Moderator: Don_HH2K
by Wellander » Sat 12 Jun, 2004 1:59 am
by Antony » Sat 12 Jun, 2004 4:15 am
Don't know.Wellander wrote:Will CCK of Netscape 7.2 be possible?
I assume you meant CCK for Netscape 7.2.Wellander wrote:If there are no Netscape 7.2 how are we all going to do it?
Well, besides SillyDog701's leading Streamline Series which was first released in August 2001 (Netscape 6.1), there is another customised build which seems to be created [sdt=5369]without the usage of the CCK[/sdt].Wellander wrote:Was it diffucult with 7.1?
by ChrisI » Sat 12 Jun, 2004 1:32 pm
You'll notice that non of those comments were definitive statements, that really told users anything. They just let the user's imagination run wild.Antony wrote:As a personal suggestion to everybody, you [sdp=29618]can't even trust those Champions[/sdp]. (Evidenced by [sdp=29618]this[/sdp], [sdp=29787]this[/sdp], and [sdp=29848]this[/sdp])
by Don_HH2K » Sat 12 Jun, 2004 9:37 pm
Edward wrote:Since Mozilla is now open-source, I couldn't see why a CCK couldn't be developed/released for Mozilla.
If one currently exists, I'm not aware of it.
by Antony » Sat 12 Jun, 2004 9:53 pm
In [sdp=29587]this Important Rules and Policies[/sdp], it is mentioned clearly [b]“no April fool jokes in any technical support sections.â€ChrisI wrote:You'll notice that non of those comments were definitive statements, that really told users anything. They just let the user's imagination run wild.Antony wrote:As a personal suggestion to everybody, you [sdp=29618]can't even trust those Champions[/sdp]. (Evidenced by [sdp=29618]this[/sdp], [sdp=29787]this[/sdp], and [sdp=29848]this[/sdp])
by ChrisI » Sun 13 Jun, 2004 2:10 am
In [sdp=29587]this Important Rules and Policies[/sdp], it is mentioned clearly [b]“no April fool jokes in any technical support sections.â€Antony wrote:ChrisI wrote:You'll notice that non of those comments were definitive statements, that really told users anything. They just let the user's imagination run wild.Antony wrote:As a personal suggestion to everybody, you [sdp=29618]can't even trust those Champions[/sdp]. (Evidenced by [sdp=29618]this[/sdp], [sdp=29787]this[/sdp], and [sdp=29848]this[/sdp])
by Antony » Sun 13 Jun, 2004 5:42 am
by DJGM » Sun 13 Jun, 2004 6:18 am
Antony wrote:As for MozillaZine part, there are plenty of "active" Mozilla users
who happened to loathe Netscape. Not all of them, but quite a lot.
by ChrisI » Sun 13 Jun, 2004 11:03 pm
No Antony, how did you know it was an April fools joke? I didn't ask when you doubted it.Antony wrote:doubted that when I first saw it.ChrisI wrote:How did you know it was an April Fools joke?
And I don't need your reminder, I do remember the April Fools joke 2003 by Holger. Hence I mentioned clearly SillyDog701's technical sections are not for stupid jokes.
If you honestly believe that's what the Champs do all year round, you're an idiot.Antony wrote:Some people like to make fun by fooling others ended up demeaning themselves. Don't blame me.ChrisI wrote:Should Champs not be trusted with anything at any other time of the year?
You're still mistaking it.Antony wrote:Everyone can clearly see the post in his UFAQ.org forum and secnews are completely oppositeChrisI wrote:When Jay posted an update, you mistook it as a contradiction.contradiction.
Then why tell them who not to trust? Looks like you don't believe they know.Antony wrote:Sure, I believe majority of SillyDog701 users know who they cannot trust.ChrisI wrote:Lets hope they learnt their lesson.Antony wrote:Well, some people demeaned themselves.ChrisI wrote:If you don't want to trust us, don't; but I encourage those of you to read the "evidence".
And I believe at least [sdp=29622]DJGM agrees with me[/sdp].
Err, I said "When I say 'wait until April 2nd'..."Antony wrote:It did not assume anything? I doubt how many people read it that way back then.ChrisI wrote:When I say "wait until April 2nd", don't assume anything.
If anything, waiting until April 2nd confirmed that the new announcement about Netscape was not an April Fools joke.
Then what about this bit...[sdp=29848]ChrisI[/sdp] wrote:"Wait until April 2nd" was my way not ruling anything out, while keeping the joke alive, ...
Antony wrote:[sdt=338]UserAgent string[/sdt] along the posts in not a difficult thing to add. However, it has been one of the unique features of SillyDog701, ever since the old message board.ChrisI wrote:I didn't pass on correct info?Antony wrote:Netscape Browser Archive will soon celebrate its 5th year anniversary. Over those years, SillyDog701 has been working hard on providing support to many different range of users. SillyDog701 does believe passing on correct information/knowledge is far more important than making fun or stealing attention by fooling others or creating false hope.
It is very obviously to most technical-mind people, such [sdt=338]UserAgent[/sdt] displayed along the posts is to help the support. Never was it designed to fool other members.
It is very fair to say using SillyDog701's unique feature to fool other members is something with very bad intention. Such behaviour can be considered as abusing SillyDog701's resources.
I can't predict how people will take my statements. Why should I not be trusted, and you be above the law?Antony wrote:Why not?ChrisI wrote:BTW, why did you make that amendment to the forum rules during the fifth year?
I am not perfect, and I can't predict everything in the beginning.
Many things happened over those years, the rules, users' privileges and permissions and many others should be adjusted from time to time.
What's wrong with that?
That's it? That's supposed to translate to "SillyDog never has good relationships with MozillaZine"? What does that have to do with Sillydog at all; and why should a few people on Mozillazine be your representation of what Mozillazine is? I'm a Sillydog user. Do I represent Sillydog? Once again, you're LEAPING to conclusions. Any quotes from Jason?Antony wrote:Did I say anything wrong? Bad assumption?ChrisI wrote:Here's what I don't get: why do you keep claiming that? Knowing you, it could very well be a bad assumption on your part. And if it is true, why are you proud of it?Antony wrote:SillyDog701 never has good relationships with other major communities including MozillaZine and Netscape's secure newsgroups (secnews). Not even UFAQ.org.
As for MozillaZine part, there are plenty of "active" Mozilla users who happened to loathe Netscape. Not all of them, but quite a lot.
I've seen no evidence of this, although you don't establish who "they" are.Antony wrote:Netscape's newsgroups (secnews)?
They like to mention other resources but SillyDog701's.
This brings up another question. Why should there be any relations at all? If what you mean by "relationship" is user support volunteers citing Sillydog resources, you should note that there is a large crossover in user support personnel between Sillydog and the UFAQ. Many of the same faces (or I guess avatars).Antony wrote:UFAQ.org?
Never noticed any relationship between UFAQ.org and SillyDog701. In fact I saw no mention of SillyDog701 at all.
It sounds more to me like you want to be an outcast, just to play up the independent success, "we beat the odds", "the man is trying to keep me down" angle. You're certainly encouraging it.Antony wrote:Why am I proud of it?
From a relatively unknown website to today's community, although still no where near the MozillaZine, SillyDog701 came through a difficult way. SillyDog701 have today's success without many of those big name's support. SillyDog701's achievement is what I am very proud of. Why shall I not mention it?
Okay, what does the previous part have to do with this discussion (which is whether or not to trust the Champs)?Antony wrote:That was an addition to previous part - no relationships with other major Netscape/Mozilla communities, sadly.ChrisI wrote:What does that have to do with this discussion?Antony wrote:SillyDog701 tried, but failed. But SillyDog701 survived, and SillyDog701 has grown a lot.
Not related to this discussion.Antony wrote:I am very proud that I switched to Mac.ChrisI wrote:From previous discussions we've had, it is clear to me that you can't access secnews, because you won't use a news client that supports SSL.
Well, what's your setup?Antony wrote: When I got back to my Windows machine, I still can't make any posts to secnews. I could view the newsgroup threads, but can't post any. No settings have been changed, I used to be able to post in secnews few years back.
There's no reason to.Antony wrote:Perhaps I missed "About SillyDog701" before that paragraph, I will do that next time.ChrisI wrote:Why can't you let the site sell itself? People don't browse to Sillydog to read adverts for Sillydog.
And what's wrong with mentioning it?
I never answered the question, but thanks for jumping to conclusions...again.Antony wrote:So SillyDog701 is not as good as I said? Sorry, you don't agree.ChrisI wrote:If Sillydog is as good as you say it is, why do you feel the need to keep reminding people?
How, in the world, is this discussion related to your recommendation not to trust the Champs?Antony wrote:In most Press Release there's a section about the company itself, including Netscape's Press Release. I don't mention that in every single post, but only when the post is related to SillyDog701 itself.
by Antony » Mon 14 Jun, 2004 11:19 pm
When I first saw it, I pretty much sure it must be an April Fools joke. And I patiently wait to see if it really was.ChrisI wrote:No Antony, how did you know it was an April fools joke? I didn't ask when you doubted it.Antony wrote:doubted that when I first saw it.ChrisI wrote:How did you know it was an April Fools joke?
And I don't need your reminder, I do remember the April Fools joke 2003 by Holger. Hence I mentioned clearly SillyDog701's technical sections are not for stupid jokes.
When someone demeaned himself or herself, don't blame me, and don't call me an idiot.ChrisI wrote:If you honestly believe that's what the Champs do all year round, you're an idiot.Antony wrote:Some people like to make fun by fooling others ended up demeaning themselves. Don't blame me.ChrisI wrote:Should Champs not be trusted with anything at any other time of the year?
I read [sdp=29622]DJGM's post[/sdp].ChrisI wrote:In fact, if you read DJGM's post, you'll notice that he questions the validity of the UA.
I am pretty much sure he agrees with me that unhappy about being fooled more than questioning the validity of UserAgent String.[sdp=29622]DJGM[/sdp] wrote:If these reports of a forthcoming new Netscape release, turns out to be an elaborate (but
cruel) April Fool's joke, IMHO the person responsible, needs to be taken outside and shot!
When had I ever above the law?ChrisI wrote:I can't predict how people will take my statements. Why should I not be trusted, and you be above the law?Antony wrote:Why not?ChrisI wrote:BTW, why did you make that amendment to the forum rules during the fifth year?
I am not perfect, and I can't predict everything in the beginning.
Many things happened over those years, the rules, users' privileges and permissions and many others should be adjusted from time to time.
What's wrong with that?
Nothing, but since somewhere I mentioned SillyDog701, I shall add the About SillyDog701 statement at end of that particular post.ChrisI wrote:How, in the world, is this discussion related to your recommendation not to trust the Champs?Antony wrote:In most Press Release there's a section about the company itself, including Netscape's Press Release. I don't mention that in every single post, but only when the post is related to SillyDog701 itself.
by ChrisI » Tue 15 Jun, 2004 2:56 pm
Let me put it this way; if I hadn't clarified it, how would you have proven it?Antony wrote:When I first saw it, I pretty much sure it must be an April Fools joke. And I patiently wait to see if it really was.ChrisI wrote:No Antony, how did you know it was an April fools joke? I didn't ask when you doubted it.
And I was right.
Well, do you honestly believe that's what the Champs do all year round?Antony wrote:When someone demeaned himself or herself, don't blame me, and don't call me an idiot.ChrisI wrote:If you honestly believe that's what the Champs do all year round, you're an idiot.Antony wrote:Some people like to make fun by fooling others ended up demeaning themselves. Don't blame me.
You keep on highlighting the wrong text. He said "If these reports of a forthcoming new Netscape release, turns out to be an...April Fool's joke,..." The reports weren't a joke, and I didn't report a thing.Antony wrote:I read [sdp=29622]DJGM's post[/sdp].ChrisI wrote:In fact, if you read DJGM's post, you'll notice that he questions the validity of the UA.I am pretty much sure he agrees with me that unhappy about being fooled more than questioning the validity of UserAgent String.[sdp=29622]DJGM[/sdp] wrote:If these reports of a forthcoming new Netscape release, turns out to be an elaborate (but
cruel) April Fool's joke, IMHO the person responsible, needs to be taken outside and shot!
There's a difference between unquestionable trust, and no trust at all. Some people's words contain more weight than others. It's not black and white. There are varying degrees of trust. Saying you dared to question Mozilla documentation, is like saying you dared to check your car's oil. It's not something that is required to be done often, but you should still do it from time to time, especially if you think something is wrong.Antony wrote:I told other people certain member should not be trusted simply there were evidences. Just like what I was trying to say in [sdt=5451]that thread[/sdt]... Mozilla.org's documentation is not bible, have to be verified.
And same goes to those Champions' words. People should not take them as words from Bible.
Shall I mention sebaceous cysts for no reason, then elaborate on that?Antony wrote:Nothing, but since somewhere I mentioned SillyDog701, I shall add the About SillyDog701 statement at end of that particular post.ChrisI wrote:How, in the world, is this discussion related to your recommendation not to trust the Champs?
Registered users: Google [Bot]
| [SillyDog701 home] [Netscape] [download NS] [MozInfo701] [MacCentre701] [Feedback] [Search] [Sitemap] All messages posted in this forum do not necessarily represent SillyDog701. This forum is operated by Antony Shen. All rights reserved. Copyright Notice. Privacy Statement. |
  |
