"Terry R." wrote:

> On 11/18/2007 1:36 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>
> > "Terry R." wrote:

> >> And your last statement "restarts" it all over again, doesn't it
> >> (which is probably what you were hoping for).
> >
> > OTOH, you do seem to enjoy telling people they've "(re)started it".
>
> I said it once to Ed. Don't believe that qualifies as "telling
> people they've...". And I didn't use that word when I did.

And then you told me that I've "restarted" it. Telling two people
qualifies as telling people.

> >> I was the one that stated to Ed that he was the one "bringing it
> >> back to life".
> >
> > If Peter didn't agree with you about that, I apologize. (I'm not
> > wading back through to see if he did.)
> >
> > FWIW, this thread has had posts made on every single day since Peter
> > made the OP, including yours which explain who's been resurrecting
> > the thread somehow.
>
> We're no longer discussing the Subject, that's why it continues. The
> "bringing it back to life" was specifically about the subject matter,
> which I agree, should be allowed to die.

I didn't bring up that subject matter, yet you just told me that my
post "restarts" it. Maybe you meant that I was "restarting" something
else?

> > I find the notion that you and Peter and Gus have some sort of high
> > ground because you're encouraging people who disagree with you to
> > stop posting, even while you yourselves are posting, a bit ironic.
>
> Where have I "encouraged people" and told them to "stop posting"?

Each time you tell people they're "restarting" or "bringing it back to
life", aren't you encouraging them not to? If it was something else,
why did you post those things?

> You, on the other hand, choose to twist enough of a statement that
> causes a reply, similar to ours today.

I haven't twisted anything.

> >> You being a "Moderator" aggravated this thread quite a bit on your
> >> own.
> >
> > Nope, unless your dislike of the cancellation policy itself caused
> > you to be more inflammatory in this thread. The thread itself
> > hasn't had anything to do with the policy.
>
> Twisting it again.

Still not.

> Chris I., Nir, and you monitor the groups for OT content, correct?

Yes, the support groups.

> The CP wasn't the issue I don't believe since you only need to cancel
> a post IF one continues to go OT in a group, right?

Right, none of that had anything to do with this thread, and I still
don't know why you've brought it up.

> Like I said, IMO, those in charge should not get involved (I used
> Moderator but I'm sure you understood).

I understand that it's your opinion that I shouldn't get involved, but
you still haven't said why.

> > Your position, that people who implement the cancellation policy
> > shouldn't participate in some discussions, is untenable. Since you
> > don't offer anything to justify it, I can't very well argue against
> > you, only point out that it's unjustified.
>
> No, I said you should do as Chris I. does. He stays out of it,
> unless clarification is needed. If you are over others in a group,
> as one being and "Implementor" within a group, IMO you should stay
> out of it.

If you want to just say it's your opinion again, that's fine, but
we're not getting any closer to any explanation.

> > Also, "moderator" and "moderation" are the wrong terms. In
> > moderated newsgrops, all posts go first to the moderator, who must
> > approve them before they make it to the group. That's not at all
> > how the cancellation policy works. AIUI, that is how the
> > multimedia group works, including some automoderation, though I
> > don't pay attention to that group and things may have changed
> > without me noticing.
>
> You know what I was talking about and yet you choose to say I'm using
> the "wrong terms".

Yes, I knew what you were talking about, and I addressed it directly as
well as corrected your misuse of the terms.

> Fine. That's because I really don't know exactly WHAT you or Nir
> do, or at least have a specific name for what you do.




"Monitor the support groups for off-topic content" works. I don't
know that there's a one-word term for this.

> Maybe I should just use the term given to you, "SPAM MOOSE".

You could; since Peter started that name-calling, I'll at least
recognize that when people use it, they're referring to us. I see
you've chosen to call us that below.

> I chose not to, but if you want to poo poo "Moderator", fine.

I didn't "poo poo" it, just explained what it means and why it's not
accurate in this case.

> Chris I., Nir, and YOU are SPAM MOOSES. You have A position over the
> groups. IN MY OPINION (and that is all), those in charge shouldn't
> mingle with us lowly posters who go OT EXCEPT to do your job, OR
> offer support.

You have once again pointed out that this is your opinion without
saying why you think I shouldn't express opinions not related to the OT
policy.

> Is that more clear, or do you want to continue this further?

Up to you; you can explain it or not as you see fit.

»Q« wrote:
> "Terry R." wrote:
>> I was the one that stated to Ed that he was the one "bringing it
>> back to life".
>
> If Peter didn't agree with you about that, I apologize. (I'm not
> wading back through to see if he did.)

actually, if you want to get technical, I said"

"well, congratulations Ed. This had ended a long time ago,
but you just dug it up and started it again."

And I said it about 8 hours and 30 minutes before Terry R said:

"We all did give it up. You're the one bringing it back to
life..."

And I continued to let everyone know in a couple of postings
that:

"Just to set the record straight, I'm not the one bringing
this up again. I thought the thread ended days ago, but so
far 2 posters have dragged this out and started it up again."

Today, that 2 posters bit has been modified a lot. Its now
several who have kept this thread continuing, and you're one
of them. So far there are over 230 postings on this subject
and myriad of off-shoots.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but messages emailed to me will be
disregarded!!!!

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

On 11/18/2007 3:22 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard

> "Terry R." wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2007 1:36 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> "Terry R." wrote:
>
>>>> And your last statement "restarts" it all over again, doesn't it
>>>> (which is probably what you were hoping for).
>>> OTOH, you do seem to enjoy telling people they've "(re)started it".
>> I said it once to Ed. Don't believe that qualifies as "telling
>> people they've...". And I didn't use that word when I did.
>
> And then you told me that I've "restarted" it. Telling two people
> qualifies as telling people.
>

I didn't tell Ed he was "restarting". Commenting specifically on the
Subject was in fact, "bringing it back to life". You, on the other hand
said, "Maybe so, thanks to Peter's claim that Ed had "restarted" it."
THAT was YOU in essence saying, "PETER STARTED IT". You were putting
fuel on the fire, were you not? There wasn't any reason for you to
state that, unless you were trying to poke at Grant to get a rise out of
him, since my comment was directly to someone else.

>>>> I was the one that stated to Ed that he was the one "bringing it
>>>> back to life".
>>> If Peter didn't agree with you about that, I apologize. (I'm not
>>> wading back through to see if he did.)
>>>
>>> FWIW, this thread has had posts made on every single day since Peter
>>> made the OP, including yours which explain who's been resurrecting
>>> the thread somehow.
>> We're no longer discussing the Subject, that's why it continues. The
>> "bringing it back to life" was specifically about the subject matter,
>> which I agree, should be allowed to die.
>
> I didn't bring up that subject matter, yet you just told me that my
> post "restarts" it. Maybe you meant that I was "restarting" something
> else?
>

Yes, it "restarts" the "HE STARTED IT".

>>> I find the notion that you and Peter and Gus have some sort of high
>>> ground because you're encouraging people who disagree with you to
>>> stop posting, even while you yourselves are posting, a bit ironic.
>> Where have I "encouraged people" and told them to "stop posting"?
>
> Each time you tell people they're "restarting" or "bringing it back to
> life", aren't you encouraging them not to?

Nope. How do you see it that way? If I wanted to do that, I would say
what Ed said, not beat around a bush. You don't think that, "Peter
claims that Ed..." isn't "HE STARTED IT" all over again?

> If it was something else, why did you post those things?
>
>> You, on the other hand, choose to twist enough of a statement that
>> causes a reply, similar to ours today.
>
> I haven't twisted anything.

In your opinion. You do this often, and that's my opinion. No need to
comment further, it won't change my opinion.

>
>>>> You being a "Moderator" aggravated this thread quite a bit on your
>>>> own.
>>> Nope, unless your dislike of the cancellation policy itself caused
>>> you to be more inflammatory in this thread. The thread itself
>>> hasn't had anything to do with the policy.
>> Twisting it again.
>
> Still not.

Talking about the CP IS twisting what I said. WHERE did I EVER bring up
the Cancellation Policy? Please show me exactly where! I didn't use
those words, so you have twisted what I said.

>
>> Chris I., Nir, and you monitor the groups for OT content, correct?
>
> Yes, the support groups.
>
>> The CP wasn't the issue I don't believe since you only need to cancel
>> a post IF one continues to go OT in a group, right?
>
> Right, none of that had anything to do with this thread, and I still
> don't know why you've brought it up.

Because I DIDN'T. More twisting. I know what I said and you're
twisting it. I was talking to Nir directly regarding a comment he made.

>
>> Like I said, IMO, those in charge should not get involved (I used
>> Moderator but I'm sure you understood).
>
> I understand that it's your opinion that I shouldn't get involved, but
> you still haven't said why.

Sure I did. And I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you.
This seems more to me like the "last word" issue with you more than
anything, asking me to explain myself after I already have.

>
>>> Your position, that people who implement the cancellation policy
>>> shouldn't participate in some discussions, is untenable. Since you
>>> don't offer anything to justify it, I can't very well argue against
>>> you, only point out that it's unjustified.
>> No, I said you should do as Chris I. does. He stays out of it,
>> unless clarification is needed. If you are over others in a group,
>> as one being and "Implementor" within a group, IMO you should stay
>> out of it.
>
> If you want to just say it's your opinion again, that's fine, but
> we're not getting any closer to any explanation.

You're just choosing not to validate my explanation.

>
>>> Also, "moderator" and "moderation" are the wrong terms. In
>>> moderated newsgrops, all posts go first to the moderator, who must
>>> approve them before they make it to the group. That's not at all
>>> how the cancellation policy works. AIUI, that is how the
>>> multimedia group works, including some automoderation, though I
>>> don't pay attention to that group and things may have changed
>>> without me noticing.
>> You know what I was talking about and yet you choose to say I'm using
>> the "wrong terms".
>
> Yes, I knew what you were talking about, and I addressed it directly as
> well as corrected your misuse of the terms.
>
>> Fine. That's because I really don't know exactly WHAT you or Nir
>> do, or at least have a specific name for what you do.
>
>
>
>
> "Monitor the support groups for off-topic content" works. I don't
> know that there's a one-word term for this.
>
>> Maybe I should just use the term given to you, "SPAM MOOSE".
>
> You could; since Peter started that name-calling, I'll at least
> recognize that when people use it, they're referring to us. I see
> you've chosen to call us that below.

Only because you criticized any other term I have used for describing
what you do. This was obviously a term given to describe what you do,
and since you don't know exactly WHAT a "spam moose" does, you can't
argue it. I wasn't making a deal about WHAT you are called, I just
wanted to give it a name.

>
>> I chose not to, but if you want to poo poo "Moderator", fine.
>
> I didn't "poo poo" it, just explained what it means and why it's not
> accurate in this case.

Oh, by all means, lets make ABSOLUTELY sure EVERYTHING is accurate here.
I know what it means. In a loose sense of the term, you are
moderating. Moderators determine which messages can be seen by an
entire group. I think canceling a post would fall under that. Some
serve only to prevent inappropriate messages, and I believe calling out
OT material and canceling a post would also fall under that. So it's
not 100%, but SO WHAT! You didn't seem to offer a better name. You
wanted to make some kind of point that you're not a moderator. So now
this part of the discussion is finished.

>
>> Chris I., Nir, and YOU are SPAM MOOSES. You have A position over the
>> groups. IN MY OPINION (and that is all), those in charge shouldn't
>> mingle with us lowly posters who go OT EXCEPT to do your job, OR
>> offer support.
>
> You have once again pointed out that this is your opinion without
> saying why you think I shouldn't express opinions not related to the OT
> policy.

Because you have a job to do here. When you reply one way or the other,
it could be considered taking sides. Conflict of interest. It's that
way in a lot of areas. I am a contractor. I can't befriend an employee
or strange things happen. We have apartments. I can't be a friend to a
tenant or they'll feel they have an "in" with me. When there are
positions, lines are drawn between them. Why can't someone who sells
timeshares visit the property they sell during their off days? Chris I.
remains neutral. Nir and you should also. Follow the lead of your
superior. Does »Q« stand for "question", which means it will never end?

>
>> Is that more clear, or do you want to continue this further?
>
> Up to you; you can explain it or not as you see fit.

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

Terry R. wrote:
> On 11/18/2007 3:22 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> "Terry R." wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/18/2007 1:36 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> "Terry R." wrote:
>>
>>>>> And your last statement "restarts" it all over again, doesn't it
>>>>> (which is probably what you were hoping for).
>>>> OTOH, you do seem to enjoy telling people they've "(re)started it".
>>> I said it once to Ed. Don't believe that qualifies as "telling
>>> people they've...". And I didn't use that word when I did.
>>
>> And then you told me that I've "restarted" it. Telling two people
>> qualifies as telling people.
>>
>
> I didn't tell Ed he was "restarting". Commenting specifically on the
> Subject was in fact, "bringing it back to life". You, on the other hand
> said, "Maybe so, thanks to Peter's claim that Ed had "restarted" it."
> THAT was YOU in essence saying, "PETER STARTED IT". You were putting
> fuel on the fire, were you not? There wasn't any reason for you to
> state that, unless you were trying to poke at Grant to get a rise out of
> him, since my comment was directly to someone else.
>
>>>>> I was the one that stated to Ed that he was the one "bringing it
>>>>> back to life".
>>>> If Peter didn't agree with you about that, I apologize. (I'm not
>>>> wading back through to see if he did.)
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, this thread has had posts made on every single day since Peter
>>>> made the OP, including yours which explain who's been resurrecting
>>>> the thread somehow.
>>> We're no longer discussing the Subject, that's why it continues. The
>>> "bringing it back to life" was specifically about the subject matter,
>>> which I agree, should be allowed to die.
>>
>> I didn't bring up that subject matter, yet you just told me that my
>> post "restarts" it. Maybe you meant that I was "restarting" something
>> else?
>>
>
> Yes, it "restarts" the "HE STARTED IT".
>
>>>> I find the notion that you and Peter and Gus have some sort of high
>>>> ground because you're encouraging people who disagree with you to
>>>> stop posting, even while you yourselves are posting, a bit ironic.
>>> Where have I "encouraged people" and told them to "stop posting"?
>>
>> Each time you tell people they're "restarting" or "bringing it back to
>> life", aren't you encouraging them not to?
>
> Nope. How do you see it that way? If I wanted to do that, I would say
> what Ed said, not beat around a bush. You don't think that, "Peter
> claims that Ed..." isn't "HE STARTED IT" all over again?
>
>> If it was something else, why did you post those things?
>>
>>> You, on the other hand, choose to twist enough of a statement that
>>> causes a reply, similar to ours today.
>>
>> I haven't twisted anything.
>
> In your opinion. You do this often, and that's my opinion. No need to
> comment further, it won't change my opinion.
>
>>
>>>>> You being a "Moderator" aggravated this thread quite a bit on your
>>>>> own.
>>>> Nope, unless your dislike of the cancellation policy itself caused
>>>> you to be more inflammatory in this thread. The thread itself
>>>> hasn't had anything to do with the policy.
>>> Twisting it again.
>>
>> Still not.
>
> Talking about the CP IS twisting what I said. WHERE did I EVER bring up
> the Cancellation Policy? Please show me exactly where! I didn't use
> those words, so you have twisted what I said.
>
>>
>>> Chris I., Nir, and you monitor the groups for OT content, correct?
>>
>> Yes, the support groups.
>>> The CP wasn't the issue I don't believe since you only need to cancel
>>> a post IF one continues to go OT in a group, right?
>>
>> Right, none of that had anything to do with this thread, and I still
>> don't know why you've brought it up.
>
> Because I DIDN'T. More twisting. I know what I said and you're
> twisting it. I was talking to Nir directly regarding a comment he made.
>
>>
>>> Like I said, IMO, those in charge should not get involved (I used
>>> Moderator but I'm sure you understood).
>>
>> I understand that it's your opinion that I shouldn't get involved, but
>> you still haven't said why.
>
> Sure I did. And I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you.
> This seems more to me like the "last word" issue with you more than
> anything, asking me to explain myself after I already have.
>
>>
>>>> Your position, that people who implement the cancellation policy
>>>> shouldn't participate in some discussions, is untenable. Since you
>>>> don't offer anything to justify it, I can't very well argue against
>>>> you, only point out that it's unjustified.
>>> No, I said you should do as Chris I. does. He stays out of it,
>>> unless clarification is needed. If you are over others in a group,
>>> as one being and "Implementor" within a group, IMO you should stay
>>> out of it.
>>
>> If you want to just say it's your opinion again, that's fine, but
>> we're not getting any closer to any explanation.
>
> You're just choosing not to validate my explanation.
>
>>
>>>> Also, "moderator" and "moderation" are the wrong terms. In
>>>> moderated newsgrops, all posts go first to the moderator, who must
>>>> approve them before they make it to the group. That's not at all
>>>> how the cancellation policy works. AIUI, that is how the
>>>> multimedia group works, including some automoderation, though I
>>>> don't pay attention to that group and things may have changed
>>>> without me noticing.
>>> You know what I was talking about and yet you choose to say I'm using
>>> the "wrong terms".
>>
>> Yes, I knew what you were talking about, and I addressed it directly as
>> well as corrected your misuse of the terms.
>>
>>> Fine. That's because I really don't know exactly WHAT you or Nir
>>> do, or at least have a specific name for what you do.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Monitor the support groups for off-topic content" works. I don't
>> know that there's a one-word term for this.
>>
>>> Maybe I should just use the term given to you, "SPAM MOOSE".
>>
>> You could; since Peter started that name-calling, I'll at least
>> recognize that when people use it, they're referring to us. I see
>> you've chosen to call us that below.
>
> Only because you criticized any other term I have used for describing
> what you do. This was obviously a term given to describe what you do,
> and since you don't know exactly WHAT a "spam moose" does, you can't
> argue it. I wasn't making a deal about WHAT you are called, I just
> wanted to give it a name.
>
>>
>>> I chose not to, but if you want to poo poo "Moderator", fine.
>>
>> I didn't "poo poo" it, just explained what it means and why it's not
>> accurate in this case.
>
> Oh, by all means, lets make ABSOLUTELY sure EVERYTHING is accurate here.
> I know what it means. In a loose sense of the term, you are
> moderating. Moderators determine which messages can be seen by an
> entire group. I think canceling a post would fall under that. Some
> serve only to prevent inappropriate messages, and I believe calling out
> OT material and canceling a post would also fall under that. So it's
> not 100%, but SO WHAT! You didn't seem to offer a better name. You
> wanted to make some kind of point that you're not a moderator. So now
> this part of the discussion is finished.
>
>>
>>> Chris I., Nir, and YOU are SPAM MOOSES. You have A position over the
>>> groups. IN MY OPINION (and that is all), those in charge shouldn't
>>> mingle with us lowly posters who go OT EXCEPT to do your job, OR
>>> offer support.
>>
>> You have once again pointed out that this is your opinion without
>> saying why you think I shouldn't express opinions not related to the OT
>> policy.
>
> Because you have a job to do here. When you reply one way or the other,
> it could be considered taking sides. Conflict of interest. It's that
> way in a lot of areas. I am a contractor. I can't befriend an employee
> or strange things happen. We have apartments. I can't be a friend to a
> tenant or they'll feel they have an "in" with me. When there are
> positions, lines are drawn between them. Why can't someone who sells
> timeshares visit the property they sell during their off days? Chris I.
> remains neutral. Nir and you should also. Follow the lead of your
> superior. Does »Q« stand for "question", which means it will never end?
>
>>
>>> Is that more clear, or do you want to continue this further?
>>
>> Up to you; you can explain it or not as you see fit.
>



I think you need to rename this newsgroup to;
Someone has the Audacity.general
caver1

On 11/18/2007 5:08 PM On a whim, caver1 pounded out on the keyboard



>
> I think you need to rename this newsgroup to;
> Someone has the Audacity.general
> caver1

I'm sure Chris I. will get right on that for you. ;-) I did rename the
thread for you though.

You should have trimmed for a comment like this...

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

"Terry R." wrote in
news:6KWdna6hVKuQQt3anZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@mozilla.org:

> I didn't tell Ed he was "restarting". Commenting specifically
> on the Subject was in fact, "bringing it back to life"

Which is exactly the same as "restarting." That dog don't hunt,
Terry.

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

Time's fun when you're having flies.

"Terry R." wrote:

> On 11/18/2007 3:22 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>
> > "Terry R." wrote:

> >> I said it once to Ed. Don't believe that qualifies as "telling
> >> people they've...". And I didn't use that word when I did.
> >
> > And then you told me that I've "restarted" it. Telling two people
> > qualifies as telling people.
>
> I didn't tell Ed he was "restarting". Commenting specifically on the
> Subject was in fact, "bringing it back to life".

Sorry, I don't see any significant difference between "restarting it"
and "bringing it back to life".

> You, on the other hand said, "Maybe so, thanks to Peter's claim that
> Ed had "restarted" it." THAT was YOU in essence saying, "PETER
> STARTED IT".

Nope, that was me saying that he was the one who brought it down to the
level of who-started-it, something you seemed to be against.

> You were putting fuel on the fire, were you not?

You could make an equal case that every single post in this thread has
been "putting fuel on the fire", but you have a hard time doing that
without also including all of your own posts.

> There wasn't any reason for you to state that, unless you were trying to
> poke at Grant to get a rise out of him, since my comment was directly
> to someone else.

When you make a post to a public group, you're not just directing it
to some one person. If you want to make the point that it's come down
to "He started it" without drawing any comments about who brought it
down to that, probably you should post somewhere private.

> > I didn't bring up that subject matter, yet you just told me that my
> > post "restarts" it. Maybe you meant that I was "restarting"
> > something else?
>
> Yes, it "restarts" the "HE STARTED IT".

Thanks for clarify it; I had really thought you were using "it" to
mean the same thing throughout your posts about who started it, brought
it back to life, and restarted it.

> >>> I find the notion that you and Peter and Gus have some sort of
> >>> high ground because you're encouraging people who disagree with
> >>> you to stop posting, even while you yourselves are posting, a bit
> >>> ironic.
> >> Where have I "encouraged people" and told them to "stop posting"?
> >
> > Each time you tell people they're "restarting" or "bringing it back
> > to life", aren't you encouraging them not to?
>
> Nope. How do you see it that way?

I thought you were implying that it was bad behavior to restart it or
bring it back to life.

> If I wanted to do that, I would say what Ed said, not beat around a bush.
> You don't think that, "Peter claims that Ed..." isn't "HE STARTED IT"
> all over again?

Did you just say I had restarted something to do with "HE STARTED IT"
again? AFAICT, mentioning any aspect of this thread draws accusations
from you that I'm re-re-restarting something or other.

> >> You, on the other hand, choose to twist enough of a statement that
> >> causes a reply, similar to ours today.
> >
> > I haven't twisted anything.
>
> In your opinion. You do this often, and that's my opinion. No need
> to comment further, it won't change my opinion.

Perhaps it would have helped if you had tried to explain what was
twisted and how. I don't mean to change your opinion, just to point
out that I haven't twisted anything.

> >> Twisting it again.
> >
> > Still not.
>
> Talking about the CP IS twisting what I said. WHERE did I EVER bring
> up the Cancellation Policy? Please show me exactly where! I didn't
> use those words, so you have twisted what I said.

You brought up what you erroneously called "moderation" and later said
that you had indeed meant the "spam moosing", which is what I thought
you had meant all along. That's the implementation of the cancellation
policy. If you want it to mean something else, you need to retract
that stuff and start over.

> > Right, none of that had anything to do with this thread, and I still
> > don't know why you've brought it up.
>
> Because I DIDN'T. More twisting. I know what I said and you're
> twisting it. I was talking to Nir directly regarding a comment he
> made.

Nir hasn't posted in this thread recently. You were addressing me,
not Nir, and you were telling me you thought I shouldn't participate in
this thread.

> >> Like I said, IMO, those in charge should not get involved (I used
> >> Moderator but I'm sure you understood).
> >
> > I understand that it's your opinion that I shouldn't get involved,
> > but you still haven't said why.
>
> Sure I did.

Before this post, I hadn't seen any explanation from you. Now there's
one further down.

> And I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you.
> This seems more to me like the "last word" issue with you more than
> anything, asking me to explain myself after I already have.

[snip]

> > If you want to just say it's your opinion again, that's fine, but
> > we're not getting any closer to any explanation.
>
> You're just choosing not to validate my explanation.

I honestly hadn't seen any explanation from you; it's possible there
had been an explanation somewhere in there that I was unable to make
out.

> >> Fine. That's because I really don't know exactly WHAT you or Nir
> >> do, or at least have a specific name for what you do.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Monitor the support groups for off-topic content" works. I don't
> > know that there's a one-word term for this.
> >
> >> Maybe I should just use the term given to you, "SPAM MOOSE".
> >
> > You could; since Peter started that name-calling, I'll at least
> > recognize that when people use it, they're referring to us. I see
> > you've chosen to call us that below.
>
> Only because you criticized any other term I have used for describing
> what you do. This was obviously a term given to describe what you
> do, and since you don't know exactly WHAT a "spam moose" does, you
> can't argue it. I wasn't making a deal about WHAT you are called, I
> just wanted to give it a name.

But now you say it had nothing to do with the cancellation policy,
which is what the "spam moose" name-calling has been about every other
time it's been used.

> >> I chose not to, but if you want to poo poo "Moderator", fine.
> >
> > I didn't "poo poo" it, just explained what it means and why it's not
> > accurate in this case.
>
> Oh, by all means, lets make ABSOLUTELY sure EVERYTHING is accurate
> here. I know what it means. In a loose sense of the term, you are
> moderating.

WRT newsgroups, "moderation" has a very precise and unambiguous
meaning. I'm sorry this makes you angry enough to shout.

> >> Chris I., Nir, and YOU are SPAM MOOSES. You have A position over
> >> the groups. IN MY OPINION (and that is all), those in charge
> >> shouldn't mingle with us lowly posters who go OT EXCEPT to do your
> >> job, OR offer support.
> >
> > You have once again pointed out that this is your opinion without
> > saying why you think I shouldn't express opinions not related to
> > the OT policy.
>
> Because you have a job to do here. When you reply one way or the
> other, it could be considered taking sides. Conflict of interest.
> It's that way in a lot of areas. I am a contractor. I can't
> befriend an employee or strange things happen. We have apartments.
> I can't be a friend to a tenant or they'll feel they have an "in"
> with me. When there are positions, lines are drawn between them.
> Why can't someone who sells timeshares visit the property they sell
> during their off days? Chris I. remains neutral. Nir and you should
> also. Follow the lead of your superior.

I don't think that taking sides in disputes unrelated to the
cancellation policy creates the conflicts you imagine. If I didn't
think I could fairly decide whether a post in a support group is on- or
off-topic in the group without irrelevant other threads interfering, I
wouldn't do it. We've sent warning messages to people I like and
respect and to ones I don't like or respect so much, based only on the
rate at which they'd been posting OT in the support groups. In each
case, we've all agreed before any warning was sent.

> Does »Q« stand for "question", which means it will never end?

Please stop implying that I'm to blame for your continued participation
in the thread. You can post or not, as you like. FWIW, I haven't been
asking you questions much -- e.g., there's exactly one question in this
post, and it's rhetorical.

On 11/18/2007 5:50 PM On a whim, Christopher Jahn pounded out on the
keyboard

> "Terry R." wrote in
> news:6KWdna6hVKuQQt3anZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@mozilla.org:
>
>> I didn't tell Ed he was "restarting". Commenting specifically
>> on the Subject was in fact, "bringing it back to life"
>
> Which is exactly the same as "restarting." That dog don't hunt,
> Terry.
>

It may be the same, and I agree. But Q argues about every little thing,
so I was giving him back what he dishes out, that's all. I never said
"restarting" to Ed, which he also made a point about being accurate.

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

"Terry R." wrote in
news:lOOdnXXOk_SwvdzanZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@mozilla.org:

> On 11/18/2007 5:50 PM On a whim, Christopher Jahn pounded out
> on the keyboard
>
>> "Terry R." wrote in
>> news:6KWdna6hVKuQQt3anZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@mozilla.org:
>>
>>> I didn't tell Ed he was "restarting". Commenting
>>> specifically on the Subject was in fact, "bringing it back
>>> to life"
>>
>> Which is exactly the same as "restarting." That dog don't
>> hunt, Terry.
>>
>
> It may be the same, and I agree. But Q argues about every
> little thing, so I was giving him back what he dishes out,
> that's all. I never said "restarting" to Ed, which he also
> made a point about being accurate.

If you said "bringing it back to life," you said "re-starting,"
and your entire argument goes down the toilet.

The only way any one can "win" this argument is to walk away.

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

All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy
actors.
Anonymous

LF: dead horse.

FT: extra stick

On 11/18/2007 8:03 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard

> "Terry R." wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2007 3:22 PM On a whim, »Q« pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> "Terry R." wrote:
>
>>>> I said it once to Ed. Don't believe that qualifies as "telling
>>>> people they've...". And I didn't use that word when I did.
>>> And then you told me that I've "restarted" it. Telling two people
>>> qualifies as telling people.
>> I didn't tell Ed he was "restarting". Commenting specifically on the
>> Subject was in fact, "bringing it back to life".
>
> Sorry, I don't see any significant difference between "restarting it"
> and "bringing it back to life".
>

Because YOU are the one who said, "...why it's not accurate" and were
trying to make a point of it. I gave back exactly what you were trying
to dish out. I NEVER said "restarting", so your comment was "not
accurate". Maybe you'll see the significance in that.

>> You, on the other hand said, "Maybe so, thanks to Peter's claim that
>> Ed had "restarted" it." THAT was YOU in essence saying, "PETER
>> STARTED IT".
>
> Nope, that was me saying that he was the one who brought it down to the
> level of who-started-it, something you seemed to be against.
>

Give it up Q. It was YOU who brought it down to "who started it". I
made a quote from a poster that summarized the behavior of you and others.

>> You were putting fuel on the fire, were you not?
>
> You could make an equal case that every single post in this thread has
> been "putting fuel on the fire", but you have a hard time doing that
> without also including all of your own posts.

Not at all. This was clearly going away. I pointed something out to a
new poster (user), and YOU decided to drop your usual drivel.

>
>> There wasn't any reason for you to state that, unless you were trying to
>> poke at Grant to get a rise out of him, since my comment was directly
>> to someone else.
>
> When you make a post to a public group, you're not just directing it
> to some one person. If you want to make the point that it's come down
> to "He started it" without drawing any comments about who brought it
> down to that, probably you should post somewhere private.
>

I didnt' make the point, I only quoted the person I replied to. Sorry,
I was directing to "one person". Why don't you try dropping an email to
user@domain.invalid and see where it goes? Obviously I thought of that,
so stop thinking only you have all the damn answers. I guess I could
have started a blog, but then again that's why all this has come up,
hasn't it? What's your great wisdom suggest I do now, oh master Q?

>>> I didn't bring up that subject matter, yet you just told me that my
>>> post "restarts" it. Maybe you meant that I was "restarting"
>>> something else?
>> Yes, it "restarts" the "HE STARTED IT".
>
> Thanks for clarify it; I had really thought you were using "it" to
> mean the same thing throughout your posts about who started it, brought
> it back to life, and restarted it.
>

Would you be meaning clarifying it? I mean, let's make sure we're
perfectly accurate here, okay?

>>>>> I find the notion that you and Peter and Gus have some sort of
>>>>> high ground because you're encouraging people who disagree with
>>>>> you to stop posting, even while you yourselves are posting, a bit
>>>>> ironic.
>>>> Where have I "encouraged people" and told them to "stop posting"?
>>> Each time you tell people they're "restarting" or "bringing it back
>>> to life", aren't you encouraging them not to?
>> Nope. How do you see it that way?
>
> I thought you were implying that it was bad behavior to restart it or
> bring it back to life.

Well, thinking got you in trouble again. Maybe you should stop doing
that. No, I challenged you to specifically show me where I "encouraged
people" and told them to "stop posting". Be accurate, remember?

>
>> If I wanted to do that, I would say what Ed said, not beat around a bush.
>> You don't think that, "Peter claims that Ed..." isn't "HE STARTED IT"
>> all over again?
>
> Did you just say I had restarted something to do with "HE STARTED IT"
> again? AFAICT, mentioning any aspect of this thread draws accusations
> from you that I'm re-re-restarting something or other.
>

Yawn...let Q twist this once again...

>>>> You, on the other hand, choose to twist enough of a statement that
>>>> causes a reply, similar to ours today.
>>> I haven't twisted anything.
>> In your opinion. You do this often, and that's my opinion. No need
>> to comment further, it won't change my opinion.
>
> Perhaps it would have helped if you had tried to explain what was
> twisted and how.

Have.

> I don't mean to change your opinion
>

And it doesn't.

>>>> Twisting it again.
>>> Still not.
>> Talking about the CP IS twisting what I said. WHERE did I EVER bring
>> up the Cancellation Policy? Please show me exactly where! I didn't
>> use those words, so you have twisted what I said.
>
> You brought up what you erroneously called "moderation" and later said
> that you had indeed meant the "spam moosing", which is what I thought
> you had meant all along. That's the implementation of the cancellation
> policy. If you want it to mean something else, you need to retract
> that stuff and start over.
>

I didn't bring up you being a "moderator" (I NEVER said moderation)
until WAY after you talked about me and the Cancellation Policy. You
don't call this "twisting"? Get it straight Q!

I never said I meant "the spam moosing" when I first called you a
moderator. What post are you reading? I changed your job description
name from "moderator" to "spam moose" after YOU denied you were a
moderator of any sort! Calling you a "spam moose" had NOTHING to do
with the Cancellation Policy. BE ACCURATE! ALL I was trying to do was
give you a name for your job description, that's all! One you couldn't
dispute!

>>> Right, none of that had anything to do with this thread, and I still
>>> don't know why you've brought it up.
>> Because I DIDN'T. More twisting. I know what I said and you're
>> twisting it. I was talking to Nir directly regarding a comment he
>> made.
>
> Nir hasn't posted in this thread recently. You were addressing me,
> not Nir, and you were telling me you thought I shouldn't participate in
> this thread.
>

You've lost your train of thought. Cut to the chase and SHOW ME where I
addressed the Cancellation Policy to you. We can now clearly drop this
from the discussion because I never did. When I told you not to
participate because you had a job description of some sort on this
server, I NEVER brought up the CP.

>>>> Like I said, IMO, those in charge should not get involved (I used
>>>> Moderator but I'm sure you understood).
>>> I understand that it's your opinion that I shouldn't get involved,
>>> but you still haven't said why.
>> Sure I did.
>
> Before this post, I hadn't seen any explanation from you. Now there's
> one further down.
>

Could it be that maybe you just didn't get it before? Would you be
willing to admit that? NO.

>> And I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you.
>> This seems more to me like the "last word" issue with you more than
>> anything, asking me to explain myself after I already have.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> If you want to just say it's your opinion again, that's fine, but
>>> we're not getting any closer to any explanation.
>> You're just choosing not to validate my explanation.
>
> I honestly hadn't seen any explanation from you; it's possible there
> had been an explanation somewhere in there that I was unable to make
> out.

Thank you.

>
>>>> Fine. That's because I really don't know exactly WHAT you or Nir
>>>> do, or at least have a specific name for what you do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Monitor the support groups for off-topic content" works. I don't
>>> know that there's a one-word term for this.
>>>
>>>> Maybe I should just use the term given to you, "SPAM MOOSE".
>>> You could; since Peter started that name-calling, I'll at least
>>> recognize that when people use it, they're referring to us. I see
>>> you've chosen to call us that below.
>> Only because you criticized any other term I have used for describing
>> what you do. This was obviously a term given to describe what you
>> do, and since you don't know exactly WHAT a "spam moose" does, you
>> can't argue it. I wasn't making a deal about WHAT you are called, I
>> just wanted to give it a name.
>
> But now you say it had nothing to do with the cancellation policy,
> which is what the "spam moose" name-calling has been about every other
> time it's been used.

Fine. WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO CALL YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION Q? I don't care
WHAT it is. Moderator? Implementor? Spam Moose? And PLEASE stop
talking about the CP. I NEVER mentioned it, NEVER referred to it.
Remember your words, be "accurate".

>
>>>> I chose not to, but if you want to poo poo "Moderator", fine.
>>> I didn't "poo poo" it, just explained what it means and why it's not
>>> accurate in this case.
>> Oh, by all means, lets make ABSOLUTELY sure EVERYTHING is accurate
>> here. I know what it means. In a loose sense of the term, you are
>> moderating.
>
> WRT newsgroups, "moderation" has a very precise and unambiguous
> meaning. I'm sorry this makes you angry enough to shout.

Usually people shout when someone can't hear.

>
>>>> Chris I., Nir, and YOU are SPAM MOOSES. You have A position over
>>>> the groups. IN MY OPINION (and that is all), those in charge
>>>> shouldn't mingle with us lowly posters who go OT EXCEPT to do your
>>>> job, OR offer support.
>>> You have once again pointed out that this is your opinion without
>>> saying why you think I shouldn't express opinions not related to
>>> the OT policy.
>> Because you have a job to do here. When you reply one way or the
>> other, it could be considered taking sides. Conflict of interest.
>> It's that way in a lot of areas. I am a contractor. I can't
>> befriend an employee or strange things happen. We have apartments.
>> I can't be a friend to a tenant or they'll feel they have an "in"
>> with me. When there are positions, lines are drawn between them.
>> Why can't someone who sells timeshares visit the property they sell
>> during their off days? Chris I. remains neutral. Nir and you should
>> also. Follow the lead of your superior.
>
> I don't think that taking sides in disputes unrelated to the
> cancellation policy creates the conflicts you imagine. If I didn't
> think I could fairly decide whether a post in a support group is on- or
> off-topic in the group without irrelevant other threads interfering, I
> wouldn't do it. We've sent warning messages to people I like and
> respect and to ones I don't like or respect so much, based only on the
> rate at which they'd been posting OT in the support groups. In each
> case, we've all agreed before any warning was sent.

And you once again missed the point...

>
>> Does »Q« stand for "question", which means it will never end?
>
> Please stop implying that I'm to blame for your continued participation
> in the thread. You can post or not, as you like. FWIW, I haven't been
> asking you questions much -- e.g., there's exactly one question in this
> post, and it's rhetorical.

And please stop implying that I haven't explained myself clearly. Maybe
you've never held an owner/supervisor/manager position, with employees
under you. Then what I've said may clearly not make any sense to you.
But I'm done trying to discuss this further with you.

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

On 11/18/2007 10:20 PM On a whim, Billy Holmes pounded out on the keyboard

> LF: dead horse.
>
> FT: extra stick

For someone who popped in here to make the trimming policy clear to
everyone, I have no idea who or to what you're posting this for...

Maybe you should take your own advice.

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

On 11/18/2007 10:03 PM On a whim, Christopher Jahn pounded out on the
keyboard

> "Terry R." wrote in
> news:lOOdnXXOk_SwvdzanZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@mozilla.org:
>
>> On 11/18/2007 5:50 PM On a whim, Christopher Jahn pounded out
>> on the keyboard
>>
>>> "Terry R." wrote in
>>> news:6KWdna6hVKuQQt3anZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@mozilla.org:
>>>
>>>> I didn't tell Ed he was "restarting". Commenting
>>>> specifically on the Subject was in fact, "bringing it back
>>>> to life"
>>> Which is exactly the same as "restarting." That dog don't
>>> hunt, Terry.
>>>
>> It may be the same, and I agree. But Q argues about every
>> little thing, so I was giving him back what he dishes out,
>> that's all. I never said "restarting" to Ed, which he also
>> made a point about being accurate.
>
> If you said "bringing it back to life," you said "re-starting,"
> and your entire argument goes down the toilet.
>
> The only way any one can "win" this argument is to walk away.
>

Sorry Chris. I didn't say "re-starting", regardless if the two comments
have the same meaning. The mice nuts of Q's arguments are the same as I
returned, and that's how small the differences are, mice nuts. There is
no "win" here, because that's not the point. Q needs to do his job like
Chris I. does and stay out of OT discussions.

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

On 11/18/2007 Terry R. wrote:
> Q needs to do his job like Chris I. does and stay out of OT
> discussions.

Seems to me that Q's "special position" applies only to the support
newsgroups and that his participation in this newsgroup should be as
unlimited as any other participants.





--
Irwin

Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page

Terry R. wrote:
>>> Chris I., Nir, and you [»Q«] monitor the groups for OT content, correct?
>>
>> [»Q«]Yes, the support groups.
>>> The CP wasn't the issue I don't believe since you only need to cancel
>>> a post IF one continues to go OT in a group, right?
>>
>>> ....... I really don't know exactly WHAT you [»Q«] or Nir do .......
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Chris I., Nir, and YOU [»Q«] are SPAM MOOSES. You have A position over
>>> the groups. IN MY OPINION (and that is all), those in charge shouldn't
>>> mingle with us lowly posters who go OT EXCEPT to do your job, OR
>>> offer support.
>>
>> You have once again pointed out that this is your opinion without
>> saying why you think I shouldn't express opinions not related to the OT
>> policy.
>
> Because you have a job to do here.
> Chris I. remains neutral. Nir and you should also. Follow the lead of your
> superior.

Terry, your assumptions are incorrect regarding the status of _anyone_
here. In the old Netscape Newsgroups, Netscape appointed "Champions"
with a title to provide support and they received recognition from
Netscape in the way of advanced release of new versions, and some minor
perks like cups, pens and t-shirts, just as Microsoft does with their
VIPs. Mozilla, on the other hand, has _never_ acknowledged any such
Champion for any of the Mozilla Newsgroups, nor have they given any
goodies to anyone helping in the Newsgroups. As far as Mozilla is
concerned, there are any number of different people in the support
groups stepping up to the plate and giving support to people and that
includes you. Some people give more, some give less.

So what is this Mozilla Champion thing? Well, Jay carried it over on his
own to the Mozilla Newsgroup with people already carrying the Netscape
Champion handle. This was a great thing while Mozilla was in turmoil as
most of us can well remember. Nir, »Q« and Chris J. provide support but
are no Champions. Chris J. is no better than you and I and enough said
about him. Who really cares about »Q« since it's hard to take anyone
serious that can't even use his real name. Nir's claim to fame is that
Gerv picked him out of the crowd due to no OT postings [see further
below]. Seing that their active membership was reducing, Jay asked Chris
I. to join as a Champion. Instead of being thankful, respectful,
sticking up for another and taking it to private mail, there was public
confrontation at least on one occasion where grasshopper challenged the
master in what was to me a veiled attacking manner. Jay [also see
further below], to his credit, relented , made peace, has never talked
negatively, but has continued to talk positively regarding the
Champions. Here are two links for your pleasure:




To continue then, there is nobody in this thread with any Mozilla
recognized authority, except in one matter which I will come to
eventually. Regarding support, everyone is equal. Redirecting _any_
article to another newsgroup can be performed by anyone, hopefully to
the proper newsgroup, but actually to anywhere. Anyone saying
differently is doing so without any authority but only according to his
own opinion. I don't know if you noticed, but there was one which Chris
I. redirected from MTMM to General and I then redirected back to MTMM.
This could have gone on ad nauseum. He had an opinion and I made it a
point to have mine.

Chris I. spent time in the developer newsgroups where he requested
permission to be given the power to actually _cancel_ articles which are
off-topic. Also take note that he made his name known with suggesting
Giganews (you decide whether it was a good choice). Because of this
involvement at the beginning and that they needed someone for MTMM to be
a Moderator, which was not as such, but only to approve people for the
mail list. This "work" he graciously passed on to a regular Joe S., but
kept the actual control of the mail list. Since the squeaky wheel gets
the oil, he and Nir plus a third unidentified person were deemed worthy
due to their lowest OT articles by Gervase Markham (Mozilla bigwhig).
Jay was not one of them. What a big laugh and a disgusting way to
utterly disregard his long lasting loyal contribution. The three of them
with their _majority_ decision _only_ were granted to be able to cancel
an article. The unidentified person refused to join. Gervase then
authorized Chris I. and Nir, with _unanimity_ required to be able to
cancel an article.

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

Gerv:
"anyone feels that it's not working, they should contact me."

Jay has mostly left to go back as a _recognized_ Netscape Champion.
Congratulations and more power to him.

So, Terry, we're all equal. Some are more equal than others and .....

Opinions and assholes,
everybody's got one,
and think theirs smells best.

--
Gus

Gus Richter wrote:
> Jay has mostly left to go back as a _recognized_ Netscape Champion.
> Congratulations and more power to him.

its to my understanding that Jay left because of the recent
crap that was going on in the _support_ groups. Furthermore,
he and Lee Jones are more involved with the new Netscape 9
and Netscape Messenger 9 and their support forums.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but messages emailed to me will be
disregarded!!!!

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

On 11/19/07 2:51 AM, _Gus Richter_ spoke thusly:
> Terry, your assumptions are incorrect regarding the status of _anyone_
> here. In the old Netscape Newsgroups, Netscape appointed "Champions"
> with a title to provide support and they received recognition from
> Netscape in the way of advanced release of new versions, and some minor
> perks like cups, pens and t-shirts, just as Microsoft does with their
> VIPs. Mozilla, on the other hand, has _never_ acknowledged any such
> Champion for any of the Mozilla Newsgroups, nor have they given any
> goodies to anyone helping in the Newsgroups. As far as Mozilla is
> concerned, there are any number of different people in the support
> groups stepping up to the plate and giving support to people and that
> includes you. Some people give more, some give less.
>
> So what is this Mozilla Champion thing? Well, Jay carried it over on his
> own to the Mozilla Newsgroup with people already carrying the Netscape
> Champion handle. This was a great thing while Mozilla was in turmoil as
> most of us can well remember. Nir, »Q« and Chris J. provide support but
> are no Champions. Chris J. is no better than you and I and enough said
> about him. Who really cares about »Q« since it's hard to take anyone
> serious that can't even use his real name. Nir's claim to fame is that
> Gerv picked him out of the crowd due to no OT postings [see further
> below]. Seing that their active membership was reducing, Jay asked Chris
> I. to join as a Champion. Instead of being thankful, respectful,
> sticking up for another and taking it to private mail, there was public
> confrontation at least on one occasion where grasshopper challenged the
> master in what was to me a veiled attacking manner. Jay [also see
> further below], to his credit, relented , made peace, has never talked
> negatively, but has continued to talk positively regarding the
> Champions. Here are two links for your pleasure:
>
>
>
>
> To continue then, there is nobody in this thread with any Mozilla
> recognized authority, except in one matter which I will come to
> eventually. Regarding support, everyone is equal. Redirecting _any_
> article to another newsgroup can be performed by anyone, hopefully to
> the proper newsgroup, but actually to anywhere. Anyone saying
> differently is doing so without any authority but only according to his
> own opinion. I don't know if you noticed, but there was one which Chris
> I. redirected from MTMM to General and I then redirected back to MTMM.
> This could have gone on ad nauseum. He had an opinion and I made it a
> point to have mine.
>
> Chris I. spent time in the developer newsgroups where he requested
> permission to be given the power to actually _cancel_ articles which are
> off-topic. Also take note that he made his name known with suggesting
> Giganews (you decide whether it was a good choice). Because of this
> involvement at the beginning and that they needed someone for MTMM to be
> a Moderator, which was not as such, but only to approve people for the
> mail list. This "work" he graciously passed on to a regular Joe S., but
> kept the actual control of the mail list. Since the squeaky wheel gets
> the oil, he and Nir plus a third unidentified person were deemed worthy
> due to their lowest OT articles by Gervase Markham (Mozilla bigwhig).
> Jay was not one of them. What a big laugh and a disgusting way to
> utterly disregard his long lasting loyal contribution. The three of them
> with their _majority_ decision _only_ were granted to be able to cancel
> an article. The unidentified person refused to join. Gervase then
> authorized Chris I. and Nir, with _unanimity_ required to be able to
> cancel an article.
>
> Gerv:
> "If they [Chris I. and Nir] agree that someone is regularly off-topic or
> repeatedly violates the etiquette document in other ways, that will warn
> them by private email (or in the newsgroup if the email address cannot
> be determined). If they later agree that the behaviour has not changed,
> they will notify the person by email (or newsgroup post, as above) and
> then start to cancel any and all infringing posts from that person,
> without warning or comment."
>
> Gerv:
> "anyone feels that it's not working, they should contact me."
>
> Jay has mostly left to go back as a _recognized_ Netscape Champion.
> Congratulations and more power to him.
>
> So, Terry, we're all equal. Some are more equal than others and .....
>
> Opinions and assholes,
> everybody's got one,
> and think theirs smells best.

Wow, speaking of incorrect assumptions... :-)
I'm not going to get into the Mozilla Champions/Mozilla.org relationship
or relationship between Jay and I, out of respect for all the private
discussions; but you really need to stop jumping to conclusions. You
don't know the history, and will not.
--
Chris Ilias
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia

On 11/19/07 1:30 AM, _Terry R._ spoke thusly:
> There is
> no "win" here, because that's not the point. Q needs to do his job like
> Chris I. does and stay out of OT discussions.

1. Any lack of involvement by me in this thread is not due to my role as
an OT monitor (you guys know me better than that. ). It's because
it's simply a waste of my time.

2. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, and voice it. You could say
everyone has that "right". And this goes beyond the OT monitoring team.
Most people in Mozilla have opinions, and voice them. What you'll find
is that no one person represents Mozilla, and everyone is unique.

--
Chris Ilias
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia

Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> Wow, speaking of incorrect assumptions... :-)
> I'm not going to get into the Mozilla Champions/Mozilla.org relationship
> or relationship between Jay and I, out of respect for all the private
> discussions; but you really need to stop jumping to conclusions. You
> don't know the history, and will not.

Learn to trim your responses. The way it was in the Netscape Newsgroups
is not the way in the Mozilla newsgroups! As a Moz Champ you should know
that!

I don't expect anything from you at all and never will! Respect, what a
laugh coming from you. I don't need to tell you where you should jump,
do you?

Don't feel so self-important. I really don't care about any of your
personal history. This was a message to Terry and "I calls it the way I
sees it".

Why didn't you ask me a dumb question like, "Is the bad atmosphere in
here (mozilla.general) or in the support newsgroups"?

--
Gus