DeMoN LaG wrote:
>
> "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 13 Jan 2002:
>
> > All would be better served to either answer his questions, express
> > you counter opinion once, then go on to new subjects. Or (to
> > yourself, roll your eyes and just go to next thread, or delete them
> > or mark them read.
> >
>
> That would be pointless, as any answer you give was given because that
> is the answer that AOL/Netscape/Maozilla Politburo/government conspiracy
> group with space aliens/and reincarnation of Jesus Christ wanted you to
> have.
That sentence doesn't even make any sense Mr. LaG. You've been hanging
around Mozilla too long, looks like your cache is defective now.
> He repeatedly went on and on and on about Mozilla's "Broken
> cache",
I still do. It's still broken. Why do you remain silent on the issue
Mr. LaG? Do you *want* your browser to have a broken cache? I
certainly don't!
> despite me telling him at least 3 times to clear his cache in
> preferences.
What's that have to do with a broken cache? Not once have I ever done
anything like that in IE or Communicator, and neither have ever given me
week-old CNN. Why then do you think I should have to babysit Mozilla
like that?
> He did not.
Of course not! I only waste my time on things which I think would
*help* Maozilla, not cover up defects in it. For the good of the code
LaGgy, for the good of the code. I'm beginning to think you don't
believe in Liberation. That's dangerous 'round these parts, not going
along with the herd.
> He was unable to reproduce the bug in a new
> profile (because he never tried).
Granny LaG: "Hello AOL Customer Support, I'm seeing week-old CNN in your
browser."
AOL Support, if run by Mr. LaG: "Well granny, just delete your cache
file and create a new profile! That might fix it!"
Granny LaG: "De-what my what what? Cre-what a new whatfile? Ah hell,
I'll just use IE, never had a problem with it showing me week-old news."
> He would not cooperate with pinning
> down the problem
I was the first to point out the problem (though as an almost-non-user,
certainly not the first to see it). Furthermore, I "pinned down" the
problem precisely:
- Proved it wasn't the first-accused Proxomitron.
- Proved it wasn't file system corruption.
- Somebody else posted that they were having the exact same problem on
Linux, proving it wasn't a Windows vs. Linux thing (I bet that really
made your blood boil, huh LaGgy?).
- Proved it wasn't something "wrong" with the page ("wrong" as in only
Mozilla would have trouble with it).
- Ergo, what's left? Oh yeah: Mozilla's cache code is defective.
Why do you insist on such wild-eyed apologetics, Mr. LaG? Mozilla has
many, many, many defects. This cache defect is simply one more to add
to the ever-growing heap. It'll get fixed some day, years from now,
don't worry. In the meantime, all you have to do is create a new
profile and manually delete your cache every few days, right?
> (which, after one other person said they saw the same
> thing
Pfhht, yeah, like that person wasn't lying too. Say LaG, you didn't
call the several other people who "me too"ed this problem liars and all
kinds of potty-mouth names, did you? You called me a liar and all sorts
of potty-mouth names. Seems you have rather a double-standard there,
doesn't it? Angries up the blood to be wrong and unable to admit it,
doesn't it?
> and it was cleared by simply clearing the cache), and he refused
> to acknowledge the fact it could have been a hiccup on his system that
> loused up *his* cache folder.
Which is of course not the case, and even if it was, would reveal a
second defect in Mozilla in that it cannot detect corruption of its own
cache. Wouldn't it LaGgy? It'd be broke in two separate ways then,
huh? Oh, apologized your way into quite a corner I see.
> I see no reason to provide him any
> reasonable answer.
But you do see plenty of reasons to flap the jaw and let the bile talk,
right?
> If Mozilla was embedded in a toaster, and he posted
> "Mozilla doesn't toast my bread",
You'd call me a liar, and then when a dozen other people posted "yeah,
my bread doesn't get toasted either", you'd feel like a complete heel.
But instead of being a man and apologizing, or even admitting you were
wrong, you'd show your true colors and keep that jaw a-flappin' and that
bile a-spewin', wouldn't you? Wouldn't you LaGgy?
Mercy your all-too-common type is tiresome.
> and someone asked him "Did you hit the
> toast button" he'd go on and on that the toast button is too slow and
> inefficient (without providing any numbers showing any other way is
> faster) and blame the company who made the LCD screen for the toaster
> for everything.
But I hit the toast button. And I got week-old toast.
> He is a troll.
So tame my dear LaGgy! What happened to all those jucier names? I mean
what, I don't even rate as a "liar" anymore?
> A troll that refuses to go away.
Ummm, isn't that part of the definition of a troll?
> His
> new thing is how he single handedly got the context menu in the plain
> text editor fixed.
Not "fixed", implemented. There wasn't anything to fix, it was simply
not there. Then I bring it up, loudly, and whaddaya know? There it
suddenly is! Oh, but I'm sure that's sheer coincidence, right LaG?
Like the time I wrote that Perl script to run stats on the licensing of
Mozilla, and all of a sudden the licensing starts changing?
Don't worry LaGgy, I certainly don't win 'em all. The commie graphics
you so dearly love are still there, and clearly won't be going anywhere
ever, for geopolitical reasons.
> Not the guy who was working on it, or his company
> paying him money to fix it, JTK got it fixed.
I got his company to get him to "fix" (i.e. implement) it, correct.
> I imagine he also thinks
> he is the reason the traffic light turns green, and the reason that the
> sun rises every morning.
No, I've seen no need to change the status quo of these.
> I understand that you are entitled to your
> opinion that he is not delusional, and I agree, partly.
Praise from Caesar....
> I feel he
> thinks his role here is not that of an annoying troll just badmouthing
> anything and everything, but as some sort of major bigshot that gets
> stuff done.
Who else is going to do that thankless chore? Not drooling
Mozillapologists like you, that's for sure!
> If he wants to do that, fine. I realize ignoring him would
> probably at least cut down on his posts, but I feel if he were to post a
> message like "The cache is completely broken and the browser sucks
> because the UI is written in a markup language",
"If" I did so? I'm going hoarse from doing so!
> and no one answered
> him, anyone passing by would think that was the truth.
Is the cache or is the cache not broken Mr. LaG. If the latter, please
explain to me and the AOL community how week-old CNN is indicative of a
"not broken" cache.
> So any time he
> posts something with no proof, no reproducability,
Like the broken cache stuff? Oh wait, quite a few people were able to
reproduce that, weren't they LaGgy?
> and just to badmouth
> the project,
If the shoe fits, it's ugly.
> I intend to reply either asking for more information or
> telling him the solution
Or by calling me a liar and many potty-mouth names, that's what you're
really going to do, isn't it LaGgy?
> (in his most recent cases, clearing his cache
> would have solved the problem in under 10 seconds).
>
Clearing "my" cache (I assume you mean my copy of Mozilla's cache) would
have fixed the broken cache code?!?! Why have you been keeping this
critical information from the AOL community?!?!? Quick AOL developers,
clear your caches and that code will magically get fixed!
Lordy. This is the sad state of our youth today.
