Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation - Mozilla ; Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: > Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote: >> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: >>> Jay Garcia wrote: >>>> On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote: >>>> >>>> --- Original Message --- >>>> >>>>> Jay Garcia ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

  1. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>> On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>
    >>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews server
    >>>>>>> and they may just do it here too. Just remember this: one of the
    >>>>>>> Spam Mooses was involved on the old secnews server.
    >>>>>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an
    >>>>>> official ban
    >>>>>> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but
    >>>>>> didn't
    >>>>>> have the final say-so.
    >>>>> Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
    >>>>> effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it
    >>>>> exacerbated the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure
    >>>>> that resolved the situation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Would you recommend doing the same today?
    >>>>>
    >>>> After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
    >>>> authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
    >>>> worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
    >>>> any attempts in over 2 years now.
    >>> I don't this script would work here on the mozilla.org server. After
    >>> all, one can post from googlegroups.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> There is
    >>>> always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
    >>>> before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and
    >>>> still
    >>>> are today.
    >>> you couldn't have been that tolerant if you had to ban that person.

    >>
    >> I don't know if you were around in those days since you are somewhat
    >> of a NymShyfter, but if you are at all familiar with what was going
    >> on, it was quite tolerant up to a point. Specifically on Jay's part.
    >> He was the subject of voluminous profane postings.
    >>

    >
    > No I wasn't, but I know people who was, and they're telling me another
    > story. Interesting that all these people who are telling the same story
    > about more than one being banned can't be all wrong.


    I was there then, I'm here now. I have no dog in this fight. I can
    tell you only *one*person was banned.

    > Interesting how these people are telling me that it was more involved
    > than Jay. As a matter of fact, it was several Netscape Champs who was
    > involved.


    I can't/won't assign motive to those telling you otherwise. I can tell
    you I disagreed with the decision and made my opinion known. Others who
    disagreed stopped posting to secnews.

    > Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the secnews
    > server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz server.


    Apples and oranges.

    --
    To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and, whatever you hit,
    call it the target.


  2. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    > secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    > server.


    I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    secnews who are now posting on the moz server.

    --
    Irwin

    Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.

    Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page

  3. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    > On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >> server.

    >
    > I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    > secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >


    sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
    names. If I had, I sure would.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  4. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/07 1:35 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>> server.

    >>
    >> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>

    >
    > sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
    > had, I sure would.
    >

    Once again you do not provide proof to back up your statements.

    --
    Larry I. Gusaas
    Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan

    Website: http://larry-gusaas.com

  5. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Larry Gusaas wrote:
    > On 8/1/07 1:35 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>> server.
    >>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>

    >> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
    >> had, I sure would.
    >>

    > Once again you do not provide proof to back up your statements.
    >


    Do you not read: I would if I could, but I don't have their
    permission.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  6. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>> server.

    >> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>

    >
    > sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
    > names. If I had, I sure would.


    Have you requested it?

  7. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>> server.

    >> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>

    >
    > sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
    > names. If I had, I sure would.
    >


    and before anyone jumps on me, these are private
    individuals, unlike the programmers, where their names are
    all over the credits, wiki websites, some on the Moz
    website, and so forth. There is no comparison between the two.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  8. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>> server.
    >>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>

    >> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
    >> names. If I had, I sure would.

    >
    > Have you requested it?


    for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the
    so-called Champs found out all hell would break out. If you
    think the flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen
    nothin' yet! My understanding is some very bad stuff was
    said back then.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  9. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    > Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>>> server.
    >>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>>
    >>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
    >>> had, I sure would.

    >>
    >> Have you requested it?

    >
    > for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
    > found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad in
    > this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is some
    > very bad stuff was said back then.


    Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
    --
    Chris Ilias
    List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia

  10. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >> Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>>>> server.
    >>>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>>>
    >>>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
    >>>> had, I sure would.
    >>> Have you requested it?

    >> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
    >> found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad in
    >> this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is some
    >> very bad stuff was said back then.

    >
    > Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?


    who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  11. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/07 4:47 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>>>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>>>>> server.
    >>>>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>>>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If
    >>>>> I had, I sure would.
    >>>> Have you requested it?
    >>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
    >>> found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad
    >>> in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is
    >>> some very bad stuff was said back then.

    >>
    >> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?

    >
    > who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these people; so
    when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out who, that would
    imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.
    --
    Chris Ilias
    List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia

  12. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Chris Ilias wrote:
    > On 8/1/07 4:47 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >> Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>>>>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>>>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>>>>>> server.
    >>>>>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>>>>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If
    >>>>>> I had, I sure would.
    >>>>> Have you requested it?
    >>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
    >>>> found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad
    >>>> in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is
    >>>> some very bad stuff was said back then.
    >>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?

    >> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    >
    > Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these people; so
    > when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out who, that would
    > imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.


    I didn't say any sort of thing. Only you're implying that,
    not me.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  13. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >> On 8/1/07 4:47 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>> Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>>> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>>>>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>>>>>>> server.
    >>>>>>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>>>>>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If
    >>>>>>> I had, I sure would.
    >>>>>> Have you requested it?
    >>>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
    >>>>> found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad
    >>>>> in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is
    >>>>> some very bad stuff was said back then.
    >>>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
    >>> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    >> Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these people; so
    >> when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out who, that would
    >> imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.

    >
    > I didn't say any sort of thing. Only you're implying that,
    > not me.
    >


    Oh, btw: its amazing how you twist things around to suit
    your own purpose.

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  14. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/07 5:03 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >> On 8/1/07 4:47 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>> Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>>> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called
    >>>>> Champs found out all hell would break out. If you think the
    >>>>> flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My
    >>>>> understanding is some very bad stuff was said back then.
    >>>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
    >>> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    >>
    >> Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these people;
    >> so when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out who, that
    >> would imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.

    >
    > I didn't say any sort of thing. Only you're implying that, not me.


    Okay; so could you please clarify the details for me? Who did the
    banning, and what detail did you not want the Champs to find out?
    --
    Chris Ilias
    List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia

  15. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/2007 12:35 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz server.

    >>
    >> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>

    >
    > sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
    > had, I sure would.
    >

    To paraphrase someone you know, if you can't provide the names, they
    don't exist.

    --
    Irwin

    Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.

    Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page

  16. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/2007 1:19 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>> server.
    >>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>

    >>
    >> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their names. If I
    >> had, I sure would.
    >>

    >
    > and before anyone jumps on me, these are private individuals, unlike the
    > programmers, where their names are all over the credits, wiki websites,
    > some on the Moz website, and so forth. There is no comparison between
    > the two.
    >

    Too late! You're being jumped on from all sides.

    --
    Irwin

    Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.

    Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page

  17. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 01.08.2007 10:19, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>> On 31.07.2007 21:23, Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>
    >>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> thats next: banning people. They did it on the secnews server and
    >>>>>>> they may just do it here too. Just remember this: one of the Spam
    >>>>>>> Mooses was involved on the old secnews server.
    >>>>>> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an official
    >>>>>> ban
    >>>>>> from Netscape, not from the Champs although we were consulted but
    >>>>>> didn't
    >>>>>> have the final say-so.
    >>>>> Thinking back to that period on secnews, do you think the ban was
    >>>>> effective? My opinion is, at least for the short term, it
    >>>>> exacerbated the problem. I think it was ultimately peer pressure
    >>>>> that resolved the situation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Would you recommend doing the same today?
    >>>>>
    >>>> After the user was banned, the user kept up the posting until we
    >>>> authored a script that effectively denied access to all groups. It
    >>>> worked and still works today although I haven't seen this user making
    >>>> any attempts in over 2 years now.
    >>> I don't this script would work here on the mozilla.org server. After
    >>> all, one can post from googlegroups.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> There is
    >>>> always a point when the straw is the last straw and it took many straws
    >>>> before the last one was added. We/Netscape were quite tolerant and still
    >>>> are today.
    >>> you couldn't have been that tolerant if you had to ban that person.

    >>
    >> I don't know if you were around in those days since you are somewhat of
    >> a NymShyfter, but if you are at all familiar with what was going on, it
    >> was quite tolerant up to a point. Specifically on Jay's part. He was
    >> the subject of voluminous profane postings.
    >>

    >
    > No I wasn't, but I know people who was, and they're telling
    > me another story. Interesting that all these people who are
    > telling the same story about more than one being banned
    > can't be all wrong.
    >
    > Interesting how these people are telling me that it was more
    > involved than Jay. As a matter of fact, it was several
    > Netscape Champs who was involved.
    >
    > Further, its interesting how those same banned people from
    > the secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within
    > the moz server.
    >


    As admin I know what was going on, who was involved and who was banned
    and that was only ONE person that was banned, PERIOD, end of story.
    There is no need whatsoever to revive this, thanks.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  18. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 01.08.2007 14:35, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>> server.

    >>
    >> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>

    >
    > sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
    > names. If I had, I sure would.
    >


    You won't have their permission simply because they weren't banned,
    simple as that. The one person that WAS banned hasn't posted here and on
    secnews for well over 2 years now. There were a few others that were
    "asked" to leave but not officially or otherwise banned. There is no
    need to bring this up again.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  19. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 01.08.2007 15:20, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the
    > so-called Champs found out all hell would break out. If you
    > think the flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen
    > nothin' yet! My understanding is some very bad stuff was
    > said back then.


    Found out what? You're not listening to me - Officially From Netscape as
    a paid representative of Netscape. There was only ONE user that was banned.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  20. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 01.08.2007 15:47, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    >> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?

    >
    > who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Put this to rest!

    The "Champs" did NOT have the authority to BAN anyone from the Netscape
    Secnews Server. We (Champs) could only make recommendations and the rest
    was up to Netscape. And we (Champs) only made ONE recommendation and
    THAT user was the only ONE that was banned.

    Now, answer your own question ...

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast