Re: Look at that

[Peemm]

Patrick Gallagher wrote:

> Peemm wrote:
> 
>> Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
>>
>>> DeMoN LaG wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Um, two of my female friends don't have anything against 
>>>> pornography, one of them is actually turned on by it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cool friends! ;-)
>>>
>>> Most of the girls I know don't have anything against pornography 
>>> either. Phillip C.E.T. Jones' opinions is from a time when men was 
>>> considered superior to women.
>>>
>>> /Jonas
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, Jonas, but I have skimmed through all the postings, and even 
>> though I no longer believe in Phillip M. Jones' chivalry, I must say 
>> that he understands something you and your friend DeMoN LaG don't. 
>> Pornography is nothing you get "turned on by". Porn is a substitute 
>> for real life. You might as well use heroine. And the producers of 
>> porn don't care about your pleasure; they want to get money - YOUR 
>> money! This is the offensive part. You are dealing with a kind of 
>> robber here - not just a spammer.
>>
>> /P.M.
>>
> Pornography is a part of real life - many couples enjoy watching the 
> stuff together, as do some single people... Obviously it's a market 
> that's in strong demand, or it wouldn't be the most profitable business 
> on the internet - it's also a legal business so long as they follow 
> legitimate business practices, and follow guidelines.


Yes, it is part of "real life" if you by this expression mean "our 
society", but I meant "happy life" or something similar. I don't think a 
happy and content person would show the slightest interest in porn, at 
least not at those moments when he or she is really at one with the world.

> 
> Spam - regardless of what it's for - is the disease. You can choose what 
> you watch, what you search the internet for (you might end up with porn 
> on occasion, but if you're not seeking it, it can be avoided.) and who 
> you talk to, but you can't choose what kind of SPAM shows up in your 
> favorite newsgroups or your inbox. Doesn't matter whether it's for 
> kleenex or penis enlargement or a new flower delivery service, it's all 
> equally offensive.
> 
> Patrick
> 

Well, do you think spam for flower deliveries is equally offensive as 
"teen4play" or "Stacie4play"?! This is like saying that giving a fellow 
being some flowers is equally bad as tricking him or her into 
"performing" in front of a camera (- yes, people CAN be tricked into 
doing things they don't like [mentioned to answer another post in this 
thread] -). Now, I don't think you would put it like this, you are 
obviously stretching your point that spamming is the sick thing here, 
and in this matter I totally agree.

/P.M.

Re: Look at that - moving off-topic I guess

[Peemm]

DeMoN LaG wrote:

> Peemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on
> 01 Mar 2002: 
> 
> 
>>I don't see the autocracy in this, but never mind. Of course you
>>can get turned on in the sense that a chemical reaction may start
>>in your body, possibly making you horny as hell, but that is merely
>>stimulus/response, easily achieved in a lot of ways, and it won't
>>last for long. 
>>
> 
> Better to rent a porno than go find a drunk girl, isn't it?


Well, I'm not too sure. Maybe she's got herself drunk for a reason...

> 
> 
>>Well, porn movies definitely are, but there are other movies, as
>>there are music, paintings and concerts, which are not substitutes,
>>rather part of the essence of real life.
>>
> 
> Why?  Why are porn movies a substitute for real life?  In what sense to 
> you think watching people have sex instead of you having sex is any 
> different than watching two people play hockey instead of you playing 
> yourself? 


I don't play hockey myself, but I'm sure there is another quality in 
playing yourself than just watching it.

>  
> 
>>Cp. the answer to the first question. Heroine will bring a much
>>more intense and lasting feeling. It's destructive, of course, but
>>so is porn. Can you explain to me in what way porn is good for you?
>>
> 
> How is porn destructive?  I saw my first porno at age 15, I'll be 19 in 
> a little under two months.  Porn is a good thing because porn can 
> relieve stress and tension and make you feel good.  Can you explain to 
> me in what way porn is destructive to you?


Uh-oh, you're excused because of age. I was also an eager defender of 
porn when I was a teenager. I mean, my friends almost considered me a 
pervert, because I spoke out on behalf of porn and free speech all the 
time.
   Porn is destructive, since it's addictive. This may sound a little 
odd, but I think too much consumption of porn, will make you stupid, a 
freak in a way.

>  
> 
>>>Let's sue Disneyworld too then, they are robbers by your
>>>reasoning. 
>>>
>>
>>Disney world is family friendly, Heather4play is not. You cannot
>>sue everyone for liking your money, and I didn't say that the porn
>>spammers ARE robbers; they are kind of robbers, because they share
>>the same ugly mentality thinking that human beings are there to be
>>exploited. They exploit the boys and girls in the industry, they
>>exploit you as a customer and they exploit this news group, which
>>should be about a web browser and not at all about this stuff!
>>
> 
> Oh shut the hell up.  You are saying it's OK for some people to be 
> robbers but bad for others.  Go take over a third world country or 
> something dude, where you can boss people around.  I don't know about 
> the laws in Sweden, but here in the US we have freedom of speech and 
> expression.  Almost all civilized countries have this law, though not 
> all have it written into their constitution like the US.  What you are 
> proposing is censorship.  Someone else deciding what is good for me.  
> And *that* is far more immoral and destructive than any form of 
> pornography could ever be.  I am an adult.  If I choose to watch other 
> adults have sex for my own entertainment, who the hell are you to tell 
> me it's wrong?


Come on lad, referring to "freedom of speech and expression", while 
beginning with "Oh shut the hell up" isn't very convincing, is it?
   The Swedish laws of freedom of the press is dating back to 1766 and 
already at that time it included a removal of censorship. This is more 
than twenty years before the U.S. constitution gained legal force.
   Less than ten years ago, in the 1990's, there was a heated debate in 
Sweden about a government proposal to ban possession of child 
pornography. Nowadays it's not legal anymore to possess movies showing 
pedophiles fucking two-year-olds, but it was ten years ago. And why? 
Because the Swedish constitution was (and still is) defending freedom of 
speech and expression even for the really bad guys. How about the U.S.? 
Are you allowed to watch porn (in all states), when you are younger than 
21? How about the X-rating? Isn't the age limit 18? In Sweden it's 15... 
I think you should address your complaints to your own federal 
government, instead of accusing me of being a dictator.

> 
> 
>>Que..? Are you calling me a taliban? Should I be offended? Who is 
>>talking about banning porn? My intention was to speak up against
>>those who take porn spammers lightly, and seem to think that they
>>are in fact quite cute.
>>
> 
> I don't consider porn spammers cute.  I don't consider any spammer cute.  
> The fact it is porn does not make it any better or worse than any other 
> spam
> 
> 
/P.M.

Re: Look at that - moving off-topic I guess

[Peemm]

Patrick Gallagher wrote:

>>
>> Que..? Are you calling me a taliban? Should I be offended? Who is 
>> talking about banning porn? My intention was to speak up against those 
>> who take porn spammers lightly, and seem to think that they are in 
>> fact quite cute. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone finds porn spammers "cute" - but you're not 
> blasting porn spammers, you're blasting porn in general. Any kind of 
> spam deserves a blasting - porn especially.
> 
>>
>> /P.M.
> 
> 

Right. Over and out. :-)

/P.M.

Re: Look at that

[Peemm]

Nice touch Lancer! Keep up the good work! I'm with you!

Hasta luego /P.M.

Re: Look at that

[Peemm]

Jonas Jørgensen wrote:

> Peemm wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, Jonas, but I have skimmed through all the postings, and even 
>> though I no longer believe in Phillip M. Jones' chivalry, I must say 
>> that he understands something you and your friend DeMoN LaG don't. 
>> Pornography is nothing you get "turned on by". Porn is a substitute 
>> for real life. You might as well use heroine. And the producers of 
>> porn don't care about your pleasure; they want to get money - YOUR 
>> money! This is the offensive part. You are dealing with a kind of 
>> robber here - not just a spammer.
> 
> 
> You are missing my point. I wasn't debating whether porn is a good thing 
> or a bad thing, I was saying that I don't believe that anyone should be 
> allowed to tell someone else what they are to think about porn. If 
> person A likes porn and person B doesn't, I don't see why person B 
> should be allowed to prevent person A from viewing porn, nor do I see 
> why person A should be allowed to force person B to view porn.
> 
> Generally, I don't like the idea of some people telling others what they 
> should think or do -- I consider it oppressive. We should all be free to 
> think what we want, and we should all be equal so that noone gets to 
> control other people. I really don't understand what it is that makes 
> some people, such as yourself, be against things such as freedom and 
> equality.
> 
> Regarding heroin: There are thousands of people who's lives have been 
> completely ruined because of heroin. You can objectively say that 
> heroine destroys people. Only subjectively can you say the same about 
> pornography.
> 
> /Jonas
> 

I agree with you on the last point, but I WAS saying it subjectively, 
and I have no inclination to write a thesis to defend the comparison 
between heroine and porn.

It might be that I missed your point; I merely skimmed through the 
postings in this long thread, and probably I didn't get all the nuances. 
Nevertheless I've got the impression that you have a very positive view 
on porn, and that you were unfairly mocking Philip M. Jones for having 
(amongst other things) a very positive view... on women(!) He may be a 
little patronizing in his views, but I think it's more sympathetic to 
hold such an attitude, than your each-and-every-one-for-him-or-her-self 
outlook on the world. Because your view on freedom and equality implies 
only contractual relations between people, i.e. you make agreements in 
order to structure life. Exactly as in a porn movie all rules should be 
set from the beginning; you do your fucking and you get your money, and 
there is no room for the unexpected. And all porn movies look the same, 
and as a spectator you know what is going to happen - no surprises. Does 
it turn you on? Is it an expression of freedom? You've got it all mixed 
up, I'm afraid. I am not against freedom or equality. From where did you 
get that idea?

/P.M.

Re: Look at that

[Peemm]

Jonas Jørgensen wrote:

> Peemm wrote:
> 
>> It might be that I missed your point; I merely skimmed through the 
>> postings in this long thread, and probably I didn't get all the 
>> nuances. Nevertheless I've got the impression that you have a very 
>> positive view on porn
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about my own personal opinion on porn, I was saying 
> that I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else what 
> we are to think about some subject -- not just porn, but anything. I 
> want to form my own opinions on things, and I believe everyone else 
> should do the same, rather than just accepting what we are told is 
> "correct".
> 
>> and that you were unfairly mocking Philip M. Jones for having (amongst 
>> other things) a very positive view... on women(!)
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call it a positive view on women that females are weaker and 
> more naive than males and therefore it is a mans job to protect women 
> from all the evilness on this planet -- I would call it an EXTREMELY 
> SEXIST view on women!!!


But he never wrote that! You are putting words in his mouth. Anyhow, 
hopefully Philip M. Jones is reading these posts, and if that is the 
case, he might want to speak up for himself.

> 
>  > He may be a little patronizing in his views,
> 
>> but I think it's more sympathetic to hold such an
> 
>  > attitude, than your each-and-every-one-for-him-or-her-self outlook
>  > on the world.
> 
> Now I all of a sudden have an each-and-every-one-for-him-or-her-self 
> outlook on the world? What in the world gave you that crazy idea? I am 
> very, very far from the neo-liberalistic view that you should only care 
> about yourself and not give a shit about others.
> 
>  > Because your view on freedom and equality implies
>  > only contractual relations between people, i.e. you make agreements in
>  > order to structure life.
> 
> Are you saying that I have no emotional relations to other people? How 
> can you possibly get that idea just by hearing me say that I think 
> freedom and equality are good things? Or does the word "contractual" 
> have some other meaning that neither me or my English dictionary are 
> aware of?


No, I'm not saying that. I don't know you that well. IF you were a porn 
addict, I'd suspect that the emotional relations be more or less 
disturbed, but you've really made me confused now, since it's obvious 
that you don't wanna tell what you REALLY think about porn. Well, you 
don't have to - let's skip the subject.

I was thinking a little about the French Revolution, since you use the 
concepts of freedom and equality (but not brotherhood). One of the 
inspirers of the ideas of the French Revolution was of course Rousseau, 
which in 1762 published the manifest "Du contrat social" - "the social 
contract" - describing in what way society and its leadership ought to 
be organized to meet the citizens' need of freedom and security. The 
conclusion was that you as a citizen and the state should be drawing up 
a contract, regulating the relations between the state and the citizens. 
My thought was that if you apply such a contract, not only between the 
state and you, but in every private relation of every kind, then you 
rule out every possibility of spontaneity and real change - and real 
life. Why? Because then all important matters would have already been 
decided upon when - so to speak - signing the contract.


> 
>> Exactly as in a porn movie all rules should be set from the beginning; 
>> you do your fucking and you get your money, and there is no room for 
>> the unexpected. And all porn movies look the same, and as a spectator 
>> you know what is going to happen - no surprises.
> 
>  > Does it turn you on? Is it an expression of freedom?
> 
> No, I wouldn't call it an "expression of freedom", but I'm sure some 
> people would. And I will continue to defend their right to create 
> pornography if they want to. Some people are offended by porn, true, but 
> there are also people who are offended by seeing the word "fuck", a word 
> which I notice you use. So if we ban pornography, shouldn't we also ban 
> the word "fuck"?
> 
> The problem with banning things because people find them offensive is 
> that you will end up banning _everything_.


Here is something I am very curious about; how come that you think that 
I want to ban porn? There is another, new thread "Look at that", where 
the posters want to ban spam. Now, read this carefully: I don't even 
want to ban spam about porn! This is not a legal matter; this is a 
matter of opinions, sympathies and 

Re: Look at that

[Peemm]

Jonas Jørgensen wrote:

> 
>>> I wouldn't call it a positive view on women that females are weaker 
>>> and more naive than males and therefore it is a mans job to protect 
>>> women from all the evilness on this planet -- I would call it an 
>>> EXTREMELY SEXIST view on women!!!
>>
>>
>> But he never wrote that! You are putting words in his mouth. Anyhow, 
>> hopefully Philip M. Jones is reading these posts, and if that is the 
>> case, he might want to speak up for himself.
> 
> 
> Quotes from Phillip's posts in this thread:
> 
>   Why is it worse for a woman to see a spam message than for a man?
>  >>>
>  >>> If it about Morgages or credit cards. Its Not. But the majority I
>  >>> see is x-rated stuff. Some men get their jollies seeing junk like
>  >>> that - NOT ME. However; that stuff would be downright offensive to
>  >>> a Woman. Just think you as woman scaning message topics to read and
>  >>> happen to open one showung a picture of a mans Tool, or a woman's
>  >>> privates wouldn't you find that offensive?
> 
> [...]
> 
>  >>> That may or may not be true. Sometimes the female may be tricked
>  >>> into doing the photos. Sometimes they are in a relationship with a
>  >>> Man and pose for him only. Then the cad sells the photo's.
> 
> Those statements sound pretty sexist if you ask me.


Regarding the fact that Phillip M. Jones is back in this thread, let 
welcome him to reply and elaborate on this himself.

> 
>> IF you were a 
>> porn addict, I'd suspect that the emotional relations be more or less 
>> disturbed, but you've really made me confused now, since it's obvious 
>> that you don't wanna tell what you REALLY think about porn. Well, you 
>> don't have to - let's skip the subject.
> 
> 
> Personally, I do not have a problem with porn, and do not consider it 
> offending, but I am not a "porn addict" either. I agree that it seems 
> likely that people who really are addicted to porn have problems with 
> their emotional relations.
> 
>> I was thinking a little about the French Revolution, since you use the 
>> concepts of freedom and equality (but not brotherhood). One of the 
>> inspirers of the ideas of the French Revolution was of course 
>> Rousseau, which in 1762 published the manifest "Du contrat social" - 
>> "the social contract" - describing in what way society and its 
>> leadership ought to be organized to meet the citizens' need of freedom 
>> and security.
> 
> 
> A society where the state/leadership takes care of the average citizen's 
> needs seems like a very nice solution, wouldn't you say?


It would be an ideal world.

> 
>> The conclusion was that you as a citizen and the state should be 
>> drawing up a contract, regulating the relations between the state and 
>> the citizens.
>> My thought was that if you apply such a contract, not only between the 
>> state and you, but in every private relation of every kind, then you 
>> rule out every possibility of spontaneity and real change - and real 
>> life. Why? Because then all important matters would have already been 
>> decided upon when - so to speak - signing the contract.
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Life would be incredibly dull if your private relations was 
> based on contracts. But mine isn't. What makes you think that they are?


I'm afraid I forgot! :-o

> 
>> Here is something I am very curious about; how come that you think 
>> that I want to ban porn?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure -- I think it's because just most other persons I have 
> talked to who are against pornography was in favor of making it illegal. 
> But since you are not, I apologize for putting words in your mouth.


Never mind.

> 
>> There is another, new thread "Look at that", where the posters want to 
>> ban spam. Now, read this carefully: I don't even want to ban spam 
>> about porn!
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, only very few people would send spam, and those that 
> did would not be morons like Bernard Shifman, so there would be no 
> reason to ban spam. But unfortunately this is not an ideal world, so I 
> would like to see spam be made illegal. On a side note, I do actually 
> consider porn spam to be worse than other spam, partly because even 
> though I will only be as annoyed as I am with all other spam, I know 
> that it will offend some of the recipients, and partly because spam is 
> usually sent to as many email accounts as possible, including those 
> belonging to small children. And it is definitely _not_ healthy for a 
> 10-year old child to watch porn.
> 
>  > This is not a legal matter; this is a
> 
>> matter of opinions, sympathies and antipathies.
> 
> 
> Regarding pornography, I agree. Regarding spam, I _would_ very much like 
> to agree, but as I said, in this far from ideal world, there is simply 
> too much spam for me to just ignore.


Spam is easily ignored. With a little experience you can always tell 
from the subject or the sender line whether it's spam or not. Just 
scroll past it. It's not a big deal. (Am I wrong to believe that

Re: Look at that

[Peemm]

Jonas Jørgensen wrote:

> Peemm wrote:
> 
>>>> I don't believe in calling for the police every time someone does 
>>>> something bad.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you.
>>
>>
>> No, in practice you don't.
> 
> 
> Why do you think so?
> 
> /Jonas
> 

I meant that you want to make spam illegal, e.g. making it a business 
for the police.

 >I'm only against _negative_ sexism -- e.g., when women are paid less 
 >for doing some job than men are for doing the exact same job, only 
 >because of the fact that they happen to be female. Your dictionary's 
 >definition of sexism ("treating people differently because of their 
 >sex", for those of you who don't understand Swedish) is not what I was 
 >talking about, and I think you know it.

 >/Jonas

I probably do, but I just don't seem to be able to stop arguing :-)

Re: ¿Blade Runner or Artificial Intelligence?

[PeEmm]

Sören Kuklau wrote:

> On 3/8/2002 12:50 PM, Lancer apparently wrote exactly the following:
> 
>> ¿Blade Runner or Artificial Intelligence?
> 
> 
> Spammer perhaps?
> 
> 

No, Blade Runner is better. But I haven't seen it for a long time. And 
never the Director's Cut.

-- 
/P.M.

Re: little test help

[PeEmm]

Lancer wrote:

> I have been  making some changes and adds to latinmoz. I found this
> host, and i d like if you could test how fast the pages loads, for be
> able to move the site definitivily
> 
> http://latinmoz.f2g.net/index.html


6.15 sec's (512kbit cable)

> 
> Dont forget to look the SOMNIO EXSERTUS ("Dreamed Proyect" in latin),
> you can go directly here:
> 
> http://latinmoz.f2g.net/exsertus/exsertus.html


0.22 sec's (512kbit cable)





-- 
/P.M.

Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!

[PeEmm]

Garth Wallace wrote:


> Since you've only used Netscape 6.2, which is based on a very old 
> version of Mozilla, and have never used a recent milestone, how could 
> you possibly be able to say one way or the other? Opinions founded on 
> ignorance are worthless.
> 

Please, be careful Mr. Wallace. Kyle (Netscape Basher) is using 
"User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.9+) 
Gecko/20020307"



-- 
/P.M.

Re: Nutscrape 6 Spyware??? <-- you bet it is!!!

[PeEmm]

Peter Lairo wrote:

> Bamm Gabriana wrote:
> 
>> However I don't see anything wrong with ns doing this - it
>> is only counting searches.
> 
> 
> There is something *terribly* wrong with this. It is shocking that many 
> will not see this.
> 
> Netscape is tracking everybodies search terms and their *IP* addresses. 
> They now can assemble a database of what you are interested in and *who 
> you are*!!!
> 
> As the article correctly concludes, this is "a sleazy practice". :( :( :(
> 
> I hope they choke on this.


[NOTE: This post is in fact a reply on a similar subject about the same 
news article in a Netscape news group, but I don't think Peter Lairo has 
seen it, so I quote myself. (Sorry for sort of cross posting.) /P.M.]

Holger Metzger wrote:

 > > I summarized my findings here: 
 > > Holger
 > Thank you for this clarifying article, but I'm afraid not all posters
here bothered to read it. You can tell by the panic... more than 30
replies in this hysterical thread...

Redirection is not new to Netscape. Below is an excerpt of a Navigator
4.08 bookmarks file. As all can see, even in the good old days, you got
transferred via the Netscape server. Nobody complained at that time.

The difference now, is that even the search terms may be collected by
Netscape folks. I'm not sure though, that these people are really
interested, whether an end user is searching for "logistics" or
"lolitas". (Probably the Google folks are, since they want to sell ads,
but they know how to collect statistics themselves.)

Where ever did the idea come from, that you should be anonymous on the
Internet? You never were, and you never will be. If you don't like to be
"spied" upon, then lock yourself behind the toilet door and read a book!


- Original bookmarks file in Communicator 4.08 -

  http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/infoseek.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">Infoseek

http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/looksmart.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">LookSmart

http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/lycos.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">Lycos

http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/netscapesearch.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">Netscape Search





Business and Finance



http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/businessjournal.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">Business Journal

http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/careercenter.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">Career Center

http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/cbsmarketwatch.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">CBS.MarketWatch

http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/datekonline.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">Datek Online

http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/dbusiness.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">dbusiness.com

http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/4_08/gartnergroup.html";
ADD_DATE="962534491" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">Gartner Group
Interactive





-- 
/P.M.

Re: Bundy vs. Jay Garcia

[PeEmm]

Red wrote:

> We all know Bundy is a troll. However I am disappointed at the
> behavior of Jay Garcia and the fact that Kyle Bundy has made some
> points about Jay Garcia not knowing what he was talking about and
> giving out bad answers. However, Bundy doesn't need to gloat about it.
> The two of them need to take this private and settle it.
> 
> I personally am sick and tired of both of them. They need to take
> break and get their thoughts in check.
> 

About this I only have one objection. Please, don't call Kyle a troll. 
By doing this you'll risk to drain the concept of all its usefulness. 
Kyle is the most energetic and one of the most interesting critics of 
the Mozilla project. Sometimes (most often?) he is in the wrong, but he 
always replies, and he really keeps this news group going!

A troll doesn't act this way. A troll is a kind of freak, posting a 
false statement, then sitting in front of the monitor, eagerly watching 
the incoming replies and the thread growing bigger. This is what gives 
him satisfaction. He never intended to contribute to a discussion in the 
first place. There was an excellent example of a troll posting a few 
days ago on the subject "New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and 
Mozilla builds on Wednesday". A troll posting shall never be replied to, 
since this is what keeps the troll going.

-- 
/P.M.

Re: Bundy vs. Jay Garcia

[PeEmm]

DeMoN LaG wrote:

> "Bamm Gabriana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:a6jf24$4cb3
> @ripley.netscape.com, on 11 Mar 2002:
> 
> 
>>Bundy sincerely believes he is right and wants Mozilla to succeed,
>>but he believes the developers are taking Mozilla in the wrong
>>direction.
>>
> 
> Then Bundy is just a delusional troll.
> 
> IMHO
> 
> 

Good! A new concept. But let's not make it a sub concept of troll. Go 
for a fresh one. Bundy is a bundy. That's it!

Bamm Gabriana again:

> 
> A troll knows he is wrong and it gives him
> pleasure seeing others correct him.
> 
> 


A bundy thinks he is right and it gives other headache constantly having 
to correct him.



You wouldn't mind, Kyle? :)
-- 
/P.M.

Re: Bundy vs. Jay Garcia

[PeEmm]

Netscape Basher wrote:

> PeEmm typed:
> 
>> Red wrote:
>>
>>> We all know Bundy is a troll. However I am disappointed at the
>>> behavior of Jay Garcia and the fact that Kyle Bundy has made some
>>> points about Jay Garcia not knowing what he was talking about and
>>> giving out bad answers. However, Bundy doesn't need to gloat about it.
>>> The two of them need to take this private and settle it.
>>>
>>> I personally am sick and tired of both of them. They need to take
>>> break and get their thoughts in check.
>>>
>>
>> About this I only have one objection. Please, don't call Kyle a troll. 
>> By doing this you'll risk to drain the concept of all its usefulness. 
>> Kyle is the most energetic and one of the most interesting critics of 
>> the Mozilla project. Sometimes (most often?) he is in the wrong, but 
>> he always replies, and he really keeps this news group going!
> 
> 
> I try to make issues on purpose. Yea, I could file bug reports (up to 
> what 130,000 (most of them dups or fixed) or post problems/complaints 
> here. Like the latest Mozilla .9.8 nighties have improved again after 
> two weeks of full retreat. Today, I am playing with it on 98 instead of 
> XP. (minus the Java, I just don't like 1.3.1). Tonight I'll probably run 
> a some to load sites through the ringer on Mozilla, to see how it compares.
> 
>>
>> A troll doesn't act this way. A troll is a kind of freak, posting a 
>> false statement, then sitting in front of the monitor, eagerly 
>> watching the incoming replies and the thread growing bigger. This is 
>> what gives him satisfaction. He never intended to contribute to a 
>> discussion in the first place. There was an excellent example of a 
>> troll posting a few days ago on the subject "New Virus set to hit for 
>> Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday". A troll posting shall 
>> never be replied to, since this is what keeps the troll going.
>>
> 
> But you know something, when Moz has good builds, I also am quick to 
> admit them. The latest few nightlies, much better after it seemed to be 
> 2 weeks of retreat. It will be interesting to see how Moz acts under 98, 
> I will do a memory leak test also. Bundy style..
> 
> Hopefully when Moz gets to 1.0 and it is stable, Netscape will use that 
> build and call it 7.0 (not 6.5 for reasons I have already explained, 
> Netscape needs to totally get away from calling it 6.x) and not bloat it 
> down (which they are getting better at) and make sure the add-ons are 
> always up to date (Real Player etc.)
> 
> AOL/Netscape have proven they can beat MS in some areas (AIM vs 
> Micros**t's Messenger). I really, really hope AOL puts full support in 
> making this a competitive product. I seen a few crumbles that they 
> actually might, but until the big boys start reporting it, I don't buy 
> into it.
> 
> :)
> 
> -- 
> Kyle
> 
> 
> 

Yeah, I think you should go on using scepticism and harsh criticism as 
the main intellectual tools to - in fact - make Mozilla the best browser 
available. Some of the folks in this news group don't seem to understand 
that it is only by severe scrutinizing that you can improve things. They 
think that uttering a negative word about Mozilla is like peeing at the 
Holy Bible.

-- 
/P.M.