Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation - Mozilla ; Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote in news:fdednZC4td4HQi3bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@mozilla.org: >> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned >> from secnews who are now posting on the moz server. >> > > sorry, but I don't have ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64

Thread: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

  1. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    wrote in
    news:fdednZC4td4HQi3bnZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@mozilla.org:

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

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


    What a copout.

    The fact is that you can't name them, because they do not exist.



    --
    Mozilla & Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
    Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey solutions: http://ilias.ca/
    Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
    About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org

    What's so funny 'bout Peace, Love, and Understanding?


  2. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    wrote in
    news:XfednePkkKjMaS3bnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@mozilla.org:

    > Reason: If the so-called Champs
    >>>>> found out all hell would break out. If you think the
    >>>>> flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin'
    >>>>> yet! My understanding is some very bad stuff was said
    >>>>> back then.
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned
    >>>> these people?
    >>>
    >>> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

    >
    > I didn't say any sort of thing.


    Actually, you said exactly that. Along with a lot of other
    idiotic things you can't back up with anything resembling facts.

    One person was banned from SecNews, period. We all knew who it
    was. We all know why it happened. Not all of us approved. We'd
    have noticed if someone else was banned; I certainly know of some
    people who were ripe targets, and they were allowed to keep
    posting.

    But only one person consistently went over the line, and only one
    person was banned. If someone has told you different, they lied.

    --
    }:-) Christopher Jahn
    {:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/

    A rose by any other name would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault
    vegetation."

  3. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    wrote in
    news:AdWdnQxHFJJAbjLbnZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@mozilla.org:

    >> Whoaa there hoss!!!! Only ONE user was banned and it was an
    >> official ban from Netscape, not from the Champs although we
    >> were consulted but didn't have the final say-so.
    >>

    >
    > thats not what the emails I've been saying. According to
    > them, several were ban.


    I was there. They are lying to you. Or you are lying about
    recieving emails.



    --
    Mozilla & Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
    Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey solutions: http://ilias.ca/
    Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
    About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org

    You won't know anything for certain until you look in the box.
    And by then, of course, it's too late!


  4. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

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

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

    >
    > Okay; so could you please clarify the details for me? Who did the
    > banning, and what detail did you not want the Champs to find out?


    I'm not answering any more of your questions until you Spam
    Mooses answer the ones I've made in previous postings.

    --
    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

  5. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 01.08.2007 15:20, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the
    >> so-called Champs found out all hell would break out. If you
    >> think the flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen
    >> nothin' yet! My understanding is some very bad stuff was
    >> said back then.

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


    well, thats what you say.

    --
    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

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 01.08.2007 14:35, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>> server.
    >>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>

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

    >
    > You won't have their permission simply because they weren't banned,
    > simple as that. The one person that WAS banned hasn't posted here and on
    > secnews for well over 2 years now.


    shows you how much you know about who's posting.

    > There were a few others that were
    > "asked" to leave but not officially or otherwise banned. There is no
    > need to bring this up again.
    >


    getting a little testy, aren't we?

    --
    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

  7. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > 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.
    >


    becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like
    you're trying to hide something.

    --
    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

    On 8/1/07 9:39 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 01.08.2007 15:20, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called
    >>> Champs found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming
    >>> is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My
    >>> understanding is some very bad stuff was said back then.

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

    >
    > well, thats what you say.


    As far as I am concerned if you can't provide the names, they don't exist.

    --
    Larry I. Gusaas
    Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan

    Website: http://larry-gusaas.com

  9. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    wrote in
    news:stCdnSu0MZC1zCzbnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@mozilla.org:

    > becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like
    > you're trying to hide something.


    No, it sounds like he's getting irritated by a snarky jerk who
    makes accusations that he can't back up.

    Jay has posted the proof of his statements, and you haven't
    posted one fact. You relentlessly demand proofs, they are
    provided, you claim that they don't prove anything. You make
    claims, and then refuse to back them up.

    A lot of energy has been wasted on you. You're not worth it.
    You're just some little arrogant snot with no life, and it's time
    everyone just killfiled you. Then you can rant on all you like
    about the fictitious victims of "banning."

  10. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Unblocked wrote:

    looks like chrissy jahn is doing his stupid little things
    again. Trying to hide under another name.

    --
    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 8/1/2007 8:36 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Chris Ilias wrote:
    >> On 8/1/07 5:03 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>> Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>>> On 8/1/07 4:47 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
    >>>>>> On 8/1/07 4:20 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
    >>>>>>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called
    >>>>>>> Champs found out all hell would break out. If you think the
    >>>>>>> flaming is bad in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My
    >>>>>>> understanding is some very bad stuff was said back then.
    >>>>>> Don't want the Champs to know? So who supposedly banned these people?
    >>>>> who do you think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >>>> Well, I assumed you were stating that the Champs banned these
    >>>> people; so when you say that you don't want the Champs to find out
    >>>> who, that would imply that the Champs don't know who they banned.
    >>> I didn't say any sort of thing. Only you're implying that, not me.

    >>
    >> Okay; so could you please clarify the details for me? Who did the
    >> banning, and what detail did you not want the Champs to find out?

    >
    > I'm not answering any more of your questions until you Spam Mooses
    > answer the ones I've made in previous postings.
    >

    So, there! He might even take his bat and go home; then how would you
    be able to play?

    --
    Irwin

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

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

  12. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/2007 8:39 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 01.08.2007 15:20, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> for one of them, yes. They said no. Reason: If the so-called Champs
    >>> found out all hell would break out. If you think the flaming is bad
    >>> in this newsgroup, you ain't seen nothin' yet! My understanding is
    >>> some very bad stuff was said back then.

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

    >
    > well, thats what you say.
    >

    Here we go again! Jay is a liar who should not be trusted. Sheeeesh

    --
    Irwin

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

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

  13. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 8/1/2007 8:39 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    > becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like you're
    > trying to hide something.
    >

    Sounds like you are *again* insisting that people who know the facts are
    liars. It's your only way out of a stupid situation of your own creation.

    --
    Irwin

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

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

  14. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    > becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like you're
    > trying to hide something.


    Tell you what I'll do to try to end this, Peter.

    You claim to have people telling you they were banned from secnews. I
    have been active on secnews since around 1996/7 when I first downloaded
    Netscape 1.x from a BBS using minicom over a dial up.

    I was very involved in the particular group that the banned individual
    was active in, it was kind of a coffee klatch where various and sundry
    experiments with coding were conducted. This means I am familiar with
    all the people involved.

    Ask those who claim to also have been banned to contact me at
    rinaldij.at.gmail.com and refresh my memory. It will be nice hearing
    from old friends. I guarantee the information will go no further than
    my computer.

    --
    You are here:
    ***
    ***
    *********
    *******
    *****
    ***
    *

    But you're not all there.


  15. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation



    Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >
    >> becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like you're
    >> trying to hide something.

    >
    > Tell you what I'll do to try to end this, Peter.
    >
    > You claim to have people telling you they were banned from secnews. I
    > have been active on secnews since around 1996/7 when I first downloaded
    > Netscape 1.x from a BBS using minicom over a dial up.
    >
    > I was very involved in the particular group that the banned individual
    > was active in, it was kind of a coffee klatch where various and sundry
    > experiments with coding were conducted. This means I am familiar with
    > all the people involved.
    >
    > Ask those who claim to also have been banned to contact me at
    > rinaldij.at.gmail.com and refresh my memory. It will be nice hearing
    > from old friends. I guarantee the information will go no further than
    > my computer.
    >


    I was kind of newbie during that period, and got pretty put-off by the whole experience, but I survived.
    Quite a few key talented contributors left the group as a result of the whole experience.
    As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some developed life long friendships there.
    I've seen comments here and there (not from anyone official) about "that club" as if it was a bad thing.
    I would say the opposite. What's wrong with having fun while you learn and experiment.
    We need to have a little more of that camaraderie here. Which certainly should not include name calling.
    There were 2 main characters in the "drama"
    One I'll call "bigmouth" the other "whiner" Both were very disruptive, and was never sure they weren't the same
    person in a schizophrenic way. In fact that might be why some folks think more that one person was banned.
    "Bigmouth was banned"
    "whiner" still posts occasionally.

    JoeS



  16. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 01.08.2007 22:39, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 01.08.2007 14:35, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>>> On 8/1/2007 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>>>> Further, its interesting how those same banned people from the
    >>>>> secnews server, a couple of them, are now posting within the moz
    >>>>> server.
    >>>> I challenge you to name a *couple* of people who were banned from
    >>>> secnews who are now posting on the moz server.
    >>>>
    >>> sorry, but I don't have their permission to reveal their
    >>> names. If I had, I sure would.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You won't have their permission simply because they weren't banned,
    >> simple as that. The one person that WAS banned hasn't posted here and on
    >> secnews for well over 2 years now.

    >
    > shows you how much you know about who's posting.


    Yes it does, thank you.

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

  17. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 02.08.2007 07:17, JoeS wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    >
    > Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>
    >>> becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like you're
    >>> trying to hide something.

    >>
    >> Tell you what I'll do to try to end this, Peter.
    >>
    >> You claim to have people telling you they were banned from secnews. I
    >> have been active on secnews since around 1996/7 when I first downloaded
    >> Netscape 1.x from a BBS using minicom over a dial up.
    >>
    >> I was very involved in the particular group that the banned individual
    >> was active in, it was kind of a coffee klatch where various and sundry
    >> experiments with coding were conducted. This means I am familiar with
    >> all the people involved.
    >>
    >> Ask those who claim to also have been banned to contact me at
    >> rinaldij.at.gmail.com and refresh my memory. It will be nice hearing
    >> from old friends. I guarantee the information will go no further than
    >> my computer.
    >>

    >
    > I was kind of newbie during that period, and got pretty put-off by the whole experience, but I survived.
    > Quite a few key talented contributors left the group as a result of the whole experience.
    > As to "coffee klatch" it was a little more than that, as some developed life long friendships there.
    > I've seen comments here and there (not from anyone official) about "that club" as if it was a bad thing.
    > I would say the opposite. What's wrong with having fun while you learn and experiment.
    > We need to have a little more of that camaraderie here. Which certainly should not include name calling.
    > There were 2 main characters in the "drama"
    > One I'll call "bigmouth" the other "whiner" Both were very disruptive, and was never sure they weren't the same
    > person in a schizophrenic way. In fact that might be why some folks think more that one person was banned.
    > "Bigmouth was banned"
    > "whiner" still posts occasionally.
    >
    > JoeS
    >
    >


    You guys only know what was going on in the group, there was a lot more
    behind the scenes. The person that was banned was not banned because of
    posting to the group. The person was banned by Netscape Legal Dept., not
    by the Champs or anyone representing the Champs or the Champs program.
    I'll have to leave it at that. And the "Bigmouth" you refer to was the
    main cause of another server's group being taken out of commission
    altogether, not just banning the user.

    And yes, I believe I know who the "whiner" is and that person was never
    banned, official or otherwise and yes still posting.

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

  18. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    JoeS wrote:
    > As to "coffee klatch" it was a
    > little more than that, as some developed life long
    > friendships there. I've seen comments here and there (not
    > from anyone official) about "that club" as if it was a
    > bad thing. I would say the opposite. What's wrong with
    > having fun while you learn and experiment. We need to
    > have a little more of that camaraderie here.


    we try, but because of the Spam Mooses, camaraderie will
    never happen on the Mozilla servers.

    --
    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

  19. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >
    >> becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like you're
    >> trying to hide something.

    >
    > Tell you what I'll do to try to end this, Peter.
    >
    > You claim to have people telling you they were banned from secnews. I
    > have been active on secnews since around 1996/7 when I first downloaded
    > Netscape 1.x from a BBS using minicom over a dial up.
    >
    > I was very involved in the particular group that the banned individual
    > was active in, it was kind of a coffee klatch where various and sundry
    > experiments with coding were conducted. This means I am familiar with
    > all the people involved.
    >
    > Ask those who claim to also have been banned to contact me at
    > rinaldij.at.gmail.com and refresh my memory. It will be nice hearing
    > from old friends. I guarantee the information will go no further than
    > my computer.
    >


    if those that are posting here sees this message, then its
    up to them to contact you.

    --
    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

  20. Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

    On 02.08.2007 16:12, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Peter Potamus
    the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
    > Rinaldi J. Montessi wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> becoming very defensive about this, aren't you? Sounds like you're
    >>> trying to hide something.
    >>>

    >> Tell you what I'll do to try to end this, Peter.
    >>
    >> You claim to have people telling you they were banned from secnews. I
    >> have been active on secnews since around 1996/7 when I first downloaded
    >> Netscape 1.x from a BBS using minicom over a dial up.
    >>
    >> I was very involved in the particular group that the banned individual
    >> was active in, it was kind of a coffee klatch where various and sundry
    >> experiments with coding were conducted. This means I am familiar with
    >> all the people involved.
    >>
    >> Ask those who claim to also have been banned to contact me at
    >> rinaldij.at.gmail.com and refresh my memory. It will be nice hearing
    >> from old friends. I guarantee the information will go no further than
    >> my computer.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > if those that are posting here sees this message, then its
    > up to them to contact you.
    >
    >

    IIRC a poster going under the name of Lor***e was banned for
    persistantly foulmouthing. A guy named Antony S. was "asked" to post
    elsewhere - despite some very good help (and a *very* good website) he
    persisted in engaging in long personalised attacks on (in particular on
    "one of") the Champs...

    The first was very much justified, the second probably also but it was a
    shame to lose him and his help!

    reg

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