Cancellation Policy

[Terry R.]

Yesterday I received an email from Chris, stating:

Terry, in the past you were notified three times that you were in
violation of the Mozilla Forum Etiquette rules [1], by posting many
off-topic messages.
It's clear now from your recent OT posts and refusal to honour
followup-To headers, that your behaviour has not changed. As per
<http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/cancellation.html>, this message is
to inform you that your future infringing posts will be removed from the
news server without warning or comment.

I have a big problem with this. First, the link provided states, "The
support newsgroups are monitored by a small group of technical support
community members." First off, Chris is not a "small group".

Second, the link uses the term "they" repeatedly. If there is no
"they", "they" cannot "agree" on any issues, as the following states:

"If they agree that someone is regularly off-topic or repeatedly
violates the etiquette guidelines in other ways, they will warn them by
private e-mail (or in the newsgroup if the e-mail address cannot be
determined). If they later agree that the behaviour has not changed,
they will notify the person by e-mail (or newsgroup post, as above) and
then start to cancel any and all infringing posts from that person,
without warning or comment."

Then after reading this email I thought, I haven't been "notified three
times" at all. This was the first. Unless of course Chris feels that
since the time this server has been active he has notified me three
times. But the way I read the link, if someone who has posted OT
doesn't do so in a months time, the procedure must start over, which
means the warning email must again be sent:

"At least the first time round, an e-mailed assurance of reformation,
plus a practical demonstration of one month in length (where the group
feels the need to cancel no or very few posts), resets the process."

But then again, it states, "the group". If there is no "group" or
"they", how can any of this be enforced by a party of one? Because
Chris says so?

Chris sets follow-ups without notification. I reset them and ask him to
do it correctly and he refuses. Others like Jay have asked him
repeatedly also. Is Chris above the law?

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

[Andrew DeFaria]

The cancellation policy is complete and utter BS. Chris is the non-benevolent dictator. He gets to do as he pleases. You have no say so nor do you have and recourse. Additionally there's nothing about honoring followups stated in that cancellation policy.

Thank god Google's making a better browser than FF anyway.

--
Andrew DeFaria
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. And tomorrow isn't looking good either.

[Stereotactic]

Instead of focussing on the "help" for users, I find that mailing lists
are prone for utter abuse.

I don't understand why these ego hassles.

Please focus on what it takes to increase the user base, get more people
interested in Firefox. For a newbie, reading these lists would only
appear as a waste of time with sparring groups. And it's being indexed
by Google for God's sake, for posterity!

Peace! Seriously, we could do a lot more with less energies being spent
on pointificating and dictating terms. Arguably mailing lists provide us
some degree of anonymity but this should not be an excuse to bring out
the worst in us.

I am assuming that basic human chivalry is still alive and lets work
together to kick Microsoft's ass and counter their bad ass propoganda :)

Cheers !

[Jay Garcia]

On 28.03.2011 08:55, Terry R. wrote:

--- Original Message ---

I also received a warning email, once, no more and my OT posts were
cancelled. Some were blatant OT (such as a "me too", nothing really out
of hand) and others not.

Chris recently called Andrew DeFaria a "troll" which IMHO is a personal
attack. The post was OT and a personal attack AND was set as f'up to
.general without any indication in the body of the post. "Above the
law"?? you bet.

This is why good support people are leaving and/or have left. I left
because of a blatant personal attack. But .. instead of taking matters
into my own hands, I relied on the "system" and emailed Chris for help.
The request obviously fell on deaf ears w/o the courtesy of a reply. I
emailed twice.

I was asked to return and dust off my pride by someone far above
Chris/Gerv/Dave. I respected the request but on a very limited basis. I
was also asked to become a member of the dev support team, especially in
the contribution arena. I am now there lending whatever expertise I can
muster up. For a time I was answering webm...@mozilla.org email by
request of Chris Hoffman, but I had to give that up because of time
constraints.

There are many of us that have been "around the block" many times and in
many capacities since Netscape/Thunderbird/Mozilla/Firefox/Seamonkey
were born. To be treated like second-hand citizens is unacceptable. We
follow the guidelines to the letter as best we can somtimes swaying a
bit off track. Like it or not "we" are part of a "community of peer
support givers".

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 03/28/11 07:57, Jay Garcia wrote:

Chris recently called Andrew DeFaria a "troll" which IMHO is a personal attack. The post was OT and a personal attack AND was set as f'up to .general without any indication in the body of the post. "Above the law"?? you bet.

Chris is an id**t! Whoops! I can't hold that opinion of him. Thank god I put a few "*"'s to sufficiently disguise my real meaning! That's all that's required right?

This is why good support people are leaving and/or have left. I left because of a blatant personal attack. But .. instead of taking matters into my own hands, I relied on the "system" and emailed Chris for help. The request obviously fell on deaf ears w/o the courtesy of a reply. I emailed twice.

I was asked to return and dust off my pride by someone far above Chris/Gerv/Dave. I respected the request but on a very limited basis. I was also asked to become a member of the dev support team, especially in the contribution arena. I am now there lending whatever expertise I can muster up. For a time I was answering webm...@mozilla.org email by request of Chris Hoffman, but I had to give that up because of time constraints.

Sorry to say but your part of the problem Jay. The only way to really combat this is to stick to your guns and leave. If you instead buckle under and come back they have no real incentive to change.

There are many of us that have been "around the block" many times and in many capacities since Netscape/Thunderbird/Mozilla/Firefox/Seamonkey were born. To be treated like second-hand citizens is unacceptable. We follow the guidelines to the letter as best we can somtimes swaying a bit off track. Like it or not "we" are part of a "community of peer support givers".

The beating will continue until morale improves.

--
Andrew DeFaria
He's dead. It's been 2,000 years. He's not coming back. Get over it already!

[Jay Garcia]

On 28.03.2011 10:10, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Sorry to say but your part of the problem Jay. The only way to really combat
> this is to stick to your guns and leave. If you instead buckle under and come
> back they have no real incentive to change.

On the contrary, "sticking around" and constantly stirring the
proverbial pot thus disables the ability of an impenetrable crust to
form on the top! :-)

[Christian Riechers]

It would certainly benefit users more if you'd focus your efforts on
support instead of doing politics.
This isn't a perfect world, and it is impossible to please everyone.
About what you call a 'blatant personal attack', you're around here long
enough to know how to deal with it.
People come and leave here, this is life. Seeing people leaving is
unfortunate, but this won't stop the group going. Users still got their
questions answered here while you decided to leave.
Wrt Terry's recent rants, I have no problem when they get canceled.
Though I fully agree to your comment wrt "somtimes swaying abit off
track", and a "community of peer support givers". But this is something
different than repeatedly posting rants.
And how hard is it to set a follow-up to .general? Endless debates if a
post is OT or not are just childish.
My 2 cents.

--
Christian

[Stereotactic]

On 03/28/2011 10:51 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
> On 28.03.2011 16:57, Jay Garcia wrote:

> It would certainly benefit users more if you'd focus your efforts on
> support instead of doing politics.

Exactly :) This is a SUPPORT group!!! Lets spend some time to spread
open source !

> This isn't a perfect world, and it is impossible to please everyone.
> About what you call a 'blatant personal attack', you're around here long
> enough to know how to deal with it.

+1
> My 2 cents.
Mine just 1 :)

[Terry R.]

On 3/28/2011 10:38 AM On a whim, Stereotactic pounded out on the keyboard

> Exactly :) This is a SUPPORT group!!! Lets spend some time to spread
> open source !

This is not a support group. This is where off topic issues can be
discussed, and the reason I posted it here.

[Terry R.]

On 3/28/2011 10:21 AM On a whim, Christian Riechers pounded out on the
keyboard

>
>

> It would certainly benefit users more if you'd focus your efforts on
> support instead of doing politics.
> This isn't a perfect world, and it is impossible to please everyone.
> About what you call a 'blatant personal attack', you're around here long
> enough to know how to deal with it.

It's not up to us to deal with it. Chris does it on his own and isn't
consistent, even though protocol is clearly to be determined by the
"group". He is hardest on those of us who have been offering support
even prior to this server hosting Mozilla. If anything Chris should
support us! But we're a threat to him, so he would like nothing better
if we would leave.

> People come and leave here, this is life. Seeing people leaving is
> unfortunate, but this won't stop the group going. Users still got their
> questions answered here while you decided to leave.
> Wrt Terry's recent rants, I have no problem when they get canceled.

None have been canceled.

> Though I fully agree to your comment wrt "somtimes swaying abit off
> track", and a "community of peer support givers". But this is something
> different than repeatedly posting rants.
> And how hard is it to set a follow-up to .general? Endless debates if a
> post is OT or not are just childish.
> My 2 cents.
>

Funny you don't like it when FF get's put on the hot seat, and yet you
do the same bashing when Chrome is discussed as an alternative. That
makes you look like a Mozilla fan boy.

Jay and I call Chris out to state the follow-up in his posting, but he
is too inconsiderate and ignores us, just as he ignored Jay's email.

[Jay Garcia]

--- Original Message ---

You're kidding of course!

> This isn't a perfect world, and it is impossible to please everyone.
> About what you call a 'blatant personal attack', you're around here long
> enough to know how to deal with it.

You missed the point. I did "deal with it" by playing by the book and
contacting the moderator Chris via private email rather than keeping the
fire going in the group by replying to the perpetrator. The email was
ignored .. twice!

> People come and leave here, this is life. Seeing people leaving is
> unfortunate, but this won't stop the group going. Users still got their
> questions answered here while you decided to leave.
> Wrt Terry's recent rants, I have no problem when they get canceled.
> Though I fully agree to your comment wrt "somtimes swaying abit off
> track", and a "community of peer support givers". But this is something
> different than repeatedly posting rants.
> And how hard is it to set a follow-up to .general? Endless debates if a
> post is OT or not are just childish.
> My 2 cents.

Your .02 noted.

[Christian Riechers]

On 28.03.2011 20:37, Terry R. wrote:
> On 3/28/2011 10:21 AM On a whim, Christian Riechers pounded out on the
> keyboard
>>
>> It would certainly benefit users more if you'd focus your efforts on
>> support instead of doing politics.
>> This isn't a perfect world, and it is impossible to please everyone.
>> About what you call a 'blatant personal attack', you're around here long
>> enough to know how to deal with it.
>
> It's not up to us to deal with it. Chris does it on his own and isn't
> consistent, even though protocol is clearly to be determined by the
> "group". He is hardest on those of us who have been offering support
> even prior to this server hosting Mozilla. If anything Chris should
> support us! But we're a threat to him, so he would like nothing better
> if we would leave.

The decision process on which posts get canceled may not be very
transparent. But this isn't the point. You made some silly posts, and
you know it. Your complaints now and any debate about proper follow-up
indication are childish.
I'd be curious what kind of threat you think you're for ChrisI. Some
people like conspiracy theories, I don't.

>
>> People come and leave here, this is life. Seeing people leaving is
>> unfortunate, but this won't stop the group going. Users still got their
>> questions answered here while you decided to leave.
>> Wrt Terry's recent rants, I have no problem when they get canceled.
>
> None have been canceled.
>
>> Though I fully agree to your comment wrt "somtimes swaying abit off
>> track", and a "community of peer support givers". But this is something
>> different than repeatedly posting rants.
>> And how hard is it to set a follow-up to .general? Endless debates if a
>> post is OT or not are just childish.
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>
> Funny you don't like it when FF get's put on the hot seat, and yet you
> do the same bashing when Chrome is discussed as an alternative. That
> makes you look like a Mozilla fan boy.

If you're suggesting to discuss Chrome as an alternative to FF in a FF
support group, this is beyond me.
If you want to discuss Chrome in mozilla.general, I don't think there
will be any complaints.
I have little interest in Chrome, as I'm quite happy with FF.
You haven't answered the question yet why you're still posting in the FF
group at all after making statements like "Plain and simple, Chrome is a
better browser...".

>
> Jay and I call Chris out to state the follow-up in his posting, but he
> is too inconsiderate and ignores us, just as he ignored Jay's email.

You can keep complaining about being treated unfairly, but it neither
will help you nor anyone else. Lay back, and relax.
If you're serious about providing support, your contribution will be
appreciated.

--
Christian

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 9:26 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:

On 28.03.2011 10:10, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

--- Original Message ---

Sorry to say but your part of the problem Jay. The only way to really combat
this is to stick to your guns and leave. If you instead buckle under and come
back they have no real incentive to change.

On the contrary, "sticking around" and constantly stirring the proverbial pot thus disables the ability of an impenetrable crust to form on the top! :-)

See: Hopeless...

--
Andrew DeFaria
Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 10:21 AM, Christian Riechers wrote:

It would certainly benefit users more if you'd focus your efforts on support instead of doing politics.

If everybody did that there wouldn't be any posts on these servers!

This isn't a perfect world, and it is impossible to please everyone.

Right, but you can "Do what you say" and "Say what you mean".

People come and leave here, this is life. Seeing people leaving is unfortunate, but this won't stop the group going.

Tell that to AOL! ;-) (Wait they're still around... You may have a point)

--
Andrew DeFaria
Why does a cowboy have two spurs? If one side of the horse goes, so does the other.

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 1:19 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:

My 2 cents.

Your .02 noted.

And taxed!

You now owe us $0.05!

Pay up!

;-)

(Is humor still allowed?)

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Andrew DeFaria" <And...@DeFaria.com>

| Terry R.

Yeah it so good it leads all other Briowsers in vulnerabilities !

Vulnerabvilities noted from February 2009 to present date. Note 5 in March '11 alone.

Chrome:
----------------
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2011-03-25
Google Chrome Flash Player Unspecified Code Execution Vulnerability 2011-03-15
Google Chrome Style Handling Memory Corruption Vulnerability 2011-03-14
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2011-03-09
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2011-03-01
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2011-02-08
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2011-02-04
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2011-01-13
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-12-14
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-12-03
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-11-04
Google Chrome Flash Player Unspecified Code Execution Vulnerability 2010-10-28
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-10-20
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-09-15
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-09-14
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-09-03
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-08-20
Google Chrome Update for Flash Plugin 2010-08-11
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-07-27
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-07-05
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-06-25
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-06-09
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-05-27
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-04-28
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-04-21
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-03-18
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-02-11
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2010-01-26
Google Chrome Stylesheet Redirection Information Disclosure 2010-01-22
Google Chrome Cross-Origin Resource Sharing Security Bypass 2009-11-13
Google Chrome Two Vulnerabilities 2009-11-06
Google Chrome Floating Point Parsing Buffer Overflow 2009-10-01
Google Chrome Security Bypass and Cross-Site Scripting 2009-09-16
Google Chrome Multiple Vulnerabilities 2009-08-26
Google Chrome JavaScript Regular Expressions Memory Corruption 2009-07-17
Google Chrome HTTP Response Buffer Overflow Vulnerability 2009-06-23
Google Chrome WebKit Use-After-Free Vulnerability 2009-06-12
Google Chrome WebKit Use-After-Free and Information Disclosure 2009-06-10
Google Chrome WebKit SVGList Object Handling Memory Corruption 2009-05-15
Google Chrome Skia 2D Integer Overflow Vulnerabilities 2009-05-07
Google Chrome "ChromeHTML" URI Handler Vulnerability 2009-04-24
Google Chrome URI Handler Registration Vulnerability 2009-02-09
Google Chrome Cross-Site Scripting and Information Disclosure 2009-02-02

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 1:35 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:

The decision process on which posts get canceled may not be very transparent. But this isn't the point.

Actually it is the point. Maybe not it's transparency but it's fairness and the ability that we can follow the process. After all, if it's convoluted, ill or randomly applied then your post can as easily be canceled. If we must have rules they should be understandable and applied fairly. Everybody has an innate sense of fairness and if it is simply violated then anger and frustration are the result. None of that is good so yes - this is the point. Indeed it's the subject of the thread - "Cancellation Policy". We are talking about what it is, how we can comply with it and is it fair.

You made some silly posts, and you know it.

"Silly" is in the eye of the beholder or, in this case, just Chris, as it turns out he solely seems to have the power to cancel and he does so at well. Analogies to "the gods" and the like fit like the shoe.

If you're suggesting to discuss Chrome as an alternative to FF in a FF support group, this is beyond me.

Great. Then ignore the post since you don't seem to understand it. Having competition is always good. Discussing competition is also good. Avoiding the topic by implementing censorship because it's "beyond you" is bad.

If you want to discuss Chrome in mozilla.general, I don't think there will be any complaints.

Discussing Chrome in the Firefox group is what really makes sense. See above.

I have little interest in Chrome, as I'm quite happy with FF.

Great then you're a perfect candidate to, get this, simply ignore the posts you have little to no interest in! It's that simple.

You haven't answered the question yet why you're still posting in the FF group at all after making statements like "Plain and simple, Chrome is a better browser...".

I didn't know that one must justify his remarks at every turn. If that be the case then why are you posting here about this topic?

Jay and I call Chris out to state the follow-up in his posting, but he
is too inconsiderate and ignores us, just as he ignored Jay's email.

You can keep complaining about being treated unfairly, but it neither will help you nor anyone else.

You're right. Not as long as we have a non-benevolent dictator who does not engage his subjects but rather capriciously hands out punishment at his will.

Lay back, and relax. If you're serious about providing support, your contribution will be
appreciated.

Right... No good deed goes unpunished as they say...

--
Andrew DeFaria
The careful application of terror is also a form of communication.

[Andrew DeFaria]

Good is subjective and relative. You are free to pick your poison. It's not like FF has no vulnerabilities either.

At least I don't run it on Windows (well 'cept at my clients but it's not of my choosing).

--
Andrew DeFaria
I wouldn't be caught dead with a necrophiliac.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Andrew DeFaria" <And...@DeFaria.com>

| Good is subjective and relative. You are free to pick your poison. It's not like FF has
| no vulnerabilities either.

| At least I don't run it on Windows (well 'cept at my clients but it's not of my
| choosing).

Please properly quote that in which you are replying so one can properly discriminate
between the your reply and that which you are replying to as I have done in this posted
reply.

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 3:13 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:

From: "Andrew DeFaria" <And...@DeFaria.com>


| Good is subjective and relative. You are free to pick your poison. It's not like FF has
| no vulnerabilities either.

| At least I don't run it on Windows (well 'cept at my clients but it's not of my
| choosing).

Please properly quote that in which you are replying so one can properly discriminate
between the your reply and that which you are replying to as I have done in this posted
reply.

I believe I had. Sorry you were confused. YMMV.

--
Andrew DeFaria
Advice - Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from your forehead.

[Larry Gusaas]

Your quotes are properly attribute. David is using Outlook Express. That may explain his problem.

Larry
--

_____________________________________________________________________________

Larry I. Gusaas

Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan   Canada
Website:   http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Larry Gusaas" <larry....@gmail.com>

| On 2011/03/28 4:21 PM Andrew DeFaria wrote:
| On 3/28/2011 3:13 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
| From: "Andrew DeFaria" <And...@DeFaria.com>

|| Good is subjective and relative. You are free to pick your poison. It's not like FF
|| has
|| no vulnerabilities either.

|| At least I don't run it on Windows (well 'cept at my clients but it's not of my
|| choosing).

| Please properly quote that in which you are replying so one can properly discriminate
| between the your reply and that which you are replying to as I have done in this posted
| reply.

| I believe I had. Sorry you were confused. YMMV.

| --
| Andrew DeFaria
| Advice - Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from your forehead.
| Your quotes are properly attribute. David is using Outlook Express. That may explain his
problem.

You missed this while you were reading my headers...
FL-Build: Fidolook 2007 (HV) 6.0.6000.97 - 24/12/2008 20:32:05

Fidolook overcomes OE shortcomings.

The posts were in HTML, one of the many reasons HTML (rich text formatting) is frowned
upon in Usenet space. Many news group charters specifically indicate HTML is not allowed.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Larry Gusaas" <larry....@gmail.com>

| On 2011/03/28 4:21 PM Andrew DeFaria wrote:
| On 3/28/2011 3:13 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
| From: "Andrew DeFaria" <And...@DeFaria.com>

|| Good is subjective and relative. You are free to pick your poison. It's not like FF
|| has
|| no vulnerabilities either.

|| At least I don't run it on Windows (well 'cept at my clients but it's not of my
|| choosing).

| Please properly quote that in which you are replying so one can properly discriminate
| between the your reply and that which you are replying to as I have done in this posted
| reply.

| I believe I had. Sorry you were confused. YMMV.

| --
| Andrew DeFaria
| Advice - Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from your forehead.

|
| Your quotes are properly attribute. David is using Outlook Express. That may explain
|
| his problem.

Yepper, I saw the quoting is correct using Netscape Messenger v4.8.

The problem "IS" the HTML. Please refrain from RTF posting. Please post in plain text.

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 3:59 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:

You missed this while you were reading my headers...
FL-Build: Fidolook 2007 (HV) 6.0.6000.97 - 24/12/2008 20:32:05

OK, so that's your problem... Fidolook - bringing ancient early 1996 outlock technology (kicking and screaming) to the year 2001!!! :-)

Fidolook overcomes OE shortcomings.

It obviously does not overcome enough of them! ;-)

The posts were in HTML,

What's your point?

one of the many reasons HTML (rich text formatting) is frowned upon in Usenet space.

Curmudgeons!

No seriously, one of the many reasons it's frowned upon in Usenet space, in this day and age (let me check... Yes it is the 21st century!) is because you can't managed to locate software that is up to the task? Pfft!

Many news group charters specifically indicate HTML is not allowed.

And this is not one of them.

Please present your next irrelevant point...

--
Andrew DeFaria
For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier...I put them in the same room and let them fight it out...

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 4:08 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:

Yepper, I saw the quoting is correct using Netscape Messenger v4.8.

Netscape Messenger v4.8?!? Man you like living on the edge don't you! ;-)

The problem "IS" the HTML. Please refrain from RTF posting. Please post in plain text.

I assure you I have noted your suggestion and will give it the consideration it is due.

While you may consider it cute to tell me how you think I should post please notice that I am not as arrogant as you as I do not insist you do things my way.

--
Andrew DeFaria
Just before someone gets nervous, do they experience cocoons in their stomach?

[Terry R.]

On 3/28/2011 4:08 PM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the keyboard

> From: "Larry Gusaas"<larry....@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> |
> | Your quotes are properly attribute. David is using Outlook Express. That may explain
> |
> | his problem.
>
>
>
>
> Yepper, I saw the quoting is correct using Netscape Messenger v4.8.
>
> The problem "IS" the HTML. Please refrain from RTF posting. Please post in plain text.
>
>

No one else has the issue except you. Why don't you read these groups
using TB? This isn't a support group and HTML isn't forbidden.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Andrew DeFaria" <And...@DeFaria.com>

| On 3/28/2011 3:59 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:

| You missed this while you were reading my headers...
| FL-Build: Fidolook 2007 (HV) 6.0.6000.97 - 24/12/2008 20:32:05

| OK, so that's your problem... Fidolook - bringing ancient early 1996 outlock technology
| (kicking and screaming) to the year 2001!!! :-)

| Fidolook overcomes OE shortcomings.

| It obviously does not overcome enough of them! ;-)

| The posts were in HTML,
| What's your point?

| one of the many reasons HTML (rich text formatting) is frowned upon in Usenet space.
| Curmudgeons!

| No seriously, one of the many reasons it's frowned upon in Usenet space, in this day
| and age (let me check... Yes it is the 21st century!) is because you can't managed to
| locate software that is up to the task? Pfft!

| Many news group charters specifically indicate HTML is not allowed.

| And this is not one of them.

| Please present your next irrelevant point...

It is not irrelevant. HTML is frowned upon for Usenet just like it is for email and for
GOOD reason. I could easily inject malicious VBS and Javascript elements into HTML. This
could included obfuscated javascript that even if you viewed the post in raw text you
would not understand what is being performed. That malicious coding could use the
vulnerability/exploit vector and can lead to your system being compromised. Based upon
your User-Agent I *know* what OS and NNTP Client is used and can gear the code
accordingly.

There is NO reason for HTML and many Usenet clients interpret symbolic text formatting.

_text_ = underlining
*text* = bold face
/text/ = italicized text.

There are very few cases, such as tables, where RTF posting is needed and certainly should
not be enabled for simple textual exchanges.

Please enable plain text posting and/or disable HTML posting.

Thank you.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Terry R." <Terry...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

| On 3/28/2011 4:08 PM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the keyboard

>> From: "Larry Gusaas"<larry....@gmail.com>

>> |
>> | Your quotes are properly attribute. David is using Outlook Express. That may explain
>> |
>> | his problem.

>> Yepper, I saw the quoting is correct using Netscape Messenger v4.8.

>> The problem "IS" the HTML. Please refrain from RTF posting. Please post in plain
>> text.

| No one else has the issue except you. Why don't you read these groups
| using TB? This isn't a support group and HTML isn't forbidden.

I have an array of NNTP clients and TB is not one of them and for email I use Pegasus Mail
which has been free on Usenet for over 20 years.

HTML is frowned upon for GOOD REASON whether barred by charter or not.

I will not entertain this subject matter any further. I have stated my case in this
thread.

EoD

[Terry R.]

On 3/28/2011 1:35 PM On a whim, Christian Riechers pounded out on the
keyboard

> On 28.03.2011 20:37, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 3/28/2011 10:21 AM On a whim, Christian Riechers pounded out on the
>> keyboard
>>> It would certainly benefit users more if you'd focus your efforts on
>>> support instead of doing politics.
>>> This isn't a perfect world, and it is impossible to please everyone.
>>> About what you call a 'blatant personal attack', you're around here long
>>> enough to know how to deal with it.
>> It's not up to us to deal with it. Chris does it on his own and isn't
>> consistent, even though protocol is clearly to be determined by the
>> "group". He is hardest on those of us who have been offering support
>> even prior to this server hosting Mozilla. If anything Chris should
>> support us! But we're a threat to him, so he would like nothing better
>> if we would leave.
>
> The decision process on which posts get canceled may not be very
> transparent.

Sorry, that is the whole point.

>>> Wrt Terry's recent rants, I have no problem when they get canceled.
>> None have been canceled.
>>
>>>

>> Funny you don't like it when FF get's put on the hot seat, and yet you
>> do the same bashing when Chrome is discussed as an alternative. That
>> makes you look like a Mozilla fan boy.
>
> If you're suggesting to discuss Chrome as an alternative to FF in a FF
> support group, this is beyond me.
> If you want to discuss Chrome in mozilla.general, I don't think there
> will be any complaints.
> I have little interest in Chrome, as I'm quite happy with FF.
> You haven't answered the question yet why you're still posting in the FF
> group at all after making statements like "Plain and simple, Chrome is a
> better browser...".
>

Where did you ask that question?

I have a right to. Do you have a problem with that? I had a lot of
client issues with FF, and now that FF is no longer running on any
machines I admin, the users are happy. Chrome has made my life easier,
especially on LU accounts. No IT tickets for error messages, etc.

>> Jay and I call Chris out to state the follow-up in his posting, but he
>> is too inconsiderate and ignores us, just as he ignored Jay's email.
>
> You can keep complaining about being treated unfairly, but it neither
> will help you nor anyone else. Lay back, and relax.
> If you're serious about providing support, your contribution will be
> appreciated.
>

I'm not complaining about being treated unfairly. The moderator
protocols are broken and Chris surely doesn't appear to care if he is
the lone dictator now. Someone in Mozilla needs to step up and
reestablish the moderator group where anything needed to be voted on,
not one persons reaction.

[Terry R.]

On 3/28/2011 4:34 PM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the keyboard

> From: "Terry R."<Terry...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>
> | On 3/28/2011 4:08 PM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the keyboard
>
>>> From: "Larry Gusaas"<larry....@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>>> |
>>> | Your quotes are properly attribute. David is using Outlook Express. That may explain
>>> |
>>> | his problem.
>
>
>
>
>>> Yepper, I saw the quoting is correct using Netscape Messenger v4.8.
>
>>> The problem "IS" the HTML. Please refrain from RTF posting. Please post in plain
>>> text.
>
>
>
> | No one else has the issue except you. Why don't you read these groups
> | using TB? This isn't a support group and HTML isn't forbidden.
>
>
> I have an array of NNTP clients and TB is not one of them and for email I use Pegasus Mail
> which has been free on Usenet for over 20 years.
>

And it appears none of them work properly, although you did mention that
NS 4.8 quoted properly.

> HTML is frowned upon for GOOD REASON whether barred by charter or not.
>

It may be frowned upon by you. Since you're the only one having a
problem and since these are Mozilla groups, using a Mozilla client will
correct your problem. If you choose not to, then live with the results.

> I will not entertain this subject matter any further. I have stated my case in this
> thread.
>
> EoD
>

And a court would throw your case out I'm afraid. DoA

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 4:30 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:

It is not irrelevant.

Yes it is. HTML is permitted here so you're statement that it's not allowed elsewhere is not relevant.

HTML is frowned upon for Usenet just like it is for email and for GOOD reason.

Yes curmudgeons.

I could easily inject malicious VBS and Javascript elements into HTML. This could included obfuscated javascript that even if you viewed the post in raw text you would not understand what is being performed.

You have little confidence in my abilities. I've seen obfuscated code before. Got past it before too. Maybe you could obfuscate it more than I have the time or inclination to decode. So what.

That malicious coding could use the vulnerability/exploit vector and can lead to your system being compromised. Based upon your User-Agent I *know* what OS and NNTP Client is used and can gear the code accordingly.

Great. I invite you to try. You know my email address. Go for it! You game?

(BTW you'll have to register - just like everybody else - to get your email through).

I await your maliciously, obfuscated javascript vulnerable/exploit vectors message...

There is NO reason for HTML

There's no reason for colored monitors either. Black and white (and shades of grey) work just fine....

and many Usenet clients interpret symbolic text formatting.

_text_ = underlining
*text* = bold face
/text/ = italicized text.

BFD.

Here's some news for you - many Usenet clients handle HTML!

There are very few cases, such as tables, where RTF posting is needed and certainly should not be enabled for simple textual exchanges.

By all means, if you don't feel the need, if it doesn't float your both then (listen carefully) DON'T USE IT!. But why do you feel the need to tell others how they should use their tools and how they should post? How arrogant of you!

Please enable plain text posting and/or disable HTML posting.

As I said, I've noted your suggestion. I'm still processing it. I'm very busy...

Thank you.

You're welcome.

--
Andrew DeFaria
The trouble with life is, that you're halfway through it before you realize that it's a "do it yourself" thing.

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/28/2011 4:34 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:

I will not entertain this subject matter any further. I have stated my case in this thread.

Thank gawd!

--
Andrew DeFaria
If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me.

[W3BNR]

On 3/28/2011 8:06 PM Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> On 3/28/2011 4:34 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
>> I will not entertain this subject matter any further. I have stated my
>> case in this thread.
> Thank gawd!
> --

> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>

> If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me.

I certainly hope that David is not continuing his case in another thread.

--
Ed
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1zhwu/
Powered by SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

"A man is free when he can determine the style of
his existence in an absurd world." -James Cone

[Larry Gusaas]

On 2011/03/28 4:59 PM  David H. Lipman wrote:

The posts were in HTML, one of the many reasons HTML (rich text formatting) is frowned 
upon in Usenet space.  Many news group charters specifically indicate HTML is not allowed.

So? Attribution still works properly. If you can't see the attribution levels properly, the problem is on your end.

This isn't usenet. HTML is allowed on Mozilla newsgroups.

[Larry Gusaas]

On 2011/03/28 5:08 PM  David H. Lipman wrote:

The problem "IS" the HTML. 

The problem is with your client.

 Please refrain from RTF posting.

No.

  Please post in plain text.

No.

[PhillipJones]

Yes.

I seem to think he is a relative of the head of Mozilla. At least he
acts like it.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com

[PhillipJones]

Christian Riechers wrote:
> On 28.03.2011 16:57, Jay Garcia wrote:

>> On 28.03.2011 08:55, Terry R. wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>

>> I also received a warning email, once, no more and my OT posts were
>> cancelled. Some were blatant OT (such as a "me too", nothing really out
>> of hand) and others not.
>>
>> Chris recently called Andrew DeFaria a "troll" which IMHO is a personal
>> attack. The post was OT and a personal attack AND was set as f'up to
>> .general without any indication in the body of the post. "Above the
>> law"?? you bet.
>>
>> This is why good support people are leaving and/or have left. I left
>> because of a blatant personal attack. But .. instead of taking matters
>> into my own hands, I relied on the "system" and emailed Chris for help.
>> The request obviously fell on deaf ears w/o the courtesy of a reply. I
>> emailed twice.
>>
>> I was asked to return and dust off my pride by someone far above
>> Chris/Gerv/Dave. I respected the request but on a very limited basis. I
>> was also asked to become a member of the dev support team, especially in
>> the contribution arena. I am now there lending whatever expertise I can
>> muster up. For a time I was answering webm...@mozilla.org email by
>> request of Chris Hoffman, but I had to give that up because of time
>> constraints.
>>
>> There are many of us that have been "around the block" many times and in
>> many capacities since Netscape/Thunderbird/Mozilla/Firefox/Seamonkey
>> were born. To be treated like second-hand citizens is unacceptable. We
>> follow the guidelines to the letter as best we can somtimes swaying a
>> bit off track. Like it or not "we" are part of a "community of peer
>> support givers".
>>
>

> It would certainly benefit users more if you'd focus your efforts on
> support instead of doing politics.
> This isn't a perfect world, and it is impossible to please everyone.
> About what you call a 'blatant personal attack', you're around here long
> enough to know how to deal with it.

> People come and leave here, this is life. Seeing people leaving is

> unfortunate, but this won't stop the group going. Users still got their
> questions answered here while you decided to leave.

> Wrt Terry's recent rants, I have no problem when they get canceled.

> Though I fully agree to your comment wrt "somtimes swaying abit off
> track", and a "community of peer support givers". But this is something
> different than repeatedly posting rants.
> And how hard is it to set a follow-up to .general? Endless debates if a
> post is OT or not are just childish.
> My 2 cents.
>

The problem is not with Jay or even Andrew. The problem is squarely with
Chris. He has harassed most everyone that has been a regular poster. If
He was removed and someone that was fair to everyone. And apply the
rules fairly There would be very little distention. Chris does give good
advice when he is not acting as moderator.

[Terry R.]

On 3/28/2011 3:59 PM On a whim, David H. Lipman pounded out on the keyboard

Oh, I forgot to thank you for hi-jacking my thread with useless
discussion that had nothing to do with the Subject. That is far more
annoying that whether someone posted in HTML or not...

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 03/29/11 06:53, Terry R. wrote:

Oh, I forgot to thank you for hi-jacking my thread with useless discussion that had nothing to do with the Subject.  That is far more annoying that whether someone posted in HTML or not...

I see, like most people, you fail to acknowledge that rarely does an HTML poster start such an argument. I can't recall a single person who start such an argument saying "You know ya'll should start posting in HTML". If ass*** didn't go out of their way to tell others how to do things there would be no argument nor thread hijacking as you put it WRT that issue. They hijacked your thread - not us. Your bias is showing!

--
Andrew DeFaria
Buy a Pentium 586/90 so you can reboot faster.

[clay]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Larry Gusaas" <larry....@gmail.com>
>
>
> | On 2011/03/28 4:21 PM Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> | On 3/28/2011 3:13 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> | From: "Andrew DeFaria" <And...@DeFaria.com>
>
>
> || Good is subjective and relative. You are free to pick your poison. It's not like FF
> || has
> || no vulnerabilities either.
>
> || At least I don't run it on Windows (well 'cept at my clients but it's not of my
> || choosing).
>
> | Please properly quote that in which you are replying so one can properly discriminate
> | between the your reply and that which you are replying to as I have done in this posted
> | reply.
>
> | I believe I had. Sorry you were confused. YMMV.
>
> | --
> | Andrew DeFaria
> | Advice - Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from your forehead.
> | Your quotes are properly attribute. David is using Outlook Express. That may explain his
> problem.
>
> You missed this while you were reading my headers...
> FL-Build: Fidolook 2007 (HV) 6.0.6000.97 - 24/12/2008 20:32:05
>
> Fidolook overcomes OE shortcomings.

heh...

>
> The posts were in HTML, one of the many reasons HTML (rich text formatting) is frowned
> upon in Usenet space. Many news group charters specifically indicate HTML is not allowed.
>

That didn't take long.

[Terry R.]

On 3/29/2011 7:18 AM On a whim, Andrew DeFaria pounded out on the keyboard

> Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>

> Buy a Pentium 586/90 so you can reboot faster.

How do glean out of what I said that I had a problem with someone
posting in HTML? I don't. I could care less how someone posts. On
second thought, I don't care much for top posting...

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/29/2011 9:13 AM, Terry R. wrote:

On 3/29/2011 7:18 AM On a whim, Andrew DeFaria pounded out on the keyboard

  On 03/29/11 06:53, Terry R. wrote:

Oh, I forgot to thank you for hi-jacking my thread with useless
discussion that had nothing to do with the Subject. That is far more
annoying that whether someone posted in HTML or not...

I see, like most people, you fail to acknowledge that rarely does an
HTML poster start such an argument. I can't recall a single person who
start such an argument saying "You know ya'll should start posting in
HTML". If ass*** didn't go out of their way to tell others how to do
things there would be no argument nor thread hijacking as you put it WRT
that issue. They hijacked your thread - not us. Your bias is showing!
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Buy a Pentium 586/90 so you can reboot faster.

How do glean out of what I said that I had a problem with someone posting in HTML?  I don't.  I could care less how someone posts.  On second thought, I don't care much for top posting...

Sorry. You were right. You complained about the correct people. I missed that.

--
Andrew DeFaria
Only in America can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.

[s|b]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:55:30 -0700, Terry R. wrote:

> Chris sets follow-ups without notification. I reset them and ask him to
> do it correctly and he refuses. Others like Jay have asked him
> repeatedly also. Is Chris above the law?

This gets on my tits as well. Changing the follow-up without
notification is a big no-no.

--
s|b

[Terry R.]

On 3/29/2011 11:49 AM On a whim, s|b pounded out on the keyboard

I emailed Chris back regarding the lack of follow-up notification and
this is what he said:

Terry:
Your redirecting without notification is more of an offense, but hey,
you are the boss, right (in your own mind)...

Chris:
Notice how you always notice when I do it. ;-)
And no, it isn't more an offence. In fact it isn't an offence at all.

[Terry R.]

On 3/28/2011 7:57 AM On a whim, Jay Garcia pounded out on the keyboard

I replied back to Chris's warning and this is what he sent back:

Terry:
This is the first I've received Chris. Just keep control. Hope it makes
you happy.

Chris:
I sent you one on 07-04-26, Nir sent you one on 10-03-14, and I sent you
one on 10-11-17. All were titled "Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation
warning" and all were sent to (email address omitted).

So even though the policy is to reset after a month of compliance, Chris
keeps record back to 2007 to let me know that my total OT notifications
after 4½ years is four.

[Jay Garcia]

On 29.03.2011 13:54, Terry R. wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 3/29/2011 11:49 AM On a whim, s|b pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:55:30 -0700, Terry R. wrote:
>>
>>> Chris sets follow-ups without notification. I reset them and ask him to
>>> do it correctly and he refuses. Others like Jay have asked him
>>> repeatedly also. Is Chris above the law?
>>
>> This gets on my tits as well. Changing the follow-up without
>> notification is a big no-no.
>>
>
> I emailed Chris back regarding the lack of follow-up notification and
> this is what he said:
>
> Terry:
> Your redirecting without notification is more of an offense, but hey,
> you are the boss, right (in your own mind)...
>
> Chris:
> Notice how you always notice when I do it. ;-)
> And no, it isn't more an offence. In fact it isn't an offence at all.
>
>
> Terry R.

Not according to guidelines it isn't but it's rather a matter of
courtesy to alert newcomers where the discussion is continuing.

Bah !!

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird

[Jay Garcia]

On 29.03.2011 14:01, Terry R. wrote:

--- Original Message ---

The one month rule ... another thing that isn't followed, just ask
Andrew about that one!!

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/29/2011 11:54 AM, Terry R. wrote:

On 3/29/2011 11:49 AM On a whim, s|b pounded out on the keyboard

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:55:30 -0700, Terry R. wrote:

Chris sets follow-ups without notification.  I reset them and ask him to
do it correctly and he refuses.  Others like Jay have asked him
repeatedly also.  Is Chris above the law?

This gets on my tits as well. Changing the follow-up without
notification is a big no-no.

I emailed Chris back regarding the lack of follow-up notification and this is what he said:

Terry:
Your redirecting without notification is more of an offense, but hey,
you are the boss, right (in your own mind)...

Chris:
Notice how you always notice when I do it. ;-)
And no, it isn't more an offence. In fact it isn't an offence at all.

Cool!

FUp set to Chris! ;-)

--
Andrew DeFaria
Everyone has the right to be stupid, but your abusing the privilege.

[Andrew DeFaria]

You got tits! Pics or I don't believe it! :-P

--
Andrew DeFaria
Deja Fu: The feeling that you've screwed this up before.

[Dad]

On Mar 29, 8:50 pm, Andrew DeFaria <And...@DeFaria.com> wrote:
> On 03/29/11 11:49, s|b wrote:On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:55:30 -0700, Terry R. wrote:Chris sets follow-ups without notification. I reset them and ask him to do it correctly and he refuses. Others like Jay have asked him repeatedly also. Is Chris above the law?

> This gets on my tits as well. Changing the follow-up without notification is a big no-no.You got tits! Pics or I don't believe it!:-P--Andrew DeFariaDeja Fu: The feeling that you've screwed this up before.

You have 'em don't you? 8-)

Jay

[s|b]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:50:28 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>

I stopped reading after this. |-)

--
s|b

[PhillipJones]

Andrew Asked: You Got Tits?!!

[Andrew DeFaria]

Now if we could only get you to stop responding...

--
Andrew DeFaria
Can you be a closet claustrophobic?

[s|b]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:35:12 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> On 3/30/2011 11:02 AM, s|b wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:50:28 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

You seem to have problems with your introduction line as well.

> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
> I stopped reading after this. |-)

And your quoting sucks.

> Now if we could only get you to stop responding...

I'm a gentleman, so after you...

--
s|b

[Andrew DeFaria]

On 3/31/2011 10:59 AM, s|b wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:35:12 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

On 3/30/2011 11:02 AM, s|b wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:50:28 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

You seem to have problems with your introduction line as well.

Your "introduction" could use a little polishing yourself as you started off as an arrogant arse...

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
I stopped reading after this. |-)

And your quoting sucks.

As does your attitude!

Now if we could only get you to stop responding...

I'm a gentleman, so after you...

So then you lied before saying that you stopped reading after you hit the <html> since my statement of "Now if we could only get you to stop responding" was also after the <html>. Hardly a gentleman considering how you first presented yourself as arrogant and now have shown you're a liar to boot!

I never said I would stop responding. You already said you stopped reading (though you lied about that). And I wonder how long it's been since you stopped to think and forgot to start again!

And since you're a gentleman then I'm not interested in your tits anymore anyway... :-P

--
Andrew DeFaria
Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing blood. - Mary Hirsch

[Gus Richter]

On 3/28/2011 4:35 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:

> You haven't answered the question yet why you're still posting in the FF
> group at all after making statements like "Plain and simple, Chrome is a
> better browser...".

Try out the newest Google offering and then you will know why.
Read about it here:

<http://blog.chromium.org/2011/04/taking-chrome-to-lite-speeds.html>

--
Gus

[Andrew DeFaria]

Actually chromelite is extremely slow....

.... Just like the old days.

--
Andrew DeFaria
Some people say "life is short". What?? Life is the longest damn thing anyone ever does!! What can you do that's longer?