In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garth Wallace says...
>
>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?
>
Must be. I've been asking Netscape to pull the plug so we can bury the body.
Not quite the same thing.
>
>>> 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.
>
So my posting is somehow preventing people from working on Maozilla's biggest
problems, i.e. crazy memory hoggage and slowness?
[snip]
>I'm not speaking for anyone but myself.
Not until the next sentence!
> 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.
>
Whatever Garth, if you want to speak for the People's Browser Community go right
ahead.
[snip overanalysis of my simple medical metaphor]
>Bam.
>
Ok, nothing there made a bit of sense. Moving on:
>
>>> 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.
>
In this case it was. In fact, I can't remember a time when it wasn't 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.
>
Hey, I love to play endless semantic games as much as the next guy, but if you*
don't mind, or even if you* do, I'm gonna stick around a while.
*That's of course the plural form, since you're speaking for the Body.
[snip]
>Reread the previous replies to this thread. Nearly everyone else has
>been arguing against you.
Boy, you said it! Sure are a lot of misguided folks out there.
> You have misplaced faith in your assumption
>that you have any support in this newsgroup.
>
Heheheheheh! You have a misplaced assumption that I have any faith as to my
support in this newsgroup:
"For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love
one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's
righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." - 1 John 3:11-13
I know the Valley through which I walk all too well Garth.
[snip]
>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.
>
Ah, don't worry, Mozilla isn't even 1.0 yet!
BAHAHHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!
>>> 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?
>
Touche.
>
>>> 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.
I never said Mozilla was dead. I said it'd be better off dead.
There's a difference.
--
JTK
