "moderate" n.m.u.u., though. I miss it.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
=====================================================
Why can't we all just get along and do things my way?
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
but didn't you say: "From a personal interview with QE-I":
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.general/msg/10c54d04fe15f3e5
or
news://news.mozilla.org:119/94KdneUzZeaV_S7b...@mozilla.org
so I thought you were there.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> On 03.08.2007 00:08, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> I am personally thankful for the secnews groups I read -- I guess *n*x
>>> people are way more tolerant of OTness than windows or mac people.
>>
>> 'scuse me ... I am a "Windows" person and I am the admin of secnews. :-)
>
> Nobody ever tried to "moderate" n.m.u.u., though. I miss it.
>
It's still there - netscape.netscape9.unix but no activity yet. The
other unix groups are still there as well.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Yup, sure did, just didn't mention it was an interview with the actor
portraying QE-I .. :-)
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> of my messages as OT. However, these messages have been
> dated as far back as July 1st. And yet, I'm being told
> about this now!!!! Don't you think I should have been
> contacted and warned back then, and not now. What are you
> doing, saving them up until you build up a file of them?
>
> Furthermore, I hope this wasn't an attack against me, and
> that everyone who posted after my OT messages have been
> contacted as well and warned.
>
> This message that was sent to me I considered it was very
> *offensive* and very threatening. I think it should be
> reworded a little properly and tackful -- otherwise get rid
> of it. Or better yet, get rid of the Newsgroup Police.
>
> It also says "Please note we don't want to lose any support
> volunteers . . . " Well, if you keep sending out these
> disgusting messages you will. I'd sure like to know how
> many have left because of this retardation. I know of one
> person who left. Is this how the Mozilla community treats
> its volunteers? If so, with threats and offensive emails
> like this, you will lose them.
>
well here it is. One week later, and still nobody has
contacted me regarding my complaint. These Spam Mooses send
out Offensive and Threatening messages, you make a complaint
about it and they don't even bother replying. I guess the
Powers to Be and the Mozilla Spam Mooses don't think we
[errr, rather the Community] deserve an explanation. Some
Mozilla Community this is turning out to be. Is this the way
they treat people within the Moz Community?: By sending out
these offensive emails, and threating to remove ones
postings, if you don't obey them and their rules?
Chris Ilias
> well here it is. One week later, and still nobody has contacted me
> regarding my complaint. These Spam Mooses send out Offensive and
> Threatening messages, you make a complaint about it and they don't even
> bother replying. I guess the Powers to Be and the Mozilla Spam Mooses
> don't think we [errr, rather the Community] deserve an explanation.
> Some Mozilla Community this is turning out to be. Is this the way they
> treat people within the Moz Community?: By sending out these offensive
> emails, and threating to remove ones postings, if you don't obey them
> and their rules?
We purposely decided not to address your questions, because it is
obvious that you only intended to get into a flamewar.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
this is disgusting! Its now over 3 weeks since I received
the offensive and threatening message. And so far, no
response. Some Community Support this is! Is this the way
one is treated within these newsgroups. Yup! It sure is!
The only excuse these Spam Mooses can give me for not
replying is they don't want a flame war. I deserve an
explaination, but all they can do is wimp out. Is this what
the Mozilla Community is all about: Send out the offensive
and threatening emails, but don't provide followup when
being questioned. Is this the Spirit of this Mozilla
Community? What a Shame! This should be an embarrassment
towards the Community, and the so-called Chief Lizard
Wrangler and her minions couldn't careless about this
community and the way people are treated.