Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3 - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3 - Mozilla ; Ron Hunter wrote in news:HYudnf2sDMuCeMrbnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@mozilla.org: > > You have a pretty broad sense of humor. I plonked this guy a week ago! > Don`t worry i am ready too ron....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

  1. Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    Ron Hunter wrote in
    news:HYudnf2sDMuCeMrbnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@mozilla.org:

    >
    > You have a pretty broad sense of humor. I plonked this guy a week ago!
    >


    Don`t worry i am ready too ron.

  2. Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On May 25, 6:38 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 25.05.2007 19:15, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    > > On May 25, 4:29 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    > >> On 25.05.2007 17:55, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:

    >
    > >> --- Original Message ---

    >
    > >> > Those are the two critical additions Microsoft made
    > >> > to the browser world which wiped out the business
    > >> > of the earlier dominant browser, Netscape.
    > >> > Netscape was extremely incompetent in not recognizing
    > >> > the importance is this issue, and that incompetence
    > >> > in reading Needs of the marketplace cost them.

    >
    > >> > Now, we are just in a holding pattern waiting for one
    > >> > of the current browsers to implement properly
    > >> > the basic user interface.

    >
    > >> The single most issue that brought Netscape down in percentage useage
    > >> was that every computer in a box was loaded with most everything
    > >> Microsoft. The quality of IE or NS had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

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

    >
    > > That is crap. Netscape failed to serve the interests
    > > of their users after their initial release, and Microsoft
    > > was dogged in solving the big problem:
    > > how to keep the results of the Altavista search
    > > on the screen, while looking at each web page found,
    > > one after the other.
    > > That was a huge problem at the time and Microsoft solved it.

    >
    > > It was years before Netscape implemented these features
    > > (despite numerous emails to them from users like me)
    > > and when a company ignores their users like that,
    > > they, Netscape, deserve to lose.
    > > Come to think of it, all those emails guys like me sent
    > > them were probably thrown in the trash
    > > by Paid public relations workers like those we have
    > > on forums like this.
    > > And that is why they lost.
    > > And all was right in this world.

    >
    > Your memory fails you. Netscape could open multiple instances of the
    > browser with as many sites in as many windows (ctrl+n) side by side or
    > tiled - your choice, something IE couldn't do at the time. I've been
    > with Netscape since early 1995, I know the numbers quite well.
    >
    > Bzzzt, you lose again.
    >
    > --
    > Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    > UFAQ -http://www.UFAQ.org- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    False. The specific ability to hold the Altavista
    results on screen and allow the links found to be
    displayed simply was not available in the Netscape product.
    Where is the archive for the Netscape versions back then ?

    At least we have an admission here that these forum
    denizens work for the companies they are defending.
    That is progress.


  3. Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 26/05/2007 03:14, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused john sumner to
    generate the following:? :
    > mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote in
    >
    >> That is crap. Netscape failed to serve the interests
    >> of their users after their initial release, and Microsoft
    >> was dogged in solving the big problem:
    >> how to keep the results of the Altavista search
    >> on the screen, while looking at each web page found,
    >> one after the other.
    >> That was a huge problem at the time and Microsoft solved it.
    >>


    Your persistance with AltaVista is boring - is that the *ONLY*
    searchenging you know about?

    >> It was years before Netscape implemented these features
    >> (despite numerous emails to them from users like me)
    >>


    yeah - you got that point:
    QUOTE
    numerous emails to them from users like me
    UNQUOTE

    <>
    >> Come to think of it, all those emails guys like me sent
    >> them were probably thrown in the trash
    >>


    Do you want to know why that happened??? Do you *REALLY* want someone
    to tell you why??

    >> by Paid public relations workers like those we have
    >> on forums like this
    >>


    We are still waiting for *ANY FORM WHATSOEVER* of proof of that statement!

    >> And that is why they lost.
    >> And all was right in this world.
    >>

    >
    > After reading your crap for the past couple of days, why don`t you show
    > some proof to this news group instead of just shooting your mouth off
    > or are you too much of coward that is hiding behind a free email
    > like hotmail, the only reason why i have not plonked you is
    > because i find you somewhat amusing.
    >

    yeah, John! and to think that MKBrown (what kind of name is that
    anyway??) is a self-expressed "Real User"... no dog**** for that guy!
    Hmmmmm - considering that last semi-sentence, one must wonder how he
    manages to produce so much crap?? But, of course, as a Real User he
    probably has at least five boxes running simultaneously....

    I am beginning to think that MKB is on the M$ payroll - the crap he
    produces would fit into that sphere!

    But, on the serious side, his posts are becoming tedious (the laughs are
    getting thin) and it looks like a new filter is required.

    reg

  4. Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 26.05.2007 04:39, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On May 25, 6:38 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 25.05.2007 19:15, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >> > On May 25, 4:29 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> >> On 25.05.2007 17:55, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:

    >>
    >> >> --- Original Message ---

    >>
    >> >> > Those are the two critical additions Microsoft made
    >> >> > to the browser world which wiped out the business
    >> >> > of the earlier dominant browser, Netscape.
    >> >> > Netscape was extremely incompetent in not recognizing
    >> >> > the importance is this issue, and that incompetence
    >> >> > in reading Needs of the marketplace cost them.

    >>
    >> >> > Now, we are just in a holding pattern waiting for one
    >> >> > of the current browsers to implement properly
    >> >> > the basic user interface.

    >>
    >> >> The single most issue that brought Netscape down in percentage useage
    >> >> was that every computer in a box was loaded with most everything
    >> >> Microsoft. The quality of IE or NS had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

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

    >>
    >> > That is crap. Netscape failed to serve the interests
    >> > of their users after their initial release, and Microsoft
    >> > was dogged in solving the big problem:
    >> > how to keep the results of the Altavista search
    >> > on the screen, while looking at each web page found,
    >> > one after the other.
    >> > That was a huge problem at the time and Microsoft solved it.

    >>
    >> > It was years before Netscape implemented these features
    >> > (despite numerous emails to them from users like me)
    >> > and when a company ignores their users like that,
    >> > they, Netscape, deserve to lose.
    >> > Come to think of it, all those emails guys like me sent
    >> > them were probably thrown in the trash
    >> > by Paid public relations workers like those we have
    >> > on forums like this.
    >> > And that is why they lost.
    >> > And all was right in this world.

    >>
    >> Your memory fails you. Netscape could open multiple instances of the
    >> browser with as many sites in as many windows (ctrl+n) side by side or
    >> tiled - your choice, something IE couldn't do at the time. I've been
    >> with Netscape since early 1995, I know the numbers quite well.
    >>
    >> Bzzzt, you lose again.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    >> UFAQ -http://www.UFAQ.org- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > False. The specific ability to hold the Altavista
    > results on screen and allow the links found to be
    > displayed simply was not available in the Netscape product.
    > Where is the archive for the Netscape versions back then ?


    I have Nav 3 opened as I write this. I have 4 separate windows open with
    Google results in one window. I can drag a link from that window to any
    of the other windows and the site/link opens just fine. I can drag
    another link to another window and the same. Maybe you're not old enough
    to remember Nav 3 ?

    > At least we have an admission here that these forum
    > denizens work for the companies they are defending.
    > That is progress.


    Never been a secret that I am aware of. But I don't work for "Mozilla".

    This no longer belongs in this group. Setting F/U to .general


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

  5. Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 26.05.2007 04:39, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > False. The specific ability to hold the Altavista
    > results on screen and allow the links found to be
    > displayed simply was not available in the Netscape product.
    > Where is the archive for the Netscape versions back then ?


    Well, a little proof is what you need so that's what you'll get ....

    See: http://www.ufaq.org/movies/windo_demo.html

    This is a FLASH movie so disable your FlashBlocker if enabled.

    I made this movie using Communicator 4.8 because it's a bit more
    site-compatible than NN 3.x but the functionality is identical.

    Note the three browser windows, the left one similar to a "sidebar" with
    Google displayed and "honda" typed in the search window and resulting
    links, etc. I dragged a link from that window to the top window on the
    right ..... and the rest is self-explanatory if you follow the progress,
    popcorn allowed.

    Also note the last frames where I wanted to see full-screen, the Honda
    Motorcycle parts for the "Interceptor". Simple operation and one that's
    been available in Netscape for many years.

    Now, with a conventional "Sidebar", you can't do that, eg., have split
    windows.


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

  6. Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    squaredancer wrote in
    news:qJydne_0suKRg8XbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@mozilla.org:

    >
    > yeah, John! and to think that MKBrown (what kind of name is that
    > anyway??) is a self-expressed "Real User"... no dog**** for that guy!
    > Hmmmmm - considering that last semi-sentence, one must wonder how he
    > manages to produce so much crap?? But, of course, as a Real User he
    > probably has at least five boxes running simultaneously....
    >
    > I am beginning to think that MKB is on the M$ payroll - the crap he
    > produces would fit into that sphere!
    >
    > But, on the serious side, his posts are becoming tedious (the laughs are
    > getting thin) and it looks like a new filter is required.
    >
    > reg
    >


    I so agree reg plus take a look at his headers he posts from google groups.

  7. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On May 26, 5:00 am, squaredancer wrote:
    > On 26/05/2007 11:39, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    > mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    > > On May 25, 6:38 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:

    >
    > >> On 25.05.2007 19:15, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:

    >
    > >> --- Original Message ---

    >
    > >>> On May 25, 4:29 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:

    >
    > >>>> On 25.05.2007 17:55, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:

    >
    > >>>> --- Original Message ---

    >
    > <>
    >
    > >> Your memory fails you. Netscape could open multiple instances of the
    > >> browser with as many sites in as many windows (ctrl+n) side by side or
    > >> tiled - your choice, something IE couldn't do at the time. I've been
    > >> with Netscape since early 1995, I know the numbers quite well.

    >
    > >> Bzzzt, you lose again.

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    > >> UFAQ -http://www.UFAQ.org-Hide quoted text -

    >
    > >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > > False. The specific ability to hold the Altavista
    > > results on screen and allow the links found to be
    > > displayed simply was not available in the Netscape product.
    > > Where is the archive for the Netscape versions back then ?

    >
    > Oh my god.... and you say you have been *HOW LONG* with NS - and you are
    > a *REAL USER* ??
    >
    > THIS QUESTION OF YOURS PROVES THAT YOU ARE A CRAP ARTIST!
    >
    > http://sillydog.org/narchive/http://...ad/archive.jsp
    >
    > YOU probably couldn't find them because you are fixed on some crappy
    > searchengine!


    Altavista was the original highly capable search engine
    which Google copied verbatim.

    > > At least we have an admission here that these forum
    > > denizens work for the companies they are defending.
    > > That is progress.

    >
    > NOT PROGRESS - common knowlege, as Jay has always stated his
    > associations to/with NS and (now) AOL. The guys on these NG are honest
    > - something that *YOU* are proven *NOT TO BE*


    Several of the defenders of Firefox here have claimed
    that they have no business relationship with Firefox
    or any other company related to Firefox.
    That is not credible.


  8. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote in news:1180919670.431314.146920
    @n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

    > Several of the defenders of Firefox here have claimed
    > that they have no business relationship with Firefox
    > or any other company related to Firefox.
    > That is not credible.


    It is, however, true. This is a peer-to-peer support group.



    --
    }:-) Christopher Jahn
    {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
    http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
    We all live in a yellow subroutine.

  9. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On Jun 3, 7:37 pm, Christopher Jahn wrote:
    > mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1180919670.431314.146920
    > @n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > Several of the defenders of Firefox here have claimed
    > > that they have no business relationship with Firefox
    > > or any other company related to Firefox.
    > > That is not credible.

    >
    > It is, however, true. This is a peer-to-peer support group.
    >
    > --}:-) Christopher Jahn
    >
    > {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
    > http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
    > We all live in a yellow subroutine.


    How do you know this is true.
    How could you possibly know whether anyone else here is
    being paid, let alone yourself ?


  10. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissionsin Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 03.06.2007 22:05, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > How do you know this is true.
    > How could you possibly know whether anyone else here is
    > being paid, let alone yourself ?


    How could you know otherwise other than just stating your opinion.

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

  11. Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On Jun 3, 8:19 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 03.06.2007 22:05, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    > > How do you know this is true.
    > > How could you possibly know whether anyone else here is
    > > being paid, let alone yourself ?

    >
    > How could you know otherwise other than just stating your opinion.
    >
    > --
    > Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion


    At least my deductions are based on the muck these people
    are shoveling onto this public forum.



  12. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    Christopher Jahn wrote:

    > mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote in news:1180926335.347843.3260
    > @o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
    >
    >> On Jun 3, 7:37 pm, Christopher Jahn wrote:
    >>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1180919670.431314.146920
    >>> @n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
    >>>
    >>> > Several of the defenders of Firefox here have claimed
    >>> > that they have no business relationship with Firefox
    >>> > or any other company related to Firefox.
    >>> > That is not credible.
    >>>
    >>> It is, however, true. This is a peer-to-peer support group.
    >>>
    >>> --}:-) Christopher Jahn
    >>>
    >>> {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
    >>> http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
    >>> We all live in a yellow subroutine.

    >>
    >> How do you know this is true.
    >> How could you possibly know whether anyone else here is
    >> being paid, let alone yourself ?
    >>

    >
    > I know that I'm not being paid. I've been in this group since it
    > was formed, and I know a lot of the people who have been posting
    > here since that time, and I know that none of THEM are being
    > paid. I also have come to know a lot of the folks developing the
    > software, so I know who is on the payroll; there aren't many paid
    > employees, and I only ever see one of them in this group, and he
    > hasn't posted to you.
    >
    > You are obviously some kind of drooling moron.
    >


    Christopher,

    The more I see of this person's utterances the more I'm inclined to think we
    are dealing with a troll, not a term I use often. OTOH, maybe your
    assessment might be a kinder one ;-)

    Rob.


  13. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On Jun 4, 5:05 am, Christopher Jahn wrote:
    > mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1180926335.347843.3260
    > @o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 3, 7:37 pm, Christopher Jahn wrote:
    > >> mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1180919670.431314.146920
    > >> @n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

    >
    > >> > Several of the defenders of Firefox here have claimed
    > >> > that they have no business relationship with Firefox
    > >> > or any other company related to Firefox.
    > >> > That is not credible.

    >
    > >> It is, however, true. This is a peer-to-peer support group.

    >
    > >> --}:-) Christopher Jahn

    >
    > >> {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
    > >> http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
    > >> We all live in a yellow subroutine.

    >
    > > How do you know this is true.
    > > How could you possibly know whether anyone else here is
    > > being paid, let alone yourself ?

    >
    > I know that I'm not being paid. I've been in this group since it
    > was formed, and I know a lot of the people who have been posting
    > here since that time, and I know that none of THEM are being
    > paid. I also have come to know a lot of the folks developing the
    > software, so I know who is on the payroll; there aren't many paid
    > employees, and I only ever see one of them in this group, and he
    > hasn't posted to you.
    >
    > You are obviously some kind of drooling moron.
    >
    > --}:-) Christopher Jahn
    >
    > {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
    > http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
    > Men are more sentimental than women. It blurs their thinking.
    > Robert Heinlein- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Defending this program is not productive.
    If you think you are doing some good, you are not.
    People are waiting for the features I am talking
    about to be implemented, so that they can have a choice.
    Most of the crap being discussed on this public forum
    are things that Real Users could not care less about.

    For any browser to not have yet implemented the
    user interface functionality of Internet Explorer 6
    at this late date should result in firings of those
    responsible.
    Defending those people does no good.
    Except help Microsoft to more years of browser monopoly.


  14. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    Rob wrote in
    news:bvudnecb-oWpnvnbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@mozilla.org:

    >> You are obviously some kind of drooling moron.
    >>

    >
    > Christopher,
    >
    > The more I see of this person's utterances the more I'm
    > inclined to think we are dealing with a troll, not a term I
    > use often. OTOH, maybe your assessment might be a kinder one
    > ;-)
    >


    I've plonked him at this point. He's simply not worth the
    bother.

    --
    }:-) Christopher Jahn
    {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
    http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
    Four is certainly an odd number of arms for a man to have.

  15. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissionsin Firefox 2.0.0.3

    mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:
    > On Jun 3, 7:37 pm, Christopher Jahn wrote:
    >> mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1180919670.431314.146920
    >> @n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
    >>
    >>> Several of the defenders of Firefox here have claimed
    >>> that they have no business relationship with Firefox
    >>> or any other company related to Firefox.
    >>> That is not credible.

    >> It is, however, true. This is a peer-to-peer support group.
    >>
    >> --}:-) Christopher Jahn
    >>
    >> {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
    >> http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
    >> We all live in a yellow subroutine.

    >
    > How do you know this is true.
    > How could you possibly know whether anyone else here is
    > being paid, let alone yourself ?
    >

    Well I can Guarantee That I am not associated with Mozilla, other than
    my use of Mozilla Products (SeaMonkey, FireFox, Thunderbird). I'm not
    smart enough, and even if I was, they would not want me on principle. I
    have taken the users view since way before they decided to actually have
    users groups. Now There are plenty of software developers on this list
    as well as Mozilla Champions. But not everyone here is a Mozilla flunky.
    ;-)

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  16. Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 04.06.2007 06:47, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On Jun 3, 8:19 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 03.06.2007 22:05, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >> > How do you know this is true.
    >> > How could you possibly know whether anyone else here is
    >> > being paid, let alone yourself ?

    >>
    >> How could you know otherwise other than just stating your opinion.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion

    >
    > At least my deductions are based on the muck these people
    > are shoveling onto this public forum.
    >
    >


    Your deductions are incorrect. So now what?

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

  17. Re: This proves it - OP is stupid Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissionsin Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 04.06.2007 07:22, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Defending this program is not productive.
    > If you think you are doing some good, you are not.
    > People are waiting for the features I am talking
    > about to be implemented, so that they can have a choice.
    > Most of the crap being discussed on this public forum
    > are things that Real Users could not care less about.
    >
    > For any browser to not have yet implemented the
    > user interface functionality of Internet Explorer 6
    > at this late date should result in firings of those
    > responsible.
    > Defending those people does no good.
    > Except help Microsoft to more years of browser monopoly.


    If you have suggestions and enhancements you think are beneficial to the
    product then file a bug on each one and go from there. Argueing your
    points here are useless and counterproductive as these are SUPPORT
    groups, not developer groups. If any of your suggestions are implemented
    and users have support issues with them then we'll be happy to support
    those issues HERE.


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

  18. Re: Bookmarks Bugs and Omissions in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 04/06/2007 13:47, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    mkbrown32@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    > On Jun 3, 8:19 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >
    >> On 03.06.2007 22:05, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>
    >>> How do you know this is true.
    >>> How could you possibly know whether anyone else here is
    >>> being paid, let alone yourself ?
    >>>

    >> How could you know otherwise other than just stating your opinion.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    >>

    >
    > At least my deductions are based on the muck these people
    > are shoveling onto this public forum.
    >
    >
    >

    yeah, man! You should read some of the MUCK a certain poster named
    *mkbrown32* puts here. Reckon, from what I deduce, that guy is paid by
    Microsoft to block these newsgroups with advertizing for the "perfect
    browser"

    reg

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2