JTK wrote:
> Garth Wallace wrote:
>
>> JTK wrote:
>>
>>> 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 did, repeatedly. Are you an amnesiac?
>> 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.
More like throwing sand into it.
>> 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?
I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. However, several other people
have expressed agreement with me, therefore "I and several other people"
is perfectly justified, as is the term "we" (which, you may recall from
Kindergarden, means "I and others"). I'm not speaking for them, because
they've already spoken for themselves.
>>>> 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."
Aside from the Hippocratic Oath, and the threat of medical malpractice
charges, etc...
> 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.
I addressed this in my next sentence:
>> 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.
Bam.
>> 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.
I'm well aware of what a metaphor is, thank you. You, however, seem to
be under the impression that any metaphor you think up is automatically
valid. That is not the case.
>>>> 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.
That certainly counts as encouraging you not to participate. Especially
since this is not a place in any real sense, so "leaving" and ceasing to
participate are essentially synonymous.
>> 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.
Reread the previous replies to this thread. Nearly everyone else has
been arguing against you. You have misplaced faith in your assumption
that you have any support in this newsgroup.
>>>> 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]>
I've never even heard of that site before. And 20,000 visitors/week is
pretty low. Not the best choice for a source of supposedly
representative statistics.
>> Same with the people who submit bug reports to bugzilla. Either you're a
>> strict solipsist,
>
> The strictist baby!
So if we don't exist, why are you writing to us?
>> 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.
Well, if you immediately throw out the facts, it's no wonder that you're
full of crap.
I never said that Mozilla was popular. I said that it wasn't dead.
There's a difference.
