Any news about the mad deleter?
PeEmm
found out about the Moz connection with the juvenile "street"
movements), I still read it, and I see that posts are still being
cancelled. Luckily the interesting ones get a reply before being deleted
and the post might be read in a quoted state, or it can be found at
Google, but I wonder if there's been any progress in tracing the
deleter. I've seen accusations against RV, Rogued Lizard, James Birch,
Jenny Craig (aka Dejavu or Mozblubber), but now it seems to be quiet on
that front.
Who is still cancelling?
(I don't like to believe there really is an /MIA/ 'cause that would be
contrary to open source ideals at the root.)
--
/P.M.
mozil...@yahoo.com
Although I'm not frequently posting to this NG any longer (due to having found out about the Moz connection with the juvenile "street" movements), I still read it, and I
PeEmm
No offence, I don't mind it. I just think mozilla.org is not for me in
its present state.
Back on topic please; who is doing the on-going cancels? I'd like to be
able to read the threads without having to switch to Google every other
post.
--
/P.M.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Maybe it's on auto-pilot, who knows. Also seems like as the dust settles
more posts will be "Mozilla On-Topic" which is a "good thing", 'eh? ;-)
--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Netscape News Server Volunteer Administrator
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org - Post To Group Only - No Email
PeEmm
> On 03/22/2003 4:42 AM, PeEmm Replied As Follows:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>>mozil...@yahoo.com wrote, On 3/22/2003 9:57 AM:
>>
>>>PeEmm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Although I'm not frequently posting to this NG any longer (due to
>>>>having found out about the Moz connection with the juvenile "street"
>>>>movements), I still read it, and I
>>>
>>>really?
>>>
>>
>>
>>No offence, I don't mind it. I just think mozilla.org is not for me in
>>its present state.
>>
>>Back on topic please; who is doing the on-going cancels? I'd like to be
>>able to read the threads without having to switch to Google every other
>>post.
>>
>
>
> Maybe it's on auto-pilot, who knows. Also seems like as the dust settles
> more posts will be "Mozilla On-Topic" which is a "good thing", 'eh? ;-)
>
No, an auto-pilot shouldn't decide which posts are OT. And definitely
not a self-appointed pilot. If the group needs a moderator, then it
should be made clear whom that would be. Else it's an invitation to
"cancel wars", which would make mozilla.org appear even more childish.
Perhaps Daniel Wang would be the right man for the job? Or a small group
of moderators to avoid possible antagonism being directed against one
person. The main thing is that the cancellings are not executed
anonymously.
But hey — I know this suggestion is never going to materialize; I've
seen them on TV; they like to keep their masks on, while reclaiming the
streets.
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>>mozil...@yahoo.com wrote, On 3/22/2003 9:57 AM:
>>
>>>PeEmm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Although I'm not frequently posting to this NG any longer (due to
>>>>having found out about the Moz connection with the juvenile "street"
>>>>movements), I still read it, and I
>>>
>>>really?
>>>
>>
>>
>>No offence, I don't mind it. I just think mozilla.org is not for me in
>>its present state.
>>
>>Back on topic please; who is doing the on-going cancels? I'd like to be
>>able to read the threads without having to switch to Google every other
>>post.
>>
>
>
> Maybe it's on auto-pilot, who knows. Also seems like as the dust settles
> more posts will be "Mozilla On-Topic" which is a "good thing", 'eh? ;-)
>
No, mozilla.org should use an appointed moderator instead of an
anonymous auto-pilot if that is indeed the case.
--
/P.M.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Or even easier. Just add the user to the "deny list". That way nobody
will even see a post/reply/otherwise.
andkonDOTcom
Hurray! Censorship lite, sounds great. Instead of automatically
deleting my messages, now we will be able to put a face beind the
deletions.
andkonDOTcom
> On 03/22/2003 4:42 AM, PeEmm Replied As Follows:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> > mozil...@yahoo.com wrote, On 3/22/2003 9:57 AM:
> >> PeEmm wrote:
> >>
> >>> Although I'm not frequently posting to this NG any longer (due to
> >>> having found out about the Moz connection with the juvenile "street"
> >>> movements), I still read it, and I
> >>
> >> really?
> >>
> >
> >
> > No offence, I don't mind it. I just think mozilla.org is not for me in
> > its present state.
> >
> > Back on topic please; who is doing the on-going cancels? I'd like to be
> > able to read the threads without having to switch to Google every other
> > post.
> >
>
> Maybe it's on auto-pilot, who knows. Also seems like as the dust settles
> more posts will be "Mozilla On-Topic" which is a "good thing", 'eh? ;-)
Oh yes. It would be quite convenient to just get rid of me. But
concerning the deletions let's have an email quote from you:
"Looks like Mozilla.org is cancelling your messages as fast as you
post
them. As a server admin, I can put a stop to it. But I need your
promise
and cooperation that you'll keep your posts limited to actually
helping
people and not start up again with the former controversial posts and
flame wars.
Deal or not?"
Now either my copy and paste is broken or you just admitted to being
able to fix these deletions. Of course all of this was at the
blackmail of me not emailing Laszlo Hege about the entire stolen
idenity thing.
Nothing to worry Jay, the essay and chain of emails is coming together
quite nicely. Perhaps you are going to threathen to call your lawyer
(HAHA LOL)?
"The time is getting short for you to remove the libelous and
defamatory
text about me from your web site. I expect it to be gone by morning.
If it is not gone by tomorrow (Monday) morning I will seek legal
action
to have it removed by force if necessary.
"My Attorney is:
Patricia A. Garcia
#35 Dove St.
New Orleans, La. 70124
"My Attorney may or may not advise to pursue legal action, that is up
to
her. Just be prepared to receive a summons in the event that she does,
in fact, find it necessary to pursue action. You are young and just
starting out in life. Why have a black mark on your record?
"I have all the proof I need to present in court. I have included
below,
an email from Laszlo Hege complete with header for verification. This
is
only ONE of many emails from Laszlo. He is my friend and he is a real
person that stayed with us many years ago after leaving Hungary.
You know, Andras, I've NEVER called you any names, well just once I
called you a "twit" but heck, I call my Son that every now and then.
It's up to you if you care to forget all this mess. I'm almost 60
years
old, life is too short for me to carry grudges and such. You go your
way
and I'll go mine.
"What galls me the most is your web site text that I have NO CHANCE to
answer. That's NOT FAIR play!!!"
PeEmm
> On 03/22/2003 12:24 PM, PeEmm Replied As Follows:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>
>>Jay Garcia wrote, On 3/22/2003 2:04 PM:
>>
>>>On 03/22/2003 4:42 AM, PeEmm Replied As Follows:
>>>
>>>--- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>mozil...@yahoo.com wrote, On 3/22/2003 9:57 AM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>PeEmm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Although I'm not frequently posting to this NG any longer (due to
>>>>>>having found out about the Moz connection with the juvenile "street"
>>>>>>movements), I still read it, and I
>>>>>
>>>>>really?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No offence, I don't mind it. I just think mozilla.org is not for me in
>>>>its present state.
>>>>
>>>>Back on topic please; who is doing the on-going cancels? I'd like to be
>>>>able to read the threads without having to switch to Google every other
>>>>post.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe it's on auto-pilot, who knows. Also seems like as the dust settles
>>>more posts will be "Mozilla On-Topic" which is a "good thing", 'eh? ;-)
>>>
>>
>>No, mozilla.org should use an appointed moderator instead of an
>>anonymous auto-pilot if that is indeed the case.
>>
>
>
> Or even easier. Just add the user to the "deny list". That way nobody
> will even see a post/reply/otherwise.
>
be, since there are mentally diseased people out there, but it would be
interesting to know if any of these have become a problem for the NS/Moz
news servers. I guess they are more likely to become obsessed with
political or socially related news groups.
In general, though, we now see there may be a need for "censorship lite"
as Andkon has coined the term for it in another post. I think it's
easier to accept your post being censored if
1) the moderator is known and *not* part of a self-appointed /MIA/
2) it's because of the *content* of your post rather than because of the
sender's identity (personality)
3) this is considered a normal procedure that is not taking place
haphazardly.
I would suggest Daniel Wang as nominee for the task.
--
/P.M.
Daniel Wang
> This is interesting. Is there such a list working? I gather there must
> be, since there are mentally diseased people out there, but it would be
> interesting to know if any of these have become a problem for the NS/Moz
> news servers. I guess they are more likely to become obsessed with
> political or socially related news groups.
see
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169426
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140862
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133477
moderation won't happen here...
> In general, though, we now see there may be a need for "censorship lite"
> blah blah blah... I would suggest Daniel Wang as nominee for the task.
I ain't gonna spend more time on this forum than I've to
PeEmm
> PeEmm wrote:
>
>>This is interesting. Is there such a list working? I gather there must
>>be, since there are mentally diseased people out there, but it would be
>>interesting to know if any of these have become a problem for the NS/Moz
>>news servers. I guess they are more likely to become obsessed with
>>political or socially related news groups.
>
>
> see
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=169426
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140862
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133477
>
> moderation won't happen here...
>
But Jay was talking about a "deny list", not a "troll list". I was
asking about occurrences of mentally retarded (i.e. diagnostic) persons
being an annoyance for NS/Moz news servers.
The first two bugs linked above are INVALID and the third one is NEW,
but anyway out-of-date since Lancer isn't posting anymore. And that is a
real loss, IMHO. He criticized Mozilla in most constructive ways, but I
know that not everybody can take that. He also introduced the Mozilla
project to a Latin audience, but I reckon not many understood that
(after all Spanish is another language).
Moderation is not discussed in relation to these bugs.
>
>>In general, though, we now see there may be a need for "censorship lite"
>>blah blah blah... I would suggest Daniel Wang as nominee for the task.
>
>
> I ain't gonna spend more time on this forum than I've to
>
(When quoting, please put your own comments inside brackets [] or they
might be confused with my words.)
I don't think you'd need to spend more time than you already do, but if
you're not interested, then you're not interested.
Let me conclude by saying that mozilla.org has to face a reality, in
which it will be exposed to a much larger audience than ever before.
It's time for the organisation to move into *maturity*. The "street"
days should be over and done with by now:
<http://www.lotekk.net/index.php?t=bakandoo_splash2.jpg>
So should the days of random cancelling. If you can't handle trolls or
what do you prefer to call them in a civilized manner, then there is an
urgent need for making this news group moderated. The bug reports above
make my point even clearer.
--
/P.M.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Daniel Wang wrote, On 3/23/2003 12:23 PM:
>> PeEmm wrote:
>>
>>>This is interesting. Is there such a list working? I gather there must
>>>be, since there are mentally diseased people out there, but it would be
>>>interesting to know if any of these have become a problem for the NS/Moz
>>>news servers. I guess they are more likely to become obsessed with
>>>political or socially related news groups.
> But Jay was talking about a "deny list", not a "troll list". I was
> asking about occurrences of mentally retarded (i.e. diagnostic) persons
> being an annoyance for NS/Moz news servers.
The "deny list" for Apache Server for example is the file SCF.CONF
whereby a list of IP addresses are added that are disallowed access to
the server. You can be specific to "deny ftp" "deny maail" or in some
casees "deny all" whereby the IP address is denied complete access to
all server functions.
In order to accomplish this for the Netscape / Mozilla servers you would
have to be behind the firewall and/or enlist the aid/permission of the
server administrator.
There are only two users that I know of that are banned from using the
Netscape/Mozilla News Servers. And the "banning" had nothing to do with
basic message content or political views, etc. but rather personal
harassment and gross violations of the Netscape TOS.
There will be no moderation of groups on any of the Netscape/Mozilla
News Servers now or in the future, at least AFAIK.
andkonDOTcom
> which it will be exposed to a much larger audience than ever before.
> It's time for the organisation to move into *maturity*. The "street"
> days should be over and done with by now:
> <http://www.lotekk.net/index.php?t=bakandoo_splash2.jpg>
> So should the days of random cancelling. If you can't handle trolls or
> what do you prefer to call them in a civilized manner, then there is an
> urgent need for making this news group moderated. The bug reports above
> make my point even clearer.
Behold! The awaited millions of people streaming across the not for
end user line of products Mozilla.org has to offer! Is this really the
wave of the future? We at andkon.com like to think so. That's why the
people who brought you andkon.com now will bring you the The Mozilla
Project --- exposed. Yes, it's time to bring to light to the "little"
things such as blatant censorship, misunderstood artwork, and better
alternatives to Mozilla (also known as Opera).
Will it be a site that goes out of its way to shock people? Well,
Mozilla.org has that covered with such nice images as
http://www.mozilla.org/images/mozilla-banner.gif Will these images
ever be changed? Of course not. It would seem too much a give-in to me
(and numerous other people, but oh well).
Just to give you a preview of the new layout of mozilla.org, go to
http://www.mozilla.org. Yep that's right, its going to be a complete
rip off from Mozilla, except the Andkon Mozilla site will be actually
valid (x)HTML, with modern design techniques.
And isn't character assassination really fun? Well some Mozilla
biographies will include informative details on the Jay Garcia and his
Dr.Jekyll/Mr. Hyde problems, Daniel Glazman's inept understanding of
World War II, and many many other Mozilla tools.
I also plan to have a Mozilla re-education center in which I will
attempt to turn actual developers AWAY from Mozilla by showering them
with my usual rhetorical questions that only have one answer.
Since most of that stuff will be boring to outsiders who know nothing
about Mozilla, there will be a really neat Flash game in which the
Mozilla Lizard (along with pals Stalin, Hitler, and Mao) gets its ass
kicked. This way, I can open the goodness of Mozilla to willing end
users. Maybe I can convert a Java game or two into Mozilla games.
Oh the future never looked so great for Mozilla publicity.
Ed Mullen
[snip]
>
> Behold! The awaited millions of people streaming across the not for
Yawn.
Lord. Deliver me from ... oh, never mind.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
I know you believe you understand what you think I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard
is not what I meant.
Garth Almgren
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:32:25 +0100, PeEmm wrote:
>
>> Daniel Wong wrote:
>>
>>> PeEmm wrote:
>>>
>>>>In general, though, we now see there may be a need for "censorship
>>>>lite" blah blah blah... I would suggest Daniel Wang as nominee for the
>>>>task.
>>>
>>>I ain't gonna spend more time on this forum than I've to
>>
>>(When quoting, please put your own comments inside brackets [] or they
>>might be confused with my words.)
>
> Excuse me, but quoted text was sufficiently differentiated by the ">"s on
> the left-hand side of the quoted text.
I think PeEmm was talking about the "blah blah blah...", which was not
what he originally wrote. Daniel probably should have either put in a
<snip> or [brackets] as suggested.
--
~/Garth
"I'm in search of myself. If you find me
before I arrive, please have me wait."
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 08:30:12 -0600, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> The "deny list" for Apache Server for example is the file SCF.CONF whereby
>> a list of IP addresses are added that are disallowed access to the server.
>> You can be specific to "deny ftp" "deny maail" or in some casees "deny
>> all" whereby the IP address is denied complete access to all server
>> functions.
>
> So...
>
> How do you propose to deal with people connecting via a dialup modem who
> are dynamicly allocated IP numbers?
>
> Lennier
>
Not a problem ...
Let's hypothesize that the dialup user's ISP is:
123.456.78.xxx where the dynamic IP is xxx and changes to yyy, etc.
You add just 123.456.78.* to the deny list or even more drastic would be
123.456.*.* .. The problem with that is you're also denying access to
other users within the same block. If there is no satisfaction in that
direction then you appeal to the ISP to cancel the user's service. So
far, I haven't witnessed it go that far.
Gervase Markham
> No offence, I don't mind it. I just think mozilla.org is not for me in
> its present state.
I hope you aren't taking the contents of (or most of the people in) this
particular newsgroup as representative of mozilla.org in any way.
Feel free to mail me explaining why you don't wish to work with us. It's
only through such feedback that things change.
Gerv
Ave Brooks
> http://www.mozilla.org. Yep that's right, its going to be a complete
> rip off from Mozilla, except the Andkon Mozilla site will be actually
> valid (x)HTML, with modern design techniques.
You should be careful not to violate their copyrights and trademarks.
While you're a just a prick now, and easily ignored, I do not think
_anyone_ would really tolerate TM/CR infringement when it comes to
your little slander campaign.
> And isn't character assassination really fun?
Sometimes illegal too.
> Well some Mozilla
> biographies will include informative details on the Jay Garcia and his
> Dr.Jekyll/Mr. Hyde problems, Daniel Glazman's inept understanding of
> World War II, and many many other Mozilla tools.
I can hear the "Cease and Desist" letters being written already. I
only hope you ignore them, so we can see you squirm out from a
libel/slander suit.
> I also plan to have a Mozilla re-education center in which I will
> attempt to turn actual developers AWAY from Mozilla by showering them
> with my usual rhetorical questions that only have one answer.
"Why am I such a dick? Why do I rail on and on, despite being shown up
for the fool I am? Because I'm a bratty teenager! I know it all!"
Yeah, that'd be foolproof if it weren't for the fact you're a fool...
Ave
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:43:26 -0600, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> The problem with that is you're also denying access to
>> other users within the same block.
>
> Exactly. That's the problem.
>
> So how do you deal with dialup users within that block?
>
> Because, denying access like that to an ISP's IP range is not acceptable.
>
> Lennier
>
Denying access to a single dialup user is next to impossible. Depends on
the severity of the abuse. Denying access to the other 250 users in the
last block is not as bad as denying access to 255 x 255 for the next
block up .... I would never do that. The only thing you can do in the
case of the incorregeable user is to enlist the aid of the ISP, which in
most cases is successful. Been there done that.
PeEmm
> Around 3/23/2003 3:28 PM, Lennier spake thusly:
>
>
>>On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:32:25 +0100, PeEmm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Daniel Wong wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>PeEmm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In general, though, we now see there may be a need for "censorship
>>>>>lite" blah blah blah... I would suggest Daniel Wang as nominee for the
>>>>>task.
>>>>
>>>>I ain't gonna spend more time on this forum than I've to
>>>
>>>(When quoting, please put your own comments inside brackets [] or they
>>>might be confused with my words.)
>>
>>Excuse me, but quoted text was sufficiently differentiated by the ">"s on
>>the left-hand side of the quoted text.
>
>
> I think PeEmm was talking about the "blah blah blah...", which was not
> what he originally wrote. Daniel probably should have either put in a
> <snip> or [brackets] as suggested.
>
That it was. Thank you!
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
> PeEmm wrote:
>
>>No offence, I don't mind it. I just think mozilla.org is not for me in
>>its present state.
>
>
> I hope you aren't taking the contents of (or most of the people in) this
> particular newsgroup as representative of mozilla.org in any way.
I guess I actually do just that. But now when you so blatantly is
pointing this circumstance out to me, I begin to realize the error
having such an approach, so I might need to reconsider a few things.
>
> Feel free to mail me explaining why you don't wish to work with us. It's
> only through such feedback that things change.
>
> Gerv
>
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
> Gervase Markham wrote, On 3/24/2003 2:21 PM:
>
>>PeEmm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No offence, I don't mind it. I just think mozilla.org is not for me in
>>>its present state.
>>
>>
>>I hope you aren't taking the contents of (or most of the people in) this
>>particular newsgroup as representative of mozilla.org in any way.
>
>
> I guess I actually do just that. But now when you so blatantly is
> pointing this circumstance out to me, I begin to realize the error
> having such an approach, so I might need to reconsider a few things.
>
Having reconsidered, I think it's not plausible to say that mozilla.org
has or has not "representatives" or that some particular views are
representative or not of mozilla.org. The organisation is (or should be)
too dynamic for it to become rigidly connected with specific attitudes,
political or otherwise.
At any rate, there is a _tendency_ in every organisation, and if this
tendency is too remote from your own ideas, well then you might think
you should actually distance yourself rather than trying to influence
the present state.
My view is that although a lot of serious work is done as regards
mozilla.org, there is an undercurrent of naïve revolutionary romanticism
paradoxically combined with a narrow outlook, making this project less
interesting than it actually needed to be.
I don't think this current is limited to this particular newsgroup,
but is a general problem. I see it in the other mozilla newsgroups and
in Bugzilla as well. The fact that mozilla developers consider
inconvenient news group postings as bugs is telling. Anyway, I hope for
the best, and I think mozilla.org will grow one year older each year
along with the developers making the project materialize.
--
/P.M.
Gervase Markham
> mozilla.org, there is an undercurrent of naïve revolutionary romanticism
From the same people doing the serious work?
> paradoxically combined with a narrow outlook, making this project less
> interesting than it actually needed to be.
I don't know what you mean by "a narrow outlook" - isn't the
Mozilla-the-platform vision wide enough for you? :-)
> I don't think this current is limited to this particular newsgroup,
> but is a general problem. I see it in the other mozilla newsgroups and
> in Bugzilla as well. The fact that mozilla developers consider
> inconvenient news group postings as bugs is telling.
Having made enquiries, including asking on the staff mailing list, I
have as yet seen no evidence that the newsgroup cancellations were made
by a mozilla.org staff member (or even someone who does development work
on Mozilla).
Gerv
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:10:51 +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> Having made enquiries, including asking on the staff mailing list, I have
>> as yet seen no evidence that the newsgroup cancellations were made by a
>> mozilla.org staff member (or even someone who does development work on
>> Mozilla).
>
> The admin who looks after the Mozilla NNTP server will have access to the
> logfiles which will contain all necessary info for tracking down the
> person who did the cancellations.
>
> It should have the IP address of the box that was used at that time, and
> from that his ISP should be able to find out who did it.
>
> And, if it does turn out to be someone from either Netscape, AOL or
> Mozilla, then again their IT manager should be able to dig out the info
> from the DHCP logs.
>
> Easy enough to track down the person, so long as the admin personnel are
> cooperative.
>
> Lennier
>
Which cancellations are you folks speaking of, there have been several.
Gervase Markham
> The admin who looks after the Mozilla NNTP server will have access to the
> logfiles which will contain all necessary info for tracking down the
> person who did the cancellations.
If you really, really think this is the highest priority thing the
mozilla.org admins should be spending their time on, then you can ask
them to do exactly this on sysa...@mozilla.org .
> It should have the IP address of the box that was used at that time, and
> from that his ISP should be able to find out who did it.
ISPs tend to be somewhat reluctant to reveal this sort of information
without a court order.
Gerv
cm
news:pan.2003.03.31....@TRACKING.invalid...
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:10:51 +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
have
> > as yet seen no evidence that the newsgroup cancellations were made by a
> > mozilla.org staff member (or even someone who does development work on
> > Mozilla).
>
> logfiles which will contain all necessary info for tracking down the
> person who did the cancellations.
>
> from that his ISP should be able to find out who did it.
>
> Mozilla, then again their IT manager should be able to dig out the info
> from the DHCP logs.
>
> Easy enough to track down the person, so long as the admin personnel are
> cooperative.
>
> Lennier
>
Smacks of an inside job...
--
cristo morlan
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>
> Smacks of an inside job...
>
> --
> cristo morlan
>
>
I got better things to do than to go around smacking insiders .. :-)
PeEmm
> I don't know what you mean by "a narrow outlook" - isn't the
> Mozilla-the-platform vision wide enough for you? :-)
It sure is wide enough for me. The problem is devs or wannabeedevs
narrowing the vision down to a fruitless discussion about whom should be
allowed to share their views about it.
>
>
>> I don't think this current is limited to this particular newsgroup,
>>but is a general problem. I see it in the other mozilla newsgroups and
>>in Bugzilla as well. The fact that mozilla developers consider
>>inconvenient news group postings as bugs is telling.
>
>
> Having made enquiries, including asking on the staff mailing list, I
> have as yet seen no evidence that the newsgroup cancellations were made
> by a mozilla.org staff member (or even someone who does development work
> on Mozilla).
I was referring to bug reports (see Wang's post in this thread) in
Bugzilla. I've never thought that mozilla.org staff members or active
developers would lower themselves to the level of cancelling posts. As
has been said so many times in different threads, is that the developers
(i.e. the busy ones) don't even *read* posts in n.p.m.general. Sadly,
casual visitors will come across this news group, get the impression
that here is where mozilla development work should be debated, find out
that one fourth of the posts are cancelled, another fourth of the posts
are flame wars between a self-appointed opinion police and so-called
trolls, yet another fourth are more or less "polite" requests to
end-users to go away, and the last fourth of posts are feared and feet
kissing homages to Mozilla.
--
/P.M.
Gervase Markham
> Gervase Markham wrote, On 3/31/2003 2:10 PM:
>
>> I don't know what you mean by "a narrow outlook" - isn't the
>> Mozilla-the-platform vision wide enough for you? :-)
>
> It sure is wide enough for me. The problem is devs or wannabeedevs
> narrowing the vision down to a fruitless discussion about whom should be
> allowed to share their views about it.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
> I was referring to bug reports (see Wang's post in this thread) in
> Bugzilla.
So you think it's bad that Mozilla developers see irritating newsgroup
posters as bugs, yet you lament the poor quality of Mozilla newsgroups?
> Sadly,
> casual visitors will come across this news group, get the impression
> that here is where mozilla development work should be debated, find out
> that one fourth of the posts are cancelled, another fourth of the posts
> are flame wars between a self-appointed opinion police and so-called
> trolls, yet another fourth are more or less "polite" requests to
> end-users to go away, and the last fourth of posts are feared and feet
> kissing homages to Mozilla.
So what do you expect anyone to do about this?
Gerv
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Gervase Markham wrote:
-------------------------snip-------------------------
> So what do you expect anyone to do about this?
> Gerv
well you could instead of shoeing everyone away, embrace the idea that
(Testers -- end users) want to improve the product as well. Get off this
idea (smart/dump/whatever) That only developers know everything there is
to know. While tester don't have skill, or inclination to write code;
they do know what bugs they are running across even if they don't have
to knowledge to see it as a bug. They can say Mozilla is doing this on
my machine. Ask them to give type of Machine, amount of RAM, amount of
free space on their hard Drive and so on. Then is you see a pattern have
a developer with the same exact set up to check it out. They are also
the ones you need to ask for features and find out what was left out
from Communicator that need to be added back in. The Companies at this
point that are providing the end user products all they are doing at
this point, is taking Mozilla code and changing just enough to replace
Mozilla name/ and Splash screen with theirs and third party features
such as AIM, ICQ, Netscape.Mail. and so on. As far as the base code they
are not adding one whit to it. if anything new is designed it is put in
Mozilla and then used by the end User producers. Why should they be
coding twice or debugging twice. They are already working on it in Mozilla.
You all need to get off your high - horse and realize "YOU" are
designing the end user Product. Netscape "ISN'T" all they are do is
using "YOUR" code and adding the end user perks.
Its like it used to be building Cars. GM and Ford back in the 70's and
80's would take the same Car bend the shape of the metal on the front
and Tail end of the Car in different shapes. put different placards in
appropriate places and make a Chevelle, or a Pontiac, or a Buick; or on
Fords and Mercury's. Change the trim inside and out enough. At one point
you could use a part off a Chevelle and fix certain Pontiacs or Buicks.
On Fords for example except for outside appearance parts the Ford Edsel
Models Motor and Drive train parts from Mercury and Lincolns would fit perfect.
Its no different between Mozilla and Netscape 7 except all the debugging
code is removed, and the netscape Name and splash screen is substituted.
You (not just you Grev) need to get over this silly notion that your not
developing the end user Product. The only difference is that at mozilla
its in a constant state of development or Flux (if you desire). Where
Netscape takes code at a certain stage and uses it until the next stage
come along that they want to claim.
I open and use Mozilla and Netscape both on OS9 and OSX. except for new
features added to Mozilla amd the names and lack of the debugging code
pull down. They are exactly the same. If it wasn't for the ability to
open and review my Netscape.net mailbox and and my AOL Mailbox in N7 I'd
throw it way and use Mozilla all the time.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
24112-1809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
Daniel Wang
>>Gerv
note: I ain't Gerv :-p
> well you could instead of shoeing everyone away, embrace the idea that
> (Testers -- end users) want to improve the product as well. Get off this
> idea (smart/dump/whatever) That only developers know everything there is
> to know.
It may seem that way, but developers don't hold themselves above the
average users. Look at Bugzilla comments; developers are generally
receptive of new ideas from end users.
> While tester don't have skill, or inclination to write code;
> they do know what bugs they are running across even if they don't have
> to knowledge to see it as a bug. They can say Mozilla is doing this on
> my machine. Ask them to give type of Machine, amount of RAM, amount of
> free space on their hard Drive and so on. Then is you see a pattern have
> a developer with the same exact set up to check it out. They are also
> the ones you need to ask for features and find out what was left out
> from Communicator that need to be added back in.
you are assuming all bug reporters are testers, but I don't see it that
way. Personally I define QAs (testers) as those who run Mozilla w/
strong interest in testing it out. Many users don't use Mozilla that
way; they use it as a end user products and are mainly interested in
getting tech support when they need it.
> The Companies at this
> point that are providing the end user products all they are doing at
> this point, is taking Mozilla code and changing just enough to replace
> Mozilla name/ and Splash screen with theirs and third party features
> such as AIM, ICQ, Netscape.Mail. and so on. As far as the base code they
> are not adding one whit to it. if anything new is designed it is put in
> Mozilla and then used by the end User producers. Why should they be
> coding twice or debugging twice. They are already working on it in Mozilla.
>
> You all need to get off your high - horse and realize "YOU" are
> designing the end user Product. Netscape "ISN'T" all they are do is
> using "YOUR" code and adding the end user perks.
Nobody is saying we aren't developing an end-user product. Keep in mind
what Mozilla is a develpment platform, which means developers are its
main target audience (note: developers != distributors). Such developers
include XRE developers (e.g. mozdev.org developers, OEOne developers)
and developers using Gecko other than just browser developers. Thus, Moz
engineers' main focuses are much wider than those of, say, MSIE engineers.
Also, keep in mind that Mozilla 1.x is of development quality only. The
only stable, for-end-user branch is 1.0.x which Netscape 7 is based on.
Anyone who uses 1.x builds and come here complaining about end-user
problem should be reminded that they are using the wrong builds and that
no technical support is available for those builds.
> Its like it used to be building Cars. GM and Ford back in the 70's and
> 80's would take the same Car bend the shape ... [snip]
Bad analogy
> Its no different between Mozilla and Netscape 7 except all the debugging
> code is removed, and the netscape Name and splash screen is substituted.
repeat: netscape 7 = Mozilla 1.0.x plus minus some stuff AND technical
support.
> You (not just you Grev) need to get over this silly notion that your not
> developing the end user Product.
engineers do keep end users in mind when writing the software. The
things you have to understand is this:
We Do Not, And Cannot, Provide End User Support
> The only difference is that at mozilla
> its in a constant state of development or Flux (if you desire). Where
> Netscape takes code at a certain stage and uses it until the next stage
> come along that they want to claim.
yes
> [snip]
I think you should drop this hostility toward developers. Some
developers are trying to help end users out whenever possible. However,
they are busy people and will complain when overwhelmed by user enqueries.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> -------------------------snip-------------------------
>> So what do you expect anyone to do about this?
>
>> Gerv
> You all need to get off your high - horse and realize "YOU" are
> designing the end user Product. Netscape "ISN'T" all they are do is
> using "YOUR" code and adding the end user perks.
No Phillip, you et al, need to understand the simple fact that the
REASON for the Mozilla application is/was for the development of the
Gecko Engine. You MUST have and app built on that Engine in order to
test/develop it. And because it is Open Source it is therefore OPEN to
the "public" do download and use/test the application.
[snip]
> Its no different between Mozilla and Netscape 7 except all the debugging
> code is removed, and the netscape Name and splash screen is substituted.
True, so ?? So is Beonex and others.
> You (not just you Grev) need to get over this silly notion that your not
> developing the end user Product. The only difference is that at mozilla
> its in a constant state of development or Flux (if you desire). Where
> Netscape takes code at a certain stage and uses it until the next stage
> come along that they want to claim.
"silly notion" ?? Get over it Phillip. Where do you come up with this
garbage? They are developing an application that is being used by
end-users. This does not mean that it is an end-user app.
Yes, Mozilla is in constant development/flux/whatever. That's what it's
for - DEVELOPMENT of the Gecko Engine. The rest - Answered above.
> I open and use Mozilla and Netscape both on OS9 and OSX. except for new
> features added to Mozilla amd the names and lack of the debugging code
> pull down. They are exactly the same. If it wasn't for the ability to
> open and review my Netscape.net mailbox and and my AOL Mailbox in N7 I'd
> throw it way and use Mozilla all the time.
The end of Mozilla emphasis is quite near as Gecko is more or less a
fully developed package now. There is no reason for continuation of
Mozilla the Application.
What you WILL see quite shortly is the concentrated development of
Phoenix (browser) and Minotaur (mail/news) as separate and distinct
application.
The next full release of Netscape will be v7.1 (Buffy) which will be
based on Mozilla 1.4 (Educated Guess). ;-)
Daniel Wang
> The end of Mozilla emphasis is quite near as Gecko is more or less a
> fully developed package now. There is no reason for continuation of
> Mozilla the Application.
>
> What you WILL see quite shortly is the concentrated development of
> Phoenix (browser) and Minotaur (mail/news) as separate and distinct
> application.
>
> The next full release of Netscape will be v7.1 (Buffy) which will be
> based on Mozilla 1.4 (Educated Guess). ;-)
where did you get this info?
btw, why is Netscape switching to moz1.4 now? In my opinion, the
performance of Mozilla has gone worse in 1.2 and hasn't improved much
yet. Is there a new emphasis on "stability"?
btw, good job to mozilla.org engineers. I see that many
crash/hang/dataloss bugs are fixed quite quickly :-)
Holger Metzger
That Netscape 7.1 will be based on Mozilla 1.4 is due to the fact, that
1.4 will probably be the last Mozilla *suite* release and also replaces
the 1.0.x branch (which was used for Netscape releases so far) as the
stable development path.
- Holger
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> The end of Mozilla emphasis is quite near as Gecko is more or less a
>> fully developed package now. There is no reason for continuation of
>> Mozilla the Application.
>>
>> What you WILL see quite shortly is the concentrated development of
>> Phoenix (browser) and Minotaur (mail/news) as separate and distinct
>> application.
>>
>> The next full release of Netscape will be v7.1 (Buffy) which will be
>> based on Mozilla 1.4 (Educated Guess). ;-)
>
> where did you get this info?
Behind the firewall. ;-)
> btw, why is Netscape switching to moz1.4 now? In my opinion, the
> performance of Mozilla has gone worse in 1.2 and hasn't improved much
> yet. Is there a new emphasis on "stability"?
Based on 1.4 FINAL later this summer. Should be public knowledge by now
if you read all about "Buffy" - Surely isn't a secret at this juncture.
> btw, good job to mozilla.org engineers. I see that many
> crash/hang/dataloss bugs are fixed quite quickly :-)
>
Yup
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Daniel it's not so much hostility as it is an appeal for why don't they
Just understand. I realize that some here do try to help. But the
majority have an attitude.
I test, I have on Ocassion posted bugs in Bugzilla, I've voted for bugs
and suggested RFE's. But if someone new comes along they get their head
bit off. You (not you personally) if you give harsh treatment to
potential users they'll end up IE users and we sure as H - - - don't
want that.
Chris I
> Daniel Wang wrote:
>
>>I think you should drop this hostility toward developers. Some
>>developers are trying to help end users out whenever possible. However,
>>they are busy people and will complain when overwhelmed by user enqueries.
>
> Daniel it's not so much hostility as it is an appeal for why don't they
> Just understand. I realize that some here do try to help. But the
> majority have an attitude.
How many is majority?
What kind of attitude?
> I test, I have on Ocassion posted bugs in Bugzilla, I've voted for bugs
> and suggested RFE's. But if someone new comes along they get their head
> bit off. You (not you personally) if you give harsh treatment to
> potential users they'll end up IE users and we sure as H - - - don't
> want that.
Could you please give us some examples of someone getting their head
bitten off. (not literally bitten off, of course)
I think I've only seen that once.
--
so...@rogers.com
http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
Daniel Wang
> Daniel it's not so much hostility as it is an appeal for why don't they
> Just understand. I realize that some here do try to help. But the
> majority have an attitude.
>
> I test, I have on Ocassion posted bugs in Bugzilla, I've voted for bugs
> and suggested RFE's. But if someone new comes along they get their head
> bit off. You (not you personally) if you give harsh treatment to
> potential users they'll end up IE users and we sure as H - - - don't
> want that.
well, first, people make mistakes (and I made many QA mistakes recently
:-( ) secondly, sometimes people just don't have time dealing w/ new
users. For example, there's a (new?) rule that if a bug report does not
contain any useful information then it should be resolved as INVALID. I
know this may be unfair to new users, but consider that there are still
thousands of open bugs. I sometimes resolve bugs as INVALID or
WORKSFORME, or send 'em over to Tech Evangelism w/o much QA work just to
get the bugs out of the way.
Having made many mistakes when I first used Bugzilla myself, I know that
new testers sometimes do need a hand from experienced Bugzilla users. I
also understand that every new user can be turned into valuable QA
asset. In fact, sometimes I wish there's a group of people dedicated to
training new QAs.
I'm not really concerned about losing one or a dozen users to MSIE. My
main concern is QA. Helping end users is just secondary. You will be
right if you say I am hostile to new users. But I am a QA volunteer and
perhaps the new users are stumbling across the wrong person in the wrong
place at the wrong time? It just can't be helped.
Gervase Markham
> designing the end user Product. Netscape "ISN'T" all they are do is
> using "YOUR" code and adding the end user perks.
Whatever anyone else says, and whether other people agree with you or
not, this is a perfectly reasonable point of view to hold. So you can
ignore all those people who say you are being silly to suggest it.
I personally think that we should do more to make the downloadable
Mozilla milestones usable - and I think moving to Phoenix, with its
uncluttered and more-carefully-managed UI, will help this a lot.
Gerv
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
I wasn't refering literally either. :-)
>
> I think I've only seen that once.
>
> --
> so...@rogers.com
> http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
well recently we had the fellow to ask a question about mozilla and at
then end he was vilified as a "supposed" Troll. He was deemed that
after he kept coming up with followup questions. which seemed to me to
indicate he was totally green. But to other thought he couldn't be that
green. So they considered him a Troll. To my knowledge I never had seen
him on the newsgroups. I'm sure he'll run to MSIE as fast as he can run.
I don't keep a runing count. But it happens at least once every couple
of days anyway.
Someone said that 1-12 people runing to MSIE doesn't bother them. It
would to me. Everyone that gets run off to MSIE means that many that
won't be using a Mozilla product.
We have to remember MSIE is the 900 pound Gorilla. If we want inroads
into MSIE, we are going to have to court everyone.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > You all need to get off your high - horse and realize "YOU" are
> > designing the end user Product. Netscape "ISN'T" all they are do is
> > using "YOUR" code and adding the end user perks.
>
> Whatever anyone else says, and whether other people agree with you or
> not, this is a perfectly reasonable point of view to hold. So you can
> ignore all those people who say you are being silly to suggest it.
"THUD" (The sound of me passing out!! where the smelling salts?)
>
> I personally think that we should do more to make the downloadable
> Mozilla milestones usable - and I think moving to Phoenix, with its
> uncluttered and more-carefully-managed UI, will help this a lot.
>
> Gerv
--
Chris I
> Chris I wrote:
>>Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. spoke thusly:
>>>Daniel Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think you should drop this hostility toward developers. Some
>>>>developers are trying to help end users out whenever possible. However,
>>>>they are busy people and will complain when overwhelmed by user enqueries.
>>>
>>>Daniel it's not so much hostility as it is an appeal for why don't they
>>>Just understand. I realize that some here do try to help. But the
>>>majority have an attitude.
>>
>>How many is majority?
>>What kind of attitude?
>>
>>>I test, I have on Ocassion posted bugs in Bugzilla, I've voted for bugs
>>>and suggested RFE's. But if someone new comes along they get their head
>>>bit off. You (not you personally) if you give harsh treatment to
>>>potential users they'll end up IE users and we sure as H - - - don't
>>>want that.
>>
>>Could you please give us some examples of someone getting their head
>>bitten off. (not literally bitten off, of course)
>
> I wasn't refering literally either. :-)
>
>>I think I've only seen that once.
>
> then end he was vilified as a "supposed" Troll. He was deemed that
> after he kept coming up with followup questions. which seemed to me to
> indicate he was totally green. But to other thought he couldn't be that
> green. So they considered him a Troll. To my knowledge I never had seen
> him on the newsgroups. I'm sure he'll run to MSIE as fast as he can run.
>
> I don't keep a runing count. But it happens at least once every couple
> of days anyway.
>
> Someone said that 1-12 people runing to MSIE doesn't bother them. It
> would to me. Everyone that gets run off to MSIE means that many that
> won't be using a Mozilla product.
>
> We have to remember MSIE is the 900 pound Gorilla. If we want inroads
> into MSIE, we are going to have to court everyone.
Have you got the message ID?
--
so...@rogers.com
http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
not at this point. I have my news setting set to delete read headers
older than 2 days.
It was either in this group or the wishlist group and has degenrated
into a conversation now about people's favorite liquor or Beer.
They fellow did start out on the wrong foot by using a pervocative
subject line. It seems the subject about that Mozilla had a memory leak
or memory creep on his platform W98. after 2-3 hours he would have to
reboot his computer because it would use up all his system RAM.
Stanimir Stamenkov
> They fellow did start out on the wrong foot by using a pervocative
> subject line. It seems the subject about that Mozilla had a memory leak
> or memory creep on his platform W98. after 2-3 hours he would have to
> reboot his computer because it would use up all his system RAM.
Probably it is the:
"1.3 final is trash - fix it!"
<news://news.mozilla.org:119/b6ivnk$ps...@ripley.netscape.com>
From: Moz 1.3 sux <its...@fixit.con>
"1.3 final is trash - pls fix it!"
<snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/b6llhm$pn...@ripley.netscape.com>
From: Moz 1.3 sux <its...@fixit.con>
--
Stanimir <stanio(_at_)gbg.bg>
Chris I
>>>>>Just understand. I realize that some here do try to help. But the
>>>>>majority have an attitude.
>>>>
>>>>How many is majority?
>>>>What kind of attitude?
>>>>
>>>>>I test, I have on Ocassion posted bugs in Bugzilla, I've voted for bugs
>>>>>and suggested RFE's. But if someone new comes along they get their head
>>>>>bit off. You (not you personally) if you give harsh treatment to
>>>>>potential users they'll end up IE users and we sure as H - - - don't
>>>>>want that.
>>>>
>>>>Could you please give us some examples of someone getting their head
>>>>bitten off. (not literally bitten off, of course)
>>>
>>>
>>>well recently we had the fellow to ask a question about mozilla and at
>>>then end he was vilified as a "supposed" Troll. He was deemed that
>>>after he kept coming up with followup questions. which seemed to me to
>>>indicate he was totally green. But to other thought he couldn't be that
>>>green. So they considered him a Troll. To my knowledge I never had seen
>>>him on the newsgroups. I'm sure he'll run to MSIE as fast as he can run.
>>>
>>>I don't keep a runing count. But it happens at least once every couple
>>>of days anyway.
>>>
>>>Someone said that 1-12 people runing to MSIE doesn't bother them. It
>>>would to me. Everyone that gets run off to MSIE means that many that
>>>won't be using a Mozilla product.
>>>
>>>We have to remember MSIE is the 900 pound Gorilla. If we want inroads
>>>into MSIE, we are going to have to court everyone.
>>
>>Have you got the message ID?
>
> older than 2 days.
>
> subject line. It seems the subject about that Mozilla had a memory leak
> or memory creep on his platform W98. after 2-3 hours he would have to
> reboot his computer because it would use up all his system RAM.
According to Staminar,
"1.3 final is trash - fix it!"
<news://news.mozilla.org:119/b6ivnk$ps...@ripley.netscape.com>
From: Moz 1.3 sux <its...@fixit.con>
"1.3 final is trash - pls fix it!"
<snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/b6llhm$pn...@ripley.netscape.com>
From: Moz 1.3 sux <its...@fixit.con>
Now...which replies were "biting his head off"?
--
so...@rogers.com
http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Sounds right.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Started about two to three threads (not his replies) into the thread.
Then naturally he ended up trying to defend himself. So I expect he is
using IE by now.
Chris I
> Then naturally he ended up trying to defend himself. So I expect he is
> using IE by now.
Which replies were "biting his head off"?
--
so...@rogers.com
http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
PeEmm
> PeEmm wrote:
> > Gervase Markham wrote, On 3/31/2003 2:10 PM:
> >
> >> I don't know what you mean by "a narrow outlook" - isn't the
> >> Mozilla-the-platform vision wide enough for you? :-)
> >
> > It sure is wide enough for me. The problem is devs or wannabeedevs
> > narrowing the vision down to a fruitless discussion about whom should be
> > allowed to share their views about it.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
Simple enough. Why don't discuss Moz development for a change? Why
engage into flame wars with trolls? Why piss end-users off? Why
bug-filing people having inconvenient opinions? Why *not* condemn (=
encourage) cancellings?
>
> > I was referring to bug reports (see Wang's post in this thread) in
> > Bugzilla.
>
> So you think it's bad that Mozilla developers see irritating newsgroup
> posters as bugs, yet you lament the poor quality of Mozilla newsgroups?
Answered above.
>
> > Sadly,
> > casual visitors will come across this news group, get the impression
> > that here is where mozilla development work should be debated, find out
> > that one fourth of the posts are cancelled, another fourth of the posts
> > are flame wars between a self-appointed opinion police and so-called
> > trolls, yet another fourth are more or less "polite" requests to
> > end-users to go away, and the last fourth of posts are feared and feet
> > kissing homages to Mozilla.
>
> So what do you expect anyone to do about this?
At this stage: nothing. I've (temporarily) given it up.
>
> Gerv
James Blanford
Daniel Wang <stolen...@yahoo.com.tw> writes:
>
> I'm not really concerned about losing one or a dozen users to MSIE. My
> main concern is QA. Helping end users is just secondary. You will be
> right if you say I am hostile to new users. But I am a QA volunteer and
> perhaps the new users are stumbling across the wrong person in the wrong
> place at the wrong time? It just can't be helped.
>
Well, maybe I'm being naive, but couldn't you just stop making
hostile posts? Not that I care if you do. I can see that you enjoy
it. Nor do I think you have to worry about losing users to MSIE. Why
should anyone let your hostility affect their choice of browser?
I was impressed by the denial and thought it was consistent with the
denial in the Mozilla project itself. Like thinking you can slather a
thick layer of XUL over a bloated buggy monstrosity and it won't be a
bloated buggy monstrosity any more. I'm rooting for Dillo.
Chris I
> In article <b6tb58$4n...@ripley.netscape.com>,
> Daniel Wang <stolen...@yahoo.com.tw> writes:
>
>>I'm not really concerned about losing one or a dozen users to MSIE. My
>>main concern is QA. Helping end users is just secondary. You will be
>>right if you say I am hostile to new users. But I am a QA volunteer and
>>perhaps the new users are stumbling across the wrong person in the wrong
>>place at the wrong time? It just can't be helped.
>
> Well, maybe I'm being naive, but couldn't you just stop making
> hostile posts? Not that I care if you do. I can see that you enjoy
> it. Nor do I think you have to worry about losing users to MSIE. Why
> should anyone let your hostility affect their choice of browser?
??? Hostility? Could you please provide a reference.
--
so...@rogers.com
http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
Gervase Markham
>>>>Mozilla-the-platform vision wide enough for you? :-)
>>>
>>>It sure is wide enough for me. The problem is devs or wannabeedevs
>>>narrowing the vision down to a fruitless discussion about whom should be
>>>allowed to share their views about it.
>>
>>I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
>
> Simple enough. Why don't discuss Moz development for a change?
Because I think everyone has given up any hope of doing that in this
particular newsgroup. There's a fair amount of development discussion
(ssh! :-) in the other newsgroups, if you look.
> Why
> engage into flame wars with trolls?
I haven't been doing that.
> Why piss end-users off?
Or that. But I can't be responsible for the actions of others.
> Why
> bug-filing people having inconvenient opinions?
Er... that's not a sentence.
> Why *not* condemn (=
> encourage) cancellings?
I did try and work out what was going on, but no-one replied to my mail
to staff. Not much more I can do about it. To be honest, I think most of
them don't give a stuff about this particular newsgroup - and I can see
why, given that it mostly consists of flames, idiocy and off-topic
discussion.
Gerv
PeEmm
Well, none of the above was intended as accusations against you and your
doings. It was merely an expression of my general impression of the Moz
stance. I think Phillip M. Jones has come up with some useful
observations as well.
The most important thing, as I see it, is that all those, which are
posting as representatives for Mozilla (justly or pretentiously) should
learn how to acknowledge and deal with criticism. There is currently a
touchiness bordering on the tragicomic. Take Bundy for example. He used
to post a lot and almost everything was to the disadvantage of Mozilla.
He made his own speed testings and stuff and told his results while
laughing at Mozilla. What was the reaction like? Did the Moz advocates
welcomed a notorious and harsh beta tester? No. Take the Lancer example
as well. He was spreading Mozilla to the latin world for everybody's
benefit, but he made some mistakes. Now and then, he posted an insult,
dragging Mozilla in the dust so to speak. Someone told Bugzilla that
Lancer is a bug. Was that reaction a joke? Then, where's the funny part?
What's happened since? Is Lancer still promoting Mozilla in the latin world?
I don't think the trolls are a problem. A troll should be ignored — it's
that simple. I think the ones labelling others as trolls (or end-users
for that matter) should be a great concern for Mozilla.
--
/P.M.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Lennier wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 20:30:53 -0400, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
> > You (not you personally) if you give harsh treatment to
> > potential users they'll end up IE users and we sure as H - - - don't
> > want that.
>
> What is "H - - -"?
>
> Lennier
Welllll..... its not Heck so you can figure it out. AS a line from an
old George Hamilton the IV Tune goes.
"Well ..... If you don't know, I ain't going to tell you. " 8-)
critters
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
I think you've got 2 or 3 different ones in that paragraph.
You're almost close, it's the one of "1.3a worst Mozilla
yet," by "Free Palestine" of March 6th, on the
netscape.mozilla.user.general newsgroup. You can't miss it.
I has over 200 threads in that one, and 2 separate
lead-offs. After all these days, it's still going strong.
Someone just posted to it today.
Or, maybe you're refering to the one of "1.3a worst Mozilla
yet," by "Moz 1.3 sux" of April 4th. This was the memory
leak one.
Take your choice.
David Spade
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 20:30:53 -0400, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
>
>>You (not you personally) if you give harsh treatment to
>>potential users they'll end up IE users and we sure as H - - - don't
>>want that.
>
>
>
M'boy, you'd suck at Hangman. :)
As I've heard it said before, "H E double hockey sticks (LL)".
-=Straxus=-
Chris I
>>older than 2 days.
>> It was either in this group or the wishlist group and has degenrated
>>into a conversation now about people's favorite liquor or Beer.
>>
>>They fellow did start out on the wrong foot by using a pervocative
>>subject line. It seems the subject about that Mozilla had a memory leak
>>or memory creep on his platform W98. after 2-3 hours he would have to
>>reboot his computer because it would use up all his system RAM.
>
> I think you've got 2 or 3 different ones in that paragraph.
>
> You're almost close, it's the one of "1.3a worst Mozilla
> yet," by "Free Palestine" of March 6th, on the
> netscape.mozilla.user.general newsgroup. You can't miss it.
> I has over 200 threads in that one, and 2 separate
> lead-offs. After all these days, it's still going strong.
> Someone just posted to it today.
>
> Or, maybe you're refering to the one of "1.3a worst Mozilla
> yet," by "Moz 1.3 sux" of April 4th. This was the memory
> leak one.
>
> Take your choice.
Which replies were "biting his head off"?
--
so...@rogers.com
http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
Peter Lairo
> we sure as H - - - don't
> want that.
What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
-=-=-
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to
pause and reflect. (Mark Twain)
-=-=-
PeEmm
> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote, On 03-04-08 02:30:
>
>
>>we sure as H - - - don't
>>want that.
>
>
> What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
The "sure" part of it, is that it exists.
Now, you may understand that in at least two ways. Either it is a
Christian or at any rate religious standpoint, or it should be
figuratively interpreted as standing for the most disgusting
circumstances in life on Earth.
To become an IE user might be a horrendous experience. I don't know what
it might be like, since I've never walked down that lane, but I do know
that I wouldn't want it to be the fate of even my worst enemy :-)
--
/P.M.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Well if you don't tow the straight and narrow and don't avoid such sins
as drinking and wild women that's where you'll end up when you go to
that great reward after you die? 8-)
Peter Lairo
>
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>>>we sure as H - - - don't
>>>want that.
>>
>>What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
>
> as drinking and wild women that's where you'll end up when you go to
> that great reward after you die? 8-)
I'm pretty "sure" that when it's over, it's over. ;)
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
Ed Mullen
>
>
>>Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote, On 03-04-08 02:30:
>>
>>
>>>we sure as H - - - don't
>>>want that.
>>
>>What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
>>--
>>Regards,
>>
>>Peter Lairo
>>
>>-=-=-
>>Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to
>>pause and reflect. (Mark Twain)
>>-=-=-
>
>
> Well if you don't tow the straight and narrow and don't avoid such sins
> as drinking and wild women that's where you'll end up when you go to
> that great reward after you die? 8-)
Hmm. Guess I'm damned then. But, hell, it's been a lot of fun so far! :-D
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
"It feels so good, knowing the watchman's gone."
- Gordon Lightfoot
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
No actually when you die and your spirit leaves then when anyone of the
new people being born on this earth your spirit enters one of these. so
in your next life instead of a Man living in the US you could actually
end up as a Woman in Europe, or a Man in South America. 8-)
Chris I
>"Well ..... If you don't know, I ain't going to tell you. " 8-)
>
=-O It wasn't until I saw this message that I noticed the new
emoticons. (I always compose in plain text O:-) )
I'm going to have to make use of these. 8-)
How long have the new ones been in Mozilla? :-)
--
so...@rogers.com
http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
Ant
>>"Well ..... If you don't know, I ain't going to tell you. " 8-)
>
> =-O It wasn't until I saw this message that I noticed the new
> emoticons. (I always compose in plain text O:-) )
> I'm going to have to make use of these. 8-)
>
> How long have the new ones been in Mozilla? :-)
I don't see the new emoticons for O:-), 8-), etc. in v1.3. :( I do see
the default ones like: :)
--
"We are anthill men upon an anthill world." --Ray Bradbury
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip Pi (Ant); The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: phi...@earthlink.netANT or phi...@apu.eduANT
\ _ / Remove ANT if replying by e-mail from a newsgroup.
( )
Gervase Markham
> posting as representatives for Mozilla (justly or pretentiously) should
> learn how to acknowledge and deal with criticism.
Those who actually represent Mozilla, certainly. But how can you, I, or
anyone else have any control over someone who decides he wants to claims
he speaks for Mozilla?
One can only hope that people who come in realise that those who speak
for mozilla.org have @mozilla.org email addresses; and can also only
hope that all members of the community learn some basic social skills,
and say nothing rather than be insulting. But I don't hold out much hope
for the latter.
Gerv
PeEmm
We seem to be agreed on something at last :-)
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
>
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>>Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote, On 03-04-13 17:58:
>>
>>>Peter Lairo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>we sure as H - - - don't
>>>>>want that.
>>>>
>>>>What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
>>>
>>>Well if you don't tow the straight and narrow and don't avoid such sins
>>>as drinking and wild women that's where you'll end up when you go to
>>>that great reward after you die? 8-)
>>
>>I'm pretty "sure" that when it's over, it's over. ;)
>>--
>>Regards,
>>
>>Peter Lairo
>
>
> No actually when you die and your spirit leaves then when anyone of the
> new people being born on this earth your spirit enters one of these. so
> in your next life instead of a Man living in the US you could actually
> end up as a Woman in Europe, or a Man in South America. 8-)
You could also end up as an IE user. (Horrible thought, though.)
--
/P.M.
Sailfish
>
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>>Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote, On 03-04-13 17:58:
>>
>>>Peter Lairo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>we sure as H - - - don't
>>>>>want that.
>>>>
>>>>What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
>>>
>>>Well if you don't tow the straight and narrow and don't avoid such sins
>>>as drinking and wild women that's where you'll end up when you go to
>>>that great reward after you die? 8-)
>>
>>I'm pretty "sure" that when it's over, it's over. ;)
>>--
>>Regards,
>>
>>Peter Lairo
>
>
> No actually when you die and your spirit leaves then when anyone of the
> new people being born on this earth your spirit enters one of these. so
> in your next life instead of a Man living in the US you could actually
> end up as a Woman in Europe, or a Man in South America. 8-)
Actually, since there are more new humans than dying ones, your spirit
ends up in a smorgasbord layout, where the new folks get to pick and
choose parts from many dead souls but never a complete one. Kinda like a
celestial thinning of the gene pool.
So, most likely, you'll end up a tranvestite on the lower east side and
a fairly neurotic one, at that! :-D
--
Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html
Netscape 6 FAQ: http://home.adelphia.net/~sremick/ns6faq.html
Netscape 7 Help/Tips: http://techaholic.net/ns7.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
Geoff
>> No actually when you die and your spirit leaves then when anyone of the
>> new people being born on this earth your spirit enters one of these. so
>> in your next life instead of a Man living in the US you could actually
>> end up as a Woman in Europe, or a Man in South America. 8-)
>
> You could also end up as an IE user. (Horrible thought, though.)
I think that reincarnation is evolutionary. IE is a purgatory reserved
for those who were insects in their most recent lives and who may make it
to Moz-user next time around. You may have noticed the buzzing sound they
emit when confronted with some particularly irritating IE idiocy.
Geoff
--
Faustus : How comes it then that thou art out of hell?
Mephistophilis : Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Shivverrr That makes my skin crawl. 8-(
Gervase Markham
> What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
"Hell", while depicted as a visual aid as a fiery furnace etc., is
actually the state of separation from God. As God is the source of all
goodness in the Universe, being apart from Him is the most miserable,
hopeless, tormented existence possible.
It's "sure" because by nature, we all fall short of the perfect standard
God requires (hence the phrase "only human"), and therefore are facing
his righteous anger. As Paul says in the letter to the Ephesians (ch. 2):
"All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of
our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest,
we were by nature objects of wrath."
But, he goes on to say:
"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made
us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by
grace you have been saved."
In other words, God's freely-offered pardon through Jesus is available
to all who ask for it.
Well, you asked :-)
Gerv
David Spade
Must.... not.... reply...... Must... fight.... urge...
*Ctrl-R*
Damn.
Well, since the window's now up..
Definitely a Judeo-christian view of hell. However, what about such concepts as
purgatory and limbo? As I understand it, purgatory is kind of like a day-pass to
Hell from which you come home after, and limbo is... well... limbo. It's neither
here nor there.
I've always found the concepts of heaven and hell just a tad too simplistic for
my liking. If you're good, you go to a good place with a big good guy and are
happy. If you're bad, you go to a big bad place with a big bad guy and are
tortured. It definitely sounds like it was thought up a few thousand years ago
when most people were illiterate and everything spread by word of mouth.
ALthough I started off life as a Roman Catholic and was confirmed, after logical
debate and reconsideration of all of the variables, I no longer find it
reasonable. Too many questions come down to "You just have to have faith".
Perhaps it's because of my past experiences, but I am wary of "just having
faith", especially when there are so many competing systems out there.
-=Straxus=-
Geoff
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>> What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
>
> "Hell", while depicted as a visual aid as a fiery furnace etc., is
> actually the state of separation from God. As God is the source of all
> goodness in the Universe, being apart from Him is the most miserable,
> hopeless, tormented existence possible.
Which idea is, I think, beautifully expressed by Marlowe in my favourite
sig.
Ed Mullen
[snip]
> ALthough I started off life as a Roman Catholic and was confirmed, after logical
> debate and reconsideration of all of the variables, I no longer find it
> reasonable. Too many questions come down to "You just have to have faith".
> Perhaps it's because of my past experiences, but I am wary of "just having
> faith", especially when there are so many competing systems out there.
>
> -=Straxus=-
>
My sisters and I (also raised RC) now refer to ourselves as "Recovering
Catholics." ;-)
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
When God is amazed, does he say: "Oh my Me!"?
Peter Lairo
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
Boy, you sure used a shoestring excuse to give an elaborate
(evangelistic) answer. :) But I (and Jesus) forgive you. ;)
> It's "sure" because by nature, we all fall short of the perfect standard
> God requires
That assumes that there *is* a god; and, if that were the case, that
he/she/it *had* a "perfect standard" requirement.
So, for me, hell isn't sure, since to me the existence of god is merely
an unlikely possibility at best. ;) No offense intended.
--
Peter Lairo
Peter Lairo
> On 15/04/2003 11:19, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> Must.... not.... reply...... Must... fight.... urge...
>
> *Ctrl-R*
>
> Damn.
>
> Well, since the window's now up..
ROTFLMAO :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
--
Peter Lairo
Peter Lairo
> When God is amazed, does he say: "Oh my Me!"?
I love your sig. :) Stole it. :-P
--
Peter Lairo
--==--
When God is amazed, does he say: "Oh my Me!"?
--==--
PeEmm
I think Mozilla is God :-)
--
/P.M.
David Spade
Hmm.... You may be on to something here! We need to form a place of worship for
Mozilla... How 'bout calling it "Our Dragon of Charity"? "Holy Cross-Platform"?
Mozziladamnit, I have a Final exam in less than an hour... can someone else pick
up from here?
-=Straxus=-
Ed Mullen
Well, this is an interesting idea. But I'd vote for Don Imus' "The
First Church of The Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship." And
we'd *have* to resurrect the lizard as the icon!
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new
functions, including the consumption of homework formerly
eaten by the dog." - Doug Larson
Ed Mullen
> On 4/15/03 10:41 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>
>>When God is amazed, does he say: "Oh my Me!"?
>
>
> I love your sig. :) Stole it. :-P
That's only fair, Peter, since I stole it from /somewhere/. ;-)
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
David Spade
> David Spade wrote:
>
>> On 16/04/2003 07:02, PeEmm wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Lairo wrote, On 4/16/2003 12:30 PM:
>>>
>>>> On 4/15/03 5:19 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Lairo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is so "sure" about hell anyways? :-P
>>>>>
>>>>> standard God requires
>>>>
>>>> That assumes that there *is* a god; and, if that were the case, that
>>>> he/she/it *had* a "perfect standard" requirement.
>>>>
>>>> So, for me, hell isn't sure, since to me the existence of god is
>>>> merely an unlikely possibility at best. ;) No offense intended.
>>>
>>> I think Mozilla is God :-)
>>
>> Hmm.... You may be on to something here! We need to form a place of
>> worship for Mozilla... How 'bout calling it "Our Dragon of Charity"?
>> "Holy Cross-Platform"?
>>
>> Mozziladamnit, I have a Final exam in less than an hour... can someone
>> else pick up from here?
>
> First Church of The Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship." And
> we'd *have* to resurrect the lizard as the icon!
Hmm... "On the [n]th day, the lizard was resurrected and recognized as the One
True Browser[tm], descendant of Mosaic, only son of Netscape. It was
trademarked, archived, and dereferenced, but on the [n]th day returned, saving
us all from IExplosion."
Hmm, more places of worship:
Our Lady of Standards Compliance
St. Xul of CSSissi
First Platform United
InshMozilla, I passed that exam, and am now officially 100% University of
Waterloo Honours Co-op Computer Science graduate. W00t!
-=Straxus=-
Chris I
>>>What is "H - - -"?
>>
>>Heck.
>
> And what does it mean, and why didn't he write "heck" instead of "H - -
> -"?
He can't spell. :-D
--
so...@rogers.com
http://members.rogers.com/solon/Netscape.html
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 02:36:52 -0400, Chris I wrote:
>
>>> What is "H - - -"?
>>
>> Heck.
>
> And what does it mean, and why didn't he write "heck" instead of "H - -
> -"?
>
> Lennier
>
Because HECK is a dirty word on Mars !!
--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Netscape News Server Volunteer Administrator
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org - Post To Group Only - No Email
PeEmm
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:11:48 -0400, David Spade wrote:
>
>
>>>What is "H - - -"?
>>>
>>
>>
>>As I've heard it said before, "H E double hockey sticks (LL)".
>
>
> Oh!
>
> "Hell"???
>
> There is no reason to obfuscate that word - it's a simple noun for a
> fictitious location.
>
> Lennier
>
"fictitious"? Perhaps you should ask Jessica Lynch about that :-(
--
/P.M.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
I try to refrain from cursing on newsgroups. 8-)
So sometimes I resort to this to do so, without doing so. 8-)
Gervase Markham
Well, actually the Christian view of Hell. I doubt the Jews would really
agree with the Jesus part. :-)
> However, what about such
> concepts as purgatory and limbo? As I understand it, purgatory is kind
> of like a day-pass to Hell from which you come home after, and limbo
> is... well... limbo. It's neither here nor there.
Neither of these concepts/places appear in the Bible. (If anyone tells
you otherwise, ask for references.)
> I've always found the concepts of heaven and hell just a tad too
> simplistic for my liking. If you're good, you go to a good place with a
> big good guy and are happy. If you're bad, you go to a big bad place
> with a big bad guy and are tortured.
Actually, it's not like that at all - "if you're good" isn't anything
like enough to get to Heaven, and "if you're bad", you won't necessarily
go to Hell. As I explained in the root message, we can never reach God's
perfect standard, no matter how good we are, so we need to rely on Jesus
to make us perfect.
> It definitely sounds like it was
> thought up a few thousand years ago when most people were illiterate and
> everything spread by word of mouth.
Why? That seems like an unwarranted sweeping slur on the intelligence
and credulity of our ancestors. And the New Testament was written, as we
have it today, between thirty and sixty years after the death of Jesus -
so there would be many naysayers if it were all a made-up story.
> ALthough I started off life as a
> Roman Catholic and was confirmed, after logical debate and
> reconsideration of all of the variables, I no longer find it reasonable.
> Too many questions come down to "You just have to have faith". Perhaps
> it's because of my past experiences, but I am wary of "just having
> faith", especially when there are so many competing systems out there.
Well, "You just have to have faith" is often code from harassed pastors
or parents for "I can't be bothered to discuss the theological issues
regarding this right now." :-)
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> On 4/15/03 5:19 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> It's "sure" because by nature, we all fall short of the perfect
>> standard God requires
>
> That assumes that there *is* a god; and, if that were the case, that
> he/she/it *had* a "perfect standard" requirement.
IMO, any God worthy of the name would surely be perfect.
> So, for me, hell isn't sure, since to me the existence of god is merely
> an unlikely possibility at best. ;) No offense intended.
What makes you discount his existence?
Gerv
scratch
>> Definitely a Judeo-christian view of hell.
>
>
> Well, actually the Christian view of Hell. I doubt the Jews would really
> agree with the Jesus part. :-)
Jews don't believe in any part, actually. One of my Jewish friends was
just telling me about that: Jews don't believe in Hell.
-scratch
Sailfish
>> Definitely a Judeo-christian view of hell.
>
>
> Well, actually the Christian view of Hell. I doubt the Jews would really
> agree with the Jesus part. :-)
>
>> However, what about such concepts as purgatory and limbo? As I
>> understand it, purgatory is kind of like a day-pass to Hell from which
>> you come home after, and limbo is... well... limbo. It's neither here
>> nor there.
>
>
> Neither of these concepts/places appear in the Bible. (If anyone tells
> you otherwise, ask for references.)
>
about those places... 'course, the pilgrim's guide, Virgil, hailed from
Limbo and his Ulysses parished attempting to reach purgatory.
Hmmm, not even an honorable mention to Homer nor Odesseus ... one is
left to wonder where dead plagerizing poets end up???
Peter Lairo
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/03 5:19 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>
>>> It's "sure" because by nature, we all fall short of the perfect
>>> standard God requires
>>
>> That assumes that there *is* a god; and, if that were the case, that
>> he/she/it *had* a "perfect standard" requirement.
>
> IMO, any God worthy of the name would surely be perfect.
Being perfect and *having* a perfect *standard* can be (and are likely)
two separate things. Through your misunderstanding, you haven't
addressed any of my two points yet.
>> So, for me, hell isn't sure, since to me the existence of god is
>> merely an unlikely possibility at best. ;) No offense intended.
>
> What makes you discount his existence?
I just seems to me to make a lot more sense that the universe evolved in
some physical way, rather than some biblical god who thought up some
convoluted story about a son that is half god half man that takes away
sins that man cannot avoid in the first place. The whole bible story
seems too unimaginative and man-made to me.
Now buddism or taoism, there's some cool and intelligent
religions/philosophies... (although still inadequate for me) ;)
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
Colin Brough
> Gervase Markham wrote, On 03-04-22 19:48:
>
>> Peter Lairo wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/15/03 5:19 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's "sure" because by nature, we all fall short of the perfect
>>>> standard God requires
>>>
>>> That assumes that there *is* a god; and, if that were the case, that
>>> he/she/it *had* a "perfect standard" requirement.
>>
>> IMO, any God worthy of the name would surely be perfect.
>
> Being perfect and *having* a perfect *standard* can be (and are likely)
> two separate things. Through your misunderstanding, you haven't
> addressed any of my two points yet.
At its core Christianity is a revelation based faith. Philosophical
speculation won't cut the mustard. This makes sense - without
revelation, the position Peter is adopting is entirely logical.
However, if you grant the possibility of revelation - particularly the
personal revelation of God taking on the form of humanity (Jesus) to
communicate with us in a way that we can comprehend - then the rest is
logically coherent.
Once that step has been taken, the biblical revelation is pretty
unequivocal:
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and
all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.
Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is
perfect.
Equally clear is the impossibility of us attaining such a standard,
and the gift of acceptance through faith in Christ:
Romans 3:22-24 There is no difference, for all have sinned and
fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by
his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
While I wouldn't describe faith as blind, it is certainly faith! God
doesn't work at the level of proof, leaving us with no choice but to
accept, but at the level of relationship - think friendship offered,
can be accepted or spurned.
Cheers
Colin
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Brough Colin.no.s...@blueyonder.co.uk
Lars Hallberg
>> However, what about such concepts as purgatory and limbo? As I
>> understand it, purgatory is kind of like a day-pass to Hell from which
>> you come home after, and limbo is... well... limbo. It's neither here
>> nor there.
>
> Neither of these concepts/places appear in the Bible. (If anyone tells
> you otherwise, ask for references.)
We talk beleve her. Everyone is free to beleve what they want, and any
beleve is equaly valid, ether it steems from the bible or not.
As loong we all don't try to govern *others* based on our beleves whe
shuld be able to get along.
This OT thred is starting to go too serius tho ;-)
/LaH
Peter Lairo
> any
> beleve is equaly valid
So if someone believes that the sky is solid and the earth is liquid,
that is "valid"?
> This OT thred is starting to go too serius tho ;-)
Then don't follow it (press "k") ;)
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
-=-=-
Character is "Doing the Right Thing..." Even when "No One is Watching..."
-=-=-
Peter Lairo
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:06:50 +0200, Peter Lairo wrote:
>>Gervase Markham wrote, On 03-04-22 19:48:
>>>Peter Lairo wrote:
>>>>On 4/15/03 5:19 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's "sure" because by nature, we all fall short of the perfect
>>>>>standard God requires
>>>>
>>>>That assumes that there *is* a god; and, if that were the case, that
>>>>he/she/it *had* a "perfect standard" requirement.
>>>
>>>IMO, any God worthy of the name would surely be perfect.
>>
>>Being perfect and *having* a perfect *standard* can be (and are likely)
>>two separate things. Through your misunderstanding, you haven't
>>addressed any of my two points yet.
>
> At its core Christianity is a revelation based faith. Philosophical
> speculation won't cut the mustard. This makes sense - without
> revelation, the position Peter is adopting is entirely logical.
And there lies the crux of the problem. I can ask you to "believe"
anything - christianity is just *one* of these beliefs, and therefore no
necessarily true).
> However, if you grant the possibility of revelation - particularly the
> personal revelation of God taking on the form of humanity (Jesus) to
> communicate with us in a way that we can comprehend - then the rest is
> logically coherent.
Define "revelation".
> Once that step has been taken, the biblical revelation is pretty
> unequivocal:
>
> Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and
> all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong,
> upright and just is he.
>
> Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is
> perfect.
>
> Equally clear is the impossibility of us attaining such a standard,
> and the gift of acceptance through faith in Christ:
>
> Romans 3:22-24 There is no difference, for all have sinned and
> fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by
> his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
The exact same situation exists by believing "the universe is at it is",
(it *is*, therefore it is perfect) therefore anything I do doesn't go
against (sin) the universe.
> While I wouldn't describe faith as blind, it is certainly faith! God
> doesn't work at the level of proof, leaving us with no choice but to
> accept, but at the level of relationship - think friendship offered,
> can be accepted or spurned.
Just because I can't know everthing, doesn't mean I go to the opposite
extreme and believe everything. I believe things that (could) make
sense, christianity (or islam, for that matter) doesn't make sense to me.
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
Colin Brough
> Colin Brough wrote, On 03-04-23 11:35:
>> speculation won't cut the mustard. This makes sense - without
>> revelation, the position Peter is adopting is entirely logical.
>
> And there lies the crux of the problem. I can ask you to "believe"
> anything - christianity is just *one* of these beliefs, and therefore no
> necessarily true).
Indeed. I happen to believe it is true, but that belief rests on
*faith*, backed up by personal experience of God (subjective) and a
degree of "could this be true?" working through the classical
objections to such a faith. (And coming to reasonable, not absolute,
answers to those.) If I lived next door to you, my hope would be that
I could say "Does how I live, based on my faith, make sense of the
fullest range of human experience?" - and not "here are my top ten
arguments for why you should believe!"
>> However, if you grant the possibility of revelation - particularly the
>> personal revelation of God taking on the form of humanity (Jesus) to
>> communicate with us in a way that we can comprehend - then the rest is
>> logically coherent.
>
> Define "revelation".
Someone (in this case God) telling you something you could not find
out by any other way. Such a revelation may be couched in terms of
written words (eg Bible), or embodied in a living person (Jesus)...
Contrast something deduced from available information.
>> Once that step has been taken, the biblical revelation is pretty
>> unequivocal:
>>
>> Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and
>> all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong,
>> upright and just is he.
>>
>> Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is
>> perfect.
>>
>> Equally clear is the impossibility of us attaining such a standard,
>> and the gift of acceptance through faith in Christ:
>>
>> Romans 3:22-24 There is no difference, for all have sinned and
>> fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by
>> his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
>
> The exact same situation exists by believing "the universe is at it is",
> (it *is*, therefore it is perfect) therefore anything I do doesn't go
> against (sin) the universe.
I'm not sure I follow - did you interpret what I said/quoted as
suggesting all have sinned *and* all/everyone is saved (made as if
perfect)? If so, sorry, I didn't communicate clearly :-(
In its wider context Romans 3:22-24 is addressed to those who are
believers, who have taken a step of faith - so the "all" who are
justified are "all believers" - non believers are not
justified/redeemed/friends of God. And the definition of sin in this
context is a thought or action that fails to honour God - no God, no
sin.
> Just because I can't know everthing, doesn't mean I go to the opposite
> extreme and believe everything. I believe things that (could) make
> sense, christianity (or islam, for that matter) doesn't make sense to me.
Fair enough. Though Christianity and Islam share a great deal, they
are also very different - one a faith of gift, the other of merit.
Hope that helps! Mind you, what this has got to do with mozilla,
$DEITY only knows! (Did anyone see my post about getting print
preferences - eg lpr command, paper size - to stick in mozilla? They
are saved into prefs.js, but not loaded when mozilla is next started!)
David Spade
>
>> It definitely sounds like it was thought up a few thousand years ago
>> when most people were illiterate and everything spread by word of mouth.
>
> Why? That seems like an unwarranted sweeping slur on the intelligence
> and credulity of our ancestors. And the New Testament was written, as we
> have it today, between thirty and sixty years after the death of Jesus -
> so there would be many naysayers if it were all a made-up story.
The heaven and hell concepts were created before the New Testament, I do
believe. And, being part of the Old Testament (And a pretty early part at that -
Genesis?) it's probably been around for about 5000 years. And, only recently (as
in the last few hundred years) has literacy risen enough that I'd consider the
general population to be at all intelligent. For most of history, there were a
few shining examples of intelligence that led forward the human species
surrounded by a sea of imbeciles that went through life illiterate and
uneducated. As literacy and education spread, more people have become
intelligent, and have actually contributed to the growth of the species rather
than just consuming resources and space and excreting waste and children.
Although the seed of intelligence was there, it was never fostered until
education became much more common. As I see it, those are facts.
>> Although I started off life as a Roman Catholic and was confirmed,
>> after logical debate and reconsideration of all of the variables, I no
>> longer find it reasonable. Too many questions come down to "You just
>> have to have faith". Perhaps it's because of my past experiences, but
>> I am wary of "just having faith", especially when there are so many
>> competing systems out there.
>
> Well, "You just have to have faith" is often code from harassed pastors
> or parents for "I can't be bothered to discuss the theological issues
> regarding this right now." :-)
Maybe so, however I didn't encounter such responses in just one conversation. I
encountered them in pretty much every conversation of any depth about religious
principles I had with numerous people. Oh, and my parents never had good answers
to anything anyways. :)
-=Straxus=-
David Spade
> Lars Hallberg wrote, On 03-04-23 11:48:
>
>> any beleve is equaly valid
>
> So if someone believes that the sky is solid and the earth is liquid,
> that is "valid"?
Giving Lars the benefit of the doubt, I think he meant that we can believe in
whatever religious/pseudo-religious/atheist system we want when it comes to the
religious realm, and as long as we do not try to force others to believe that
same system but leave the choice up to them, then that's just fine.
And I would argue that a person can believe whatever they want - They can
believe that the Earth is flat, that the universe revolves around the Earth, or
that chimpanzees have 2 normal arms and 6 clear ones that can't be seen. As long
as they don't try to force others to believe the same thing, then they can
putter along merrily in their belief as far as I'm concerned.
>> This OT thred is starting to go too serius tho ;-)
>
> Then don't follow it (press "k") ;)
Nah, it's like the old train wreck scene - everybdy thinks it's horrible, but
nobody can look away. :)
-=Straxus=-