SillyDog701

[Mandrake]

I don't know about copyright laws in Austarlia or the US, but I think that legal actions should be taken on Jay and his site.

That's just ludicrous.

This whole affair is silly, and childish. This should be dealt with in a more professional manner - in private. Using this forum as a means of conducting a "war" against the UFAQ site does you no credit Antony.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3

[Antony]

That's just ludicrous.

This whole affair is silly, and childish. This should be dealt with in a more professional manner - in private. Using this forum as a means of conducting a "war" against the UFAQ site does you no credit Antony.

The entire issue is very open, and I won't beg privately.

SillyDog701 Lounge is open for all topics.
Perhaps, you haven't read this thread, [sdt=8871]UFAQ.org cybersquats SillyDog701[/sdt].

Secretly transposition (e.g. word censoring game) "goofymutt" to "sillydog", and publicly denying it, even being caught by Google's cache. You call that professional?
SillyDog701's response, no word censoring back.

Using domain names "sillydog.info", "sillydog.us" and "sillydog701.org" pointing to their website (read: driving traffic), of course they won't announce such shameful activities. Now being caught by me, they replaced with a warning message on me?

As for a spare domain I registered, I show my courtesies by sending traffic to them FREE of CHARGE, as most likely people coming to that domain name are looking for their website.
The return? they were using domain names that is clearly taking traffic from this well established website and pointed to their own site. (A good example of cybersquatting.)
Now, who should apologise to whom?

Using this forum as a means of conducting a "war" against the UFAQ site does you no credit Antony.

Am I setting up a war?
No, I am simply telling the world the truth. I feel nothing ashamed of telling the world that I was banned for no reasons at all; and I feel proud on mentioning SillyDog701's noble response (of not returning banning favour). As for the other party, he was not brave enough to admit that he cybersquatted SillyDog701 in his own forum. Not just using one domain, but 3 domains. A logical guess, he tried his best keeping quiet on his own site.
I am sorry that you simply can't accept the fact.

I mentioned in [sdp=56719]this post[/sdp], allow me to rephrase it.

I registered those three domains mainly as a joke and in response to Antony's registering of UFAQ.NET and his non-response to my many emails and postings asking him why he registered that domain. Antony has chosen to not respond to that question.

A big lie. Mr Jay Garcia has my email address. I just checked it few hours ago, no new messages from Mr Garcia since last year.
In fact, the formal communication channel is the Feedback page, which Mr Garcia refused to use. As for postings, where did he post to?

Had Mr Jay Garcia sent me any email, I would have responded. The email address I gave Mr. Jay Garcia does not have any spam filtering on. It is the case that he did not contact me either via the email address I gave him or use any other official channel (feedback), and now accusing me of not responding.

And "postings"? Post in where? in which forum or which particular newsgroup?
I am not taking any responsibilities of posting to any forums I don't visit or do not visit often, or messages posted with a subject that is not descriptive.

Again, SillyDog701 condemns UFAQ.org's dirty tactics and unprofessional strategy on misleading people intentionally. SillyDog701 also urges supporters to spread the word about the correct URL ( sillydog.org ).

Demanding me to apologise to the guy who cybersquatted SillyDog701? Too bad, Antony Shen was not born yesterday.

Antony Shen.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[Antony]

This message is in response to Jay Garcia's messages posted in sillydog701.org, sillydog.info, sillydog.us.

This whole thing started as a non-intentional error on my part which I freely admitted when Antony's IP address was mistakenly added to my deny list on the UFAQ. After Antony alerted me to the fact, I immediately removed his IP and he once again had free access.

Let me point out something he did not mention, he did not apologise for blocking me for no reason, but now he demands me to apologise to someone who cybersquatted SillyDog701.

The word censor episode on the UFAQ was done by another admin, I won't say who, not ChrisI "he's not an admin" and it's nobody you know, and when I discovered it myself, I immediately removed it.

Finally he admits there was such a thing. But blames some fictionally person.
Let me point out something he did not mention, He once even blamed Google's cache. The word replacing game (replacing "goofymutt" with "sillydog") was over, and he also removed a number of messages that mentions SillyDog701. I received no apologies for such insult to SillyDog701, but now he demands me to apologise to someone who cybersquatted SillyDog701.

I have reinstated a link to SillyDog in my FAQ LINKS as a show of good faith and no hard-feelings.

Referring to the link "SillyDog701" under their FAQ LINKS section?
The real story about that:
That link was pointed to wrong URL for years, until I commented on secnews. Then the link were corrected, but not last long, it was taken off sometime in November or December last year. For such long period of time, you can see "12 links" but only 11 links available.

I haven't checked that today, but it was not there yesterday I checked. It's not hard to figure out UFAQ.org is simply not willing to provide a link SillyDog701.

SillyDog701 does not need to do this. There are lots of links going out of SillyDog701.

BTW: Thanks Jarrad, your post was right on the money!!

This is clearly shows freedom in speech in SillyDog701. SillyDog701 does allow all different opinions, unlike UFAQ.org censors and deletes messages that are in favour of SillyDog701.

The facts:

• ufaq.net (owned by Antony Shen) provides FREE redirection to UFAQ.org as a courtesy.
• sillydog.info, sillydog.us, sillydog701.org (owned by Jay Garcia) all pointed UFAQ.org until the it was discovered by Antony. They are now replaced by a message.
• SillyDog701 does not have any word censoring of "ufaq.org" or disallowing links to ufaq.org.
• Jay Garcia only recently acknowledged the word censoring ("goofymutt" "sillydog"), he even blamed Google's cache in the past. SillyDog701 is still yet to receive any apologies for such insult.

"sillydog.info", "sillydog.us", "sillydog701.org" were all having the exact spelling of "sillydog" and one is using the name "SillyDog701". The intention of diverting traffic from SillyDog701 ( sillydog.org ) is bluntly clear.

SillyDog701 (sillydog.org) condemns UFAQ.org's unethical behaviour and dirty tactic used to drive people from SillyDog701 (sillydog.org).

SillyDog701's correct URL is sillydog.org.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[DrDean]

I've been following this whole scenario and am not taking sides one way or the other.

Why don't you just take him up on the offer to redirect the three domains back to Sillydog??? And then this whole thing will be resolved.

DrDean

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3

[Antony]

Why don't you just take him up on the offer to redirect the three domains back to Sillydog??? And then this whole thing will be resolved.

DrDean

Thanks DrDean,

I will consider that.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[kourge]

Wow, I can't believe they're doing all this.
It's really unlogical and rude.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; zh-TW; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050226 Firefox/1.0.1

[DrDean]

Thanks DrDean,

I will consider that.

Yes, seems to me to be the way to go. After all, why would the guy make a genuine offer like that if he was as bad a person as you make him out to be? And, I don't know that much about domain hosting and such but doesn't it cost money to host three domains and pay for bandwidth and such and then he's going to "give" you the redirection? Doesn't take rocket science does it.

DrDean

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3

[Antony]

Wow, I can't believe they're doing all this.
It's really unlogical and rude.

It is not the first time they demand me to apologise. I was not born yesterday.

They said that I stirred the things up.
Of course, they are too shameful to list the truth in their own forums about how they cybersquatted SillyDog701.

Well, they said 3 domain names were purely a practical joke. A practical joke with 3 domain names? And all pointed to their self-claimed "Number 1 Site"?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[Antony]

Yes, seems to me to be the way to go.

Except that using SillyDog701's popularity to gain traffic for UFAQ.org is a serious issue. SillyDog701 believes making all such important issues known to public is to the best interests for all. SillyDog701 has nothing to be ashamed of.
And I have a duty to inform people that SillyDog701's correct URL is http://sillydog.org/

After all, why would the guy make a genuine offer like that if he was as bad a person as you make him out to be? And, I don't know that much about domain hosting and such but doesn't it cost money to host three domains and pay for bandwidth and such and then he's going to "give" you the redirection? Doesn't take rocket science does it.

Mr Jay Garcia is having his UFAQ.org and various sites running in his dedicated server. All additional costs to have those additional 3 domain names consisting "sillydog" with clear intention driving SillyDog701 users to UFAQ.org won't cost him any more money except the registration cost of those three domain names as long as his total traffic is under his allowed traffic quota.

Making a genuine offer? Well, he has dropped his unreasonable demands of me to apologise to someone who cybersquatted SillyDog701.

(A screenshot is provided in case he removes it.)

Anyone who's interested to see a saved copy of his previous message please feel free to contact me.

As for a spare domain name I own (ufaq.net), there's no secret business going on. And I provide FREE re-direction to ufaq.org as a courtesy.

Mr Jay Garcia holds three (3) domains (as opposite to just one which shows good courtesy) consisting exact spelling of "sillydog", and pointed to ufaq.org, a clear example of using SillyDog701's popularity to gain traffic. Unofficial Netscape FAQ is a well known Netscape support site, it is a shameful thing that they had to use such dirty tactic to gain additional traffic.

Should any framing or threats from Unofficial Netscape FAQ, SillyDog701 will respond accordingly.

SillyDog701 condemns UFAQ.org's unethical tactic to gain traffic based on SillyDog701's popularity.
SillyDog701's correct URL is http://sillydog.org/

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[DrDean]

Seems to me like it "takes two to tango". This topic is making this forum look really bad whereas on the UFAQ it's strictly business as far as I can tell. I have yet to see a topic OR a post from anyone that slams other support sites. In fact, the UFAQ has a link to SillyDog with a nice little description. I don't understand ... why would this fella with the UFAQ offer to redirect the domains AND provide a nice link to SillyDog if there was so much hate and discontent. Just my .02 !!

Antony, you have a nice site but why ruin it with all this antagonism and display of hate .. not good!

Note: Not taking sides, just reporting my observations as I see them from my perspective as I'm sure a LOT of users are doing the same.

Edit after seeing Antony's latest post:

Antony, what reason is there to steal traffic? And WHY is this a "serious" issue? Do you stand to lose money? Seems to me that Jay has spent money to register the domains and now is offering to redirect those domains FREE of charge at HIS expense. And from what I can tell by reading ALL of the messages here and there that he is not going to redirect the domains to his domain any longer, so what's the problem???

And any "framing" or "threats" from UFAQ? I don't see that happening in the past or now for that matter. I've never seen any such thing on UFAQ and I don't see that happening in the future.

And YOU registered UFAQ.NET out of "courtesy" ?? If you thought there was a future problem with UFAQ.NET why didn't you just alert Jay and let HIM register it. Why don't you simply let him register it? What do YOU have to gain by keeping the domain? Something is not making sense here. In fact why don't you guys form a truce and swap domains - UFAQ.NET goes to Jay and the three domains go to you? I bet he'll go for that if you ask. He already made a nice gesture, why don't YOU make the next move?

You're "condemning" the UFAQ. Maybe there are lots of users "condemning" SillyDog for airing all this in public, ever thought about that?

Sincerely, DrDean

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3

[Antony]

Seems to me like it "takes two to tango". This topic is making this forum look really bad whereas on the UFAQ it's strictly business as far as I can tell. I have yet to see a topic OR a post from anyone that slams other support sites. In fact, the UFAQ has a link to SillyDog with a nice little description. I don't understand ... why would this fella with the UFAQ offer to redirect the domains AND provide a nice link to SillyDog if there was so much hate and discontent. Just my .02 !!

Simply you haven't followed the story for long, and too many things under the table from UFAQ.org.

Antony, you have a nice site but why ruin it with all this antagonism and display of hate .. not good!

Note: Not taking sides, just reporting my observations as I see them from my perspective as I'm sure a LOT of users are doing the same.

I really appreciate your input.
However, you have not been to the both sides long enough I'd say, and you probably don't really know the "dirty secret" behind.

Demanding me to apologise to someone who cybersquatted SillyDog701 is completely out of question.

There's no intention to display any "hate". And I don't hate/loathe them at all. UFAQ.org is a great site I have to say.
However, using domain name clearing driving away traffic from SillyDog701 is a very serious issue. It is my duty to make public aware.

Further, I was fully aware that they've been removing/hiding SillyDog701 link from their links section in December 2004. Did I make any complaints? I could, but I did not.

If you want my version of why they haven't posted any posts regarding such issue, it's not hard to figure out that they are too shameful to publicly announce that ...
* they replaced all words "sillydog" to "goofymutt". That was an insult, and they have yet to apologise. (Jay only recently admitted it, but blamed someone.)
* they cybersquatted SillyDog701.

A fact: They have very strong censoring, and topics in favour of SillyDog701 or heavily referenced to SillyDog701 is in high risk.

"AND provide a nice link to SillyDog"
That link has been hidden for a very long period of time, since sometime in December 2004. It was only recently re-appeared.

No links to UFAQ.org has been censored from SillyDog701. No childish word censoring games from SillyDog701.

SillyDog701 has always showed good gestures of keeping good relationships with them.
However, SillyDog701 has to respond to any insults and threats accordingly, should any of those happen.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[DrDean]

Re: Haven't been around long enough.

Antony, I've been "around" plenty long enough, I just stay out of the limelight and just lurk until I have something to ask or provide input.

Re: Demanding me to apologise

Antony, that's a moot issue, why are you persisting?

Re: driving away traffic from SillyDog701

There is no reason I can see to "drive" traffic from one to the other as BOTH are great sites. And I don't think that was the intention to begin with. What I think is that the three domains were registered in retaliation of you registereing UFAQ.NET and was simply done so as a joke. I also think that the redirection to the UFAQ was not intended to remain as long as it did, probably just an oversight on Jay's part. But I'm guessing but I think I'm correct.

Re: Further, I was fully aware that they've been removing/hiding SillyDog701 link from their links section in December 2004. Did I make any complaints? I could, but I did not.

Again, probably an oversight, who knows. The important thing is that the link is back. If Jay was a "mean person" I don't think he would have added it back in, do you?

Also, I just did a "search" on the UFAQ site and there are 45 instances of SillyDog in forum replies. Doesn't look like "hiding" to me.

Re: they are too shameful to publicly announce that ...

I don't see it that way at all. The UFAQ, from what I can see over the years, is that they don't participate in flaming other sites or start any flames and such, strictly business. Why the "goofymutt" thing, I dunno, probably just some "funny stuff" and was corrected. So what?

Re: A fact: They have very strong censoring, and topics in favour of SillyDog701 or heavily referenced to SillyDog701 is in high risk

Again, I did a search and found 45 references to SillyDog in the replies and such. Doesn't seem like anything "high risk" to me. If they wanted to direct traffic away from SillyDog then why didn't they delete those references, etc. ???

Re: SillyDog701 has always showed good gestures of keeping good relationships with them

Sorry, not that I can see as witnessed by the lack of content on the UFAQ as regards ANY issues with ANY other support site like there is here. I have to take serious issue with you on this one Antony.

Re: However, SillyDog701 has to respond to any insults and threats accordingly, should any of those happen.

Then take it to email like any professional should do. Then, after all is ironed out, then and ONLY then make it public IF both sides agree. That's the way it's done in the "community". That's the way everybody gets along.


Sincerely, DrDean

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3

[Antony]

Re: Haven't been around long enough.

Antony, I've been "around" plenty long enough, I just stay out of the limelight and just lurk until I have something to ask or provide input.

did you read the first page of this thread?
Were you in the secnews (newsgroup) during November 2004 and read posts daily?

Re: driving away traffic from SillyDog701

There is no reason I can see to "drive" traffic from one to the other as BOTH are great sites.

Are you saying that, say, another online bookshop using a domain name similar to amazon.com (e.g. a typo in spelling, or a slight variation in spelling) is not trying to use the reputation and popularity of Amazon to gain business, but only as a joke?

And UFAQ.org's joke requires 3 domains all consisting "sillydog", and one of those even has full "SillyDog701" spelling.
As for a spare domain I registered, I show my courtesies by sending traffic to them FREE of CHARGE, as most likely people coming to that domain name are looking for their website.
The return? they were using domain names that is clearly taking traffic from this well established website and pointed to their own site. (A good example of cybersquatting.)

And I don't think that was the intention to begin with. What I think is that the three domains were registered in retaliation of you registereing UFAQ.NET and was simply done so as a joke.

A joke?
I show my courtesies by sending traffic to them FREE of CHARGE, as most likely people coming to that domain name are looking for their website.

I also think that the redirection to the UFAQ was not intended to remain as long as it did, probably just an oversight on Jay's part. But I'm guessing but I think I'm correct.

Redirecting all three domains consisting "sillydog" to UFAQ.org was what I receive in return of my good gesture.

If Jay was a "mean person" I don't think he would have added it back in, do you?

My guess, Jay might need to restore his image, as I listed nothing untrue.
* Redirecting 3 domains to his website does not seems to be a good "joke" to match my kind gesture.
* They cybersquatted SillyDog701.
* They once censored "sillydog", and for a long period of time, REFUSING to acknowledge that, even blame Google's Cache. (only admitted recently.)
* They banned me. By mistake as Jay said? It would be hard to believe, because the timing was just right after I bought up another SillyDog701 member issue in secnew. And yes, I do know some story about that SD701 member and Jay Garcia.

Re: they are too shameful to publicly announce that ...

I don't see it that way at all. The UFAQ, from what I can see over the years, is that they don't participate in flaming other sites or start any flames and such, strictly business.

they censored (deleted) a lot, in November/December 2004 in particular.
They don't offer freedom of speech, they don't enjoy intelligential debates, they are scared of any tough topics.
Too bad (for them), the person who runs SillyDog701 is welcome all opinions, encourages all debates. SillyDog701 is not afraid to discuss topics they are scared to talk.

Why the "goofymutt" thing, I dunno, probably just some "funny stuff" and was corrected. So what?

You think that was funny?
And refusal to admit that (only admitted it recently)

Re: A fact: They have very strong censoring, and topics in favour of SillyDog701 or heavily referenced to SillyDog701 is in high risk

Again, I did a search and found 45 references to SillyDog in the replies and such. Doesn't seem like anything "high risk" to me. If they wanted to direct traffic away from SillyDog then why didn't they delete those references, etc. ???

they censored (deleted) a lot, in November/December 2004 in particular.

Re: However, SillyDog701 has to respond to any insults and threats accordingly, should any of those happen.

Then take it to email like any professional should do. Then, after all is ironed out, then and ONLY then make it public IF both sides agree. That's the way it's done in the "community". That's the way everybody gets along.

So you reckon that I should beg and grovel?

I redirect UFAQ.net to UFAQ.org FREE of CHARGE, as a courtesy.
Redirecting all three domains consisting "sillydog" to UFAQ.org was what I receive in return of my good gesture.

Did Jay Garcia or any other members of Netscape Champions or Mozilla Champions tell you to post from "observer's point of view" (but pays strong attention to one side of the story)? And all your comment on this unethical and dirty tactic was just "a joke"? Sorry, I have to take serious issue with you on this one DrDean.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[DrDean]

Ok, I'll try to mediate this once more and then its quits for me:

Re: Were you in the secnews (newsgroup) during November 2004 and read posts daily?

Yes, been there since 1997 to be exact. There were issues on BOTH sides that were wrong but no need to bring it up again.

Re: Are you saying that, say, another online bookshop using a domain name similar to amazon.com (e.g. a typo in spelling, or a slight variation in spelling) is not trying to use the reputation and popularity of Amazon to gain business, but only as a joke?

Hmm, are you saying that they are stealing "business"???? Are you selling something ??

Re: As for a spare domain I registered, I show my courtesies by sending traffic to them FREE of CHARGE, as most likely people coming to that domain name are looking for their website.

Then why didn't you give Jay the opportunity to register the domain or even make the "gesture" to allow him to re-register the domain in HIS name instead of yours? Something isn't right with this at all.

Re: I show my courtesies by sending traffic to them FREE of CHARGE

And he is showing courtesy by voluntarily wanting to redirect the three domains to Sillydog. So what's the problem?

Re: Redirecting all three domains consisting "sillydog" to UFAQ.org was what I receive in return of my good gesture.

What GOOD gesture? Registering UFAQ.NET before HE could? C'mon give me a break Antony!!

Re: Jay has to restore his image, as I listed nothing untrue.

I seriously doubt that he is trying to restore anything, only wanting to restore peace, which you seem unwilling to do for some reason.

Re: they censored (deleted) a lot, in November/December 2004 in particular.

You're confusing "deleting" with "pruning". Any good forum moderator with limited space will "prune" old messages. I used to run a UNIX BBS back in the late 1980's and pruning was absolutely necessary. Also ran a FIDONET board as well. When you have limited space you take measures.

Re: You think that was funny?

Yes, funny, you have no sense of humor and no damage done to Sillydog's reputation that I can see. Have you heard from anybody else about that? Was it on the 6 O'Clock News? In the newspaper?

Re: they censored (deleted) a lot, in November/December 2004 in particular

Remember, I mentioned "pruning" !! I think you're being a bit paranoid as regards this issue.

Re: So you reckon that I should beg and grovel?

Absolutely not, just make a polite request, no harm in that.


Re: Did Jay Garcia or any other members of Netscape Champions or Mozilla Champions tell you to post from "observer's point of view" (

I am my own person, nobody tells me to do anything. I'm posting here on my own volition. I figured you were going to say something like this simply because I'm presenting an alternative view .... outta here. Good Luck.

Sincerely, DrDean, MD - Clinical Psychology

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3

[Antony]

Thank you DrDean for your input.

Re: Are you saying that, say, another online bookshop using a domain name similar to amazon.com (e.g. a typo in spelling, or a slight variation in spelling) is not trying to use the reputation and popularity of Amazon to gain business, but only as a joke?

Hmm, are you saying that they are stealing "business"???? Are you selling something ??

Are you saying that I have to charge users money?

Re: As for a spare domain I registered, I show my courtesies by sending traffic to them FREE of CHARGE, as most likely people coming to that domain name are looking for their website.

Then why didn't you give Jay the opportunity to register the domain or even make the "gesture" to allow him to re-register the domain in HIS name instead of yours? Something isn't right with this at all.

something isn't right?

I did not use UFAQ.net for any SillyDog701 content at all.
He used "sillydog.info", "sillydog.us", and "sillydog701.org" for UFAQ.org. He admitted this.

Why didn't Jay show his "genuine offer" by apologise and transfer the domain ownership?

Re: I show my courtesies by sending traffic to them FREE of CHARGE

And he is showing courtesy by voluntarily wanting to redirect the three domains to Sillydog. So what's the problem?

Voluntarily?

He first demanded me to apologise to someone who cybersquatted SillyDog701. You call that "voluntarily"?

He then dropped the unreasonable request of me to apologise, and still requiring me to "ask politely".

I show my courtesy without him to request at all.

Re: Redirecting all three domains consisting "sillydog" to UFAQ.org was what I receive in return of my good gesture.

What GOOD gesture? Registering UFAQ.NET before HE could? C'mon give me a break Antony!!

I did not use UFAQ.net for any of SillyDog701 content, as to benefit SillyDog701.
Unlike what he has done.
And you call his registering 3 domain names + used them to direct traffic to UFAQ.org is a good gesture?

Re: Jay has to restore his image, as I listed nothing untrue.

I seriously doubt that he is trying to restore anything, only wanting to restore peace, which you seem unwilling to do for some reason.

That was my guess.

Re: they censored (deleted) a lot, in November/December 2004 in particular.

You're confusing "deleting" with "pruning". Any good forum moderator with limited space will "prune" old messages. I used to run a UNIX BBS back in the late 1980's and pruning was absolutely necessary. Also ran a FIDONET board as well. When you have limited space you take measures.

I know what pruning is. Thanks.

Re: You think that was funny?

Yes, funny, you have no sense of humor and no damage done to Sillydog's reputation that I can see. Have you heard from anybody else about that? Was it on the 6 O'Clock News? In the newspaper?

I am good sense of humour, and I know what is right and what is not.

Re: they censored (deleted) a lot, in November/December 2004 in particular

Remember, I mentioned "pruning" !! I think you're being a bit paranoid as regards this issue.

Did you come across the case that your message were mysteriously deleted. When you then ask for explanation, all you received was flood of attack?

Re: So you reckon that I should beg and grovel?

Absolutely not, just make a polite request, no harm in that.

Good. I don't beg and grovel in situation like this.

Re: Did Jay Garcia or any other members of Netscape Champions or Mozilla Champions tell you to post from "observer's point of view" (

I am my own person, nobody tells me to do anything. I'm posting here on my own volition. I figured you were going to say something like this simply because I'm presenting an alternative view .... outta here. Good Luck.

Sincerely, DrDean, MD - Clinical Psychology

Thank you for presenting an alternative view. Very much appreciated.
If your similar "alternative view" (but not in favour of Jay or UFAQ.org) won't be allowed in UFAQ.org at all, the difference is that, you are allowed and encouraged to post so in SillyDog701 Again, an excellent example of SillyDog701 not censoring any opinions/views.
And simply SillyDog701 does not do any unethical or plotting any dirty tactics, SillyDog701 feels so proud to talk everything transparent. Unlike the other site.

FACT:
* They redirected 3 domains to his website.
* They cybersquatted SillyDog701.
* They once censored "sillydog", and for a long period of time, REFUSING to acknowledge that, even blame Google's Cache. (only admitted recently.)
* They banned me.

Antony Shen.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412