headers
Christopher Jahn | 1 Aug 2007 01:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Merits of Mac over PC or PC over Mac

"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T" <pjones1 <at> kimbanet.com> wrote in 
news:0OydnWJOnfXQ4jLbnZ2dnUVZ_q-jnZ2d <at> mozilla.org:

> Christopher:
> 
> > I work at an office full of Macs; they are down far more
> > frequently than the PCs we use on the production side.  And
> > production's software expenses are far less than Mac.
> >
> > Macs are not superior, they just cost more.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> That probably is because the IT department 

There is no IT department.

--

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

The universe is laughing behind your back.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gus Richter | 1 Aug 2007 02:14

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

»Q« wrote:
> 
> As long as the spec says composing agents MUST include ........
> 
This response to the above is not to restart the thread, but only to 
amuse and rub the reader's funnybone. Read the following:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2007Jun/0008.html>

--

-- 
Gus
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jay Garcia | 1 Aug 2007 03:44

Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

On 31.07.2007 09:50, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

>   This is the way we did it and continue to do it, if necessary,
>> on Secnews.
> 
> I thought you said there was no Police and no 
> deleting/removing of messages on that server. 
> Unfortunately, I can't provide proof of that because the 
> messages on that server have expired.

There is no Police Department, the Champs watch the server, there are no
warnings sent out, no posts deleted other than offensive porn-type
stuff, etc. Users are allowed to dig their own hole in full view of
their peers or vice-versa.

--

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jay Garcia | 1 Aug 2007 03:47

Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

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.

--

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Permalink | Reply | 71 comments |
headers
Rinaldi J. Montessi | 1 Aug 2007 04:23

Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

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?

--

-- 
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and, whatever you hit,
call it the target.
Permalink | Reply | 67 comments |
headers
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo | 1 Aug 2007 04:49
Picon

Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

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.
> 

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

--

-- 
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
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Jay Garcia | 1 Aug 2007 05:01

Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

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.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 66 comments |
headers
Jay Garcia | 1 Aug 2007 05:04

Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

On 31.07.2007 21:49, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 31.07.2007 15:08, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> 
>>  --- Original Message ---
>> 
> thats not what the emails I've been saying.  According to 
> them, several were ban.

Well, as admin for secnews, there was only one that was officially
banned since 1995 when the server went live and I've been an admin since
the beginning. There were some that were scolded and threatened but only
ONE was actually banned. The others just left on their own with no fanfare.

--

-- 
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo | 1 Aug 2007 05:10
Picon

Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

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.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 65 comments |
headers
Rinaldi J. Montessi | 1 Aug 2007 09:10

Re: Mozilla Forum Etiquette violation

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 63 comments |

Gmane