SillyDog701

[ChrisI]

Antony; just so I know for next time:
If I run into an application or add-on, that I have no reason to try, yet feel that the people here might want to try, should I not bother telling people here about it?

It may be safer, ..

It will always be safer not to post about it at all; but I just want to know if it's not wanted here, especially considering one must be a part of the testers group to participate.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514

[Fulvio]

Antony; just so I know for next time:
If I run into an application or add-on, that I have no reason to try, yet feel that the people here might want to try, should I not bother telling people here about it?

It may be safer, ..

It will always be safer not to post about it at all; but I just want to know if it's not wanted here, especially considering one must be a part of the testers group to participate.

Then, why do you ask? Unless you direct people to a testing link.
I just wish you would not drag me in what is an obvious hostile situation.

From now on, if both Antony and Chris post, I refrain from comments.
This newsgroup has become increasingly unpleasant.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

[ChrisI]

Then, why do you ask? Unless you direct people to a testing link.

I ask, because I was told not to post about it without testing it first. If I run into a situation like Mozptch again, I want to know how to judge whether or not it is appropriate to post a link here. It's not a matter of "what is safer". It's a matter of where is the line that determines "not safe enough"? I don't want to get in trouble, when posting here.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040625 Netscape/7.2 (Solon)