Garth Wallace wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
>
> > Garth Wallace wrote:
> >
> >> JTK wrote:
> >>
> >>> Garth Wallace wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Then leave.
> >>>
> >>> Leave? What happened to "Open"?
> >>
> >> Just as you're free to contribute, you're free to go elsewhere.
> >
> > Ok, then I choose to contribute, by pointing out obvious design flaws,
> > and possible ways in which they can be rectified. I also choose to not
> > mince words, but tell it like it is, which may make the more sensitive
> > religious types uncomfortable. And finally, I also choose to not
> > presume to implore others to leave, regardless of what nerves the truth
> > hits.
>
> Saying "the project is dead, go home" is indirect, but it's still
> telling people to leave.
>
I suppose it could be considered thus. Who said anything like that?
> You also choose to repeatedly complain about problems, even when they've
> already been filed as bugs in bugzilla and are being worked on, despite
> the fact that whining accomplishes nothing but irritate people on the
> newsgroup.
Squeaky wheels, grease, and such.
> And you choose to complain about how things happened in the
> past but have already been fixed, despite the fact that there is no way
> of making them have been fixed faster without a time machine. *That* is
> what I and several others (since apparently people who are not in an
> "official position" aren't allowed to use the word "we") dislike about
> your messages.
>
BAHAHHAHAHAHAA!!! Uh, Garth, is it completely lost on you that you're
STILL claiming to speak for people other than yourself?
> >> And if
> >> you don't like it here, why stay?
> >
> > Because I feel it is my responsibility. Do you think doctors "like it
> > here" when they're checking somebody for prostrate cancer, or elbow-deep
> > in blood during surgery, or when all else fails, pulling the proverbial
> > plug? Yet I have to assume that you would not be so presumptuous as to
> > ask them "why stay?".
>
> Well, for one thing, they're getting paid.
Right, and I'm sure that's what's going through their minds: "Meh, pull
the plug, I get my cut either way." But you bring up an important point
that none of us here should forget: the Netscape/AOL/Time Warner/All
Your Base people here are in fact getting paid to work on Mozilla.
> And they're saving lives, and
> as much as I like the Mozilla project I don't have any illusions that a
> browser will save somebody's life.
>
> I think it's awfully presumptuous of you to think of your bitching and
> moaning as anything even remotely as helpful and respectable as being a
> physician.
>
Think back real hard to your first English class Garth (or ask your
older brother): what is a "metaphor"? God.
[snip]
> >> And judging by
> >> the responses you get, I think I'm in the majority on this matter.
> >
> > What you think in that wise is irrelevant. You are not an "elected
> > official" here, are you? You haven't been appointed by Netscape to
> > police these newsgroups for anti-Party activities and speak for the
> > Party, have you? So I think *I'm* in the majority when I say that you
> > have no authority to speak for anyone but yourself when you claim that
> > "we're encouraging you" to not participate in this newsgroup.
>
> I have encouraged you not to participate you in this newsgroup.
Actually, you outright told me to leave.
> Other
> people have too. So my use of the first person plural is perfectly
> justified, even if I'm an unelected official (which should be irrelevant
> anyway, since like all unmoderated newsgroups there is no "government"
> of any kind, democratic or otherwise). If you want to play semantic
> games, go right ahead.
>
Nah, if you want to speak for the Body, go right ahead. The Body will
correct you soon enough I'd imagine. I just think it's freaken'
hi-larious.
> >> You're getting "facts" confused with "opinions" again. You should look
> >> them up.
> >
> > You should look up one in particular, one that's been posted here in
> > fact: nobody's using Netscape 6 or Mozilla. After three years. Then
> > ask yourself "why?".
>
> All those folks who read and post to Mozillazine must be androids then.
"Out of 20,000+ visitors this last week, IE gets 73%, Netscape 4+ gets
16% (steadily dropping) and Moz/N6 is about 0.1% (25 hits out of
20,000+). This is all flavors of Moz and N6." - "benway.com",
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
With a user base of 0.1%, I don't think attibuting it to androids,
aliens, superintelligent dolphins, statistical error, dimpled chads, or
even accidental downloading/installation/use would be unwarranted.
> Same with the people who submit bug reports to bugzilla. Either you're a
> strict solipsist,
The strictist baby!
> or your definition of "nobody" is a little hazy.
Allow me to clarify: Nobody, within a 0.1% margin of error.
Face the facts Garth: Nobody's using Mozilla. And the numbers aren't
growing. Ask yourself why. Then throw out your first answer, because
it's going to be the tired old "oh it's not released yet, even after
three years!" saw, and then ask yourself again.
