Who gives a rats'?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
101 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Who gives a rats'?

John McGaw-2
So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that their
intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read about them?
Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will notice your presence or
absence.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Morgana-2
On 07-Apr-2014 11:39, John McGaw wrote:
> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
> these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that
> their intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read
> about them? Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will notice your
> presence or absence.

+1
Fully agree with your statement.

--
M.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Morgana-2
On 07-Apr-2014 11:52, Morgana wrote:

> On 07-Apr-2014 11:39, John McGaw wrote:
>> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
>> these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that
>> their intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read
>> about them? Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will notice your
>> presence or absence.
>
> +1
> Fully agree with your statement.
>

..and the *delete* key starting to show some wear.

--
M.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by John McGaw-2
On 4/7/2014 10:39 AM, John McGaw wrote:
> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
> these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that
> their intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read
> about them? Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will notice your
> presence or absence.

You may not care, but I value the interactions I have enjoyed with some
of those who have chosen to leave, for several years, and I feel pretty
impacted by this.  So if you don't care, that's fine, but don't conclude
that others won't care, because we DO.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by John McGaw-2
John McGaw wrote:
> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
> these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that
> their intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read
> about them? Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will notice your
> presence or absence.

Where I come from, which is CA, home of:

  - long standing, since the 90s, Domestic Partnerships, felt to be the
'equivalent' of Civil Unions for heterosexual and homosexual unions
which were not marriage in the traditional sense

  - Proposition 22 in 2000, a law passed by the majority of Californians
by initiative to restrict the term marriage to same sex couples -
subsequently struck down by CA Supreme Court

  - Proposition 8 in 2008, an amendment to the CA constitution passed by
the majority of Californians to 'fix' the constitution so that it ALSO
said that the term marriage was between a man and a woman.

  - there was 'enormous' involvement on both sides of the Prop 8 issue;
and since CA is a 'red' and 'progressive' state, the involvement against
was not based on any kind of intolerance, but instead based on a respect
for the traditional definition of marriage and the sense that domestic
partnerships were 'fine'.

  - IMO the CA voters believed that the Domestic Partnerships laws for
civil unions could take care of partnerships which were not traditional
man-woman marriage, while the judges felt that since the people
supported civil unions that laws and consitutional amendments should not
prohibit using the marriage term

  - Brendan Eich was on the traditional marriage side of Prop 8 in 2008
and contributed $1000.  So were the majority of Californians, President
Obama (not contributing to Prop 8, but marriage between man/woman) and a
lot of others

  - A lot of people feel that the reaction to Eich's history of
contributing to the Prop 8 campaign is/was a form of intolerance which
intolerance was NOT a part of the contribution or the campaign itself,
and that Eich should not have been driven out by the lynchmob mentality
which was unjustified.

  - The flurry of activity by these drive-by posters is apparently a
reflection of that anger.  Possibly some of those posters are more
anti-gay than Prop 8 was, which I do not feel Prop 8 was intolerant or
anti-gay, but rather pro-traditional marriage and 'satisfied' with the
concept of CA's strong, positive, Domestic Partnership laws.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Ann Watson-5
In reply to this post by Morgana-2
On 07/04/2014 11:55 AM, Morgana wrote:

>
> ..and the *delete* key starting to show some wear.
>
You "delete" newsgroup posts?  Why not just mark them as "read" and set
the group to only show "unread" messages?
--
AW
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 4/7/2014 12:43 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

> John McGaw wrote:
>> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
>> these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that
>> their intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read
>> about them? Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will notice your
>> presence or absence.
>
> Where I come from, which is CA, home of:
>
>   - long standing, since the 90s, Domestic Partnerships, felt to be the
> 'equivalent' of Civil Unions for heterosexual and homosexual unions
> which were not marriage in the traditional sense
>
>   - Proposition 22 in 2000, a law passed by the majority of Californians
> by initiative to restrict the term marriage to same sex couples -
> subsequently struck down by CA Supreme Court
>
>   - Proposition 8 in 2008, an amendment to the CA constitution passed by
> the majority of Californians to 'fix' the constitution so that it ALSO
> said that the term marriage was between a man and a woman.
>
>   - there was 'enormous' involvement on both sides of the Prop 8 issue;
> and since CA is a 'red' and 'progressive' state, the involvement against
> was not based on any kind of intolerance, but instead based on a respect
> for the traditional definition of marriage and the sense that domestic
> partnerships were 'fine'.
>
>   - IMO the CA voters believed that the Domestic Partnerships laws for
> civil unions could take care of partnerships which were not traditional
> man-woman marriage, while the judges felt that since the people
> supported civil unions that laws and consitutional amendments should not
> prohibit using the marriage term
>
>   - Brendan Eich was on the traditional marriage side of Prop 8 in 2008
> and contributed $1000.  So were the majority of Californians, President
> Obama (not contributing to Prop 8, but marriage between man/woman) and a
> lot of others
>
>   - A lot of people feel that the reaction to Eich's history of
> contributing to the Prop 8 campaign is/was a form of intolerance which
> intolerance was NOT a part of the contribution or the campaign itself,
> and that Eich should not have been driven out by the lynchmob mentality
> which was unjustified.
>
>   - The flurry of activity by these drive-by posters is apparently a
> reflection of that anger.  Possibly some of those posters are more
> anti-gay than Prop 8 was, which I do not feel Prop 8 was intolerant or
> anti-gay, but rather pro-traditional marriage and 'satisfied' with the
> concept of CA's strong, positive, Domestic Partnership laws.
>
>
All this over the definition of a word.  Why not just find another word,
and most of us would be perfectly happy to let people do what they want,
as long as they don't harm others.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
Mike Easter wrote:

> since CA is a 'red' and 'progressive' state,

I meant CA is a blue and progressive state.

Blue because:
  CA voted dem for president in all of the last 4 elections, margin of
victory >20% consistently
  2 dem US senators
  mostly dem US representatives
  currently dem governor


It has been a long time since CA had Ronald Reagan for governor.



--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Morgana-2
In reply to this post by Ann Watson-5
On 07-Apr-2014 13:48, Annailis wrote:
> On 07/04/2014 11:55 AM, Morgana wrote:
>
>>
>> ..and the *delete* key starting to show some wear.
>>
> You "delete" newsgroup posts?  Why not just mark them as "read" and set
> the group to only show "unread" messages?

Because I want them gone for good not just hidden.

--
M.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Mike Easter-2
Morgana wrote:

> Annailis wrote:
>> Morgana wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ..and the *delete* key starting to show some wear.
>>>
>> You "delete" newsgroup posts?  Why not just mark them as "read" and set
>> the group to only show "unread" messages?
>
> Because I want them gone for good not just hidden.

One can't discuss that without getting into 'semantics', as if semantics
weren't important or something.

Since the news message you 'delete' is only deleted from your view and
is not deleted from the news server from which you got your view of what
is on the server; and since the default mode of Tb is to not retain ANY
of the newsgroup messages but only an index of the messages you have
chosen/configured to have in your view of the group's messages which are
*on the server* available to be accessed to be viewed for their content,
then to me the term 'delete' does not mean the same thing that it means
if you delete a mail message which you have accessed from a pop server
and deleted from the server on download and now/subsequently also
deleted from your Tb stores.

So, in reality, Tb's concept of deleting a news message is just another
way of hiding the news message's availability to you.  It is still there
on the server where it always was, and is not 'there' in your Tb which
it never was, except in the cache or the headers in the thread pane view.

However, the argument could certainly be made that using Tb's delete on
a news message is different from using Tb's mark as read on a news message.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

»Q«
In reply to this post by John McGaw-2
In <news:[hidden email]>,
John McGaw <no.where@all> wrote:

> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all
> of these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe
> that their intentions are so important that anybody else will care to
> read about them? Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will
> notice your presence or absence.

IMO, the "I'm leaving" ones are feeling the need to express legitimate
anger, though it's misdirected at Mozilla.  Whether or not expressing
it here has any impact is beside the point.  And of course anyone who
doesn't want to read it doesn't have to.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

responder-2
In reply to this post by John McGaw-2
On 4/7/2014 11:39 AM, John McGaw wrote:
> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
> these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that
> their intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read
> about them? Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will notice your
> presence or absence.


I couldn't agree with you more.

I suppose their ranting is to acclaim their self importance, not
realizing that no one will notice or care who they are or what they use
for a browser.

Again, those long goodbyes..
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

»Q«
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
In <news:[hidden email]>,
Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All this over the definition of a word.  Why not just find another
> word, and most of us would be perfectly happy to let people do what
> they want, as long as they don't harm others.

That's a great idea.  I suggest you stop calling the person formerly
known as your wife by some other word.  Problem solved?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

s|b-2
In reply to this post by John McGaw-2
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:39:33 -0400, John McGaw wrote:

> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
> these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that their
> intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read about them?

My kill filters are doing overtime these days. <g> I'm in for the
programs, not for the people (or their opinions).

--
s|b
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Morgana-2
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 07-Apr-2014 14:20, Mike Easter wrote:

> Morgana wrote:
>> Annailis wrote:
>>> Morgana wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ..and the *delete* key starting to show some wear.
>>>>
>>> You "delete" newsgroup posts?  Why not just mark them as "read" and set
>>> the group to only show "unread" messages?
>>
>> Because I want them gone for good not just hidden.
>
> One can't discuss that without getting into 'semantics', as if semantics
> weren't important or something.
>
> Since the news message you 'delete' is only deleted from your view and
> is not deleted from the news server from which you got your view of what
> is on the server; and since the default mode of Tb is to not retain ANY
> of the newsgroup messages but only an index of the messages you have
> chosen/configured to have in your view of the group's messages which are
> *on the server* available to be accessed to be viewed for their content,
> then to me the term 'delete' does not mean the same thing that it means
> if you delete a mail message which you have accessed from a pop server
> and deleted from the server on download and now/subsequently also
> deleted from your Tb stores.
>
> So, in reality, Tb's concept of deleting a news message is just another
> way of hiding the news message's availability to you.  It is still there
> on the server where it always was, and is not 'there' in your Tb which
> it never was, except in the cache or the headers in the thread pane view.
>
> However, the argument could certainly be made that using Tb's delete on
> a news message is different from using Tb's mark as read on a news message.
>
>

The way I understand it, is that after downloading posts when I *Delete*
a post it means it's gone from *my* computer HD but still on the server
and to get those deleted posts back I have to re-subscribe to the news
group.

But when I *Cancel* *my* post it means that it is removed from the
server and nobody else can see it again unless it was downloaded before
I had a chance to cancel it.

So after I've downloaded posts I can do whatever I want with it. Cancel,
delete, mark read Etc. Etc.... and if I delete it, it's because I don't
want to see that post ever again. :-)

--
M.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Ann Watson-5
In reply to this post by »Q«
On 07/04/2014 2:51 PM, »Q« wrote:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> All this over the definition of a word.  Why not just find another
>> word, and most of us would be perfectly happy to let people do what
>> they want, as long as they don't harm others.
>
> That's a great idea.  I suggest you stop calling the person formerly
> known as your wife by some other word.  Problem solved?
>

"spouse" is a perfectly good word.
--
AW
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

s|b-2
In reply to this post by Morgana-2
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:55:56 -0400, Morgana wrote:

> ..and the *delete* key starting to show some wear.

I simply create filters (Ctrl+K) that disappear after 5 days of
inactivity.

--
s|b
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

James Silverton-3
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 4/7/2014 1:58 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 4/7/2014 12:43 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>> John McGaw wrote:
>>> So many posters, so much puffed-up indignant self-importance. Do all of
>>> these _I'm staying_ and _I'm leaving_ writers actually believe that
>>> their intentions are so important that anybody else will care to read
>>> about them? Do what you want; in all likelihood nobody will notice your
>>> presence or absence.
>>
>> Where I come from, which is CA, home of:
>>
>>   - long standing, since the 90s, Domestic Partnerships, felt to be the
>> 'equivalent' of Civil Unions for heterosexual and homosexual unions
>> which were not marriage in the traditional sense
>>
>>   - Proposition 22 in 2000, a law passed by the majority of Californians
>> by initiative to restrict the term marriage to same sex couples -
>> subsequently struck down by CA Supreme Court
>>
>>   - Proposition 8 in 2008, an amendment to the CA constitution passed by
>> the majority of Californians to 'fix' the constitution so that it ALSO
>> said that the term marriage was between a man and a woman.
>>
>>   - there was 'enormous' involvement on both sides of the Prop 8 issue;
>> and since CA is a 'red' and 'progressive' state, the involvement against
>> was not based on any kind of intolerance, but instead based on a respect
>> for the traditional definition of marriage and the sense that domestic
>> partnerships were 'fine'.
>>
>>   - IMO the CA voters believed that the Domestic Partnerships laws for
>> civil unions could take care of partnerships which were not traditional
>> man-woman marriage, while the judges felt that since the people
>> supported civil unions that laws and consitutional amendments should not
>> prohibit using the marriage term
>>
>>   - Brendan Eich was on the traditional marriage side of Prop 8 in 2008
>> and contributed $1000.  So were the majority of Californians, President
>> Obama (not contributing to Prop 8, but marriage between man/woman) and a
>> lot of others
>>
>>   - A lot of people feel that the reaction to Eich's history of
>> contributing to the Prop 8 campaign is/was a form of intolerance which
>> intolerance was NOT a part of the contribution or the campaign itself,
>> and that Eich should not have been driven out by the lynchmob mentality
>> which was unjustified.
>>
>>   - The flurry of activity by these drive-by posters is apparently a
>> reflection of that anger.  Possibly some of those posters are more
>> anti-gay than Prop 8 was, which I do not feel Prop 8 was intolerant or
>> anti-gay, but rather pro-traditional marriage and 'satisfied' with the
>> concept of CA's strong, positive, Domestic Partnership laws.
>>
>>
> All this over the definition of a word.  Why not just find another word,
> and most of us would be perfectly happy to let people do what they want,
> as long as they don't harm others.
>
I tend to agree with you and, being widowed, I realize the advantages of
having a legally registered partner. It's only when you have to do
things yourself that you find out how valuable are some things like
support in illness and division of responsibilities.

--

James Silverton ( NOT not.jim.silverton)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Morgana-2
Morgana wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Morgana wrote:

>>> Because I want them gone for good not just hidden.
>>
>> One can't discuss that without getting into 'semantics', as if semantics
>> weren't important or something.

>> So, in reality, Tb's concept of deleting a news message is just another
>> way of hiding the news message's availability to you.  It is still there
>> on the server where it always was, and is not 'there' in your Tb which
>> it never was, except in the cache or the headers in the thread pane view.

> The way I understand it, is that after downloading posts when I *Delete*
> a post it means it's gone from *my* computer HD but still on the server
> and to get those deleted posts back I have to re-subscribe to the news
> group.

The default configuration of Tb is that NONE (except cached see below)
of the news messages you read go into Tb's stores on your hdd.  Any time
you want to read a news message which you have read in the 'past', Tb
has to access that message from the server *again* and download it to
its cache *again* so that you can read it.  However, if you *just* read
that message very very recently, then that message is still in Tb's
cache and would not have to be downloaded again.

> But when I *Cancel* *my* post it means that it is removed from the
> server and nobody else can see it again unless it was downloaded before
> I had a chance to cancel it.

I would say ALL (virtually, and with the cancel-key exceptions) news
servers do NOT act on your cancel message.  Or NO news servers act on
your cancel message, but many news servers DO propagate your cancel
message.  That is because /normal/ cancel messages lend themselves to abuse.

*However* a fair number of servers such as eternal-september and
news.individual.net DO honor cancel-key messages.  The cancel-key works
to prevent the abuse of cancel messages and does allow you to remove
your own message if you posted it to such as either of those two servers
and cancel via either of those two servers -- or other servers similarly
honoring the cancel-key system.

> So after I've downloaded posts I can do whatever I want with it. Cancel,
> delete, mark read Etc. Etc.... and if I delete it, it's because I don't
> want to see that post ever again. :-)

I understand perfectly well why you use the delete function.  I'm just
'quibbling' about (discussing) the semantics of it.



--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Who gives a rats'?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 4/7/2014 1:20 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Morgana wrote:
>> Annailis wrote:
>>> Morgana wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ..and the *delete* key starting to show some wear.
>>>>
>>> You "delete" newsgroup posts?  Why not just mark them as "read" and set
>>> the group to only show "unread" messages?
>>
>> Because I want them gone for good not just hidden.
>
> One can't discuss that without getting into 'semantics', as if semantics
> weren't important or something.
>
> Since the news message you 'delete' is only deleted from your view and
> is not deleted from the news server from which you got your view of what
> is on the server; and since the default mode of Tb is to not retain ANY
> of the newsgroup messages but only an index of the messages you have
> chosen/configured to have in your view of the group's messages which are
> *on the server* available to be accessed to be viewed for their content,
> then to me the term 'delete' does not mean the same thing that it means
> if you delete a mail message which you have accessed from a pop server
> and deleted from the server on download and now/subsequently also
> deleted from your Tb stores.
>
> So, in reality, Tb's concept of deleting a news message is just another
> way of hiding the news message's availability to you.  It is still there
> on the server where it always was, and is not 'there' in your Tb which
> it never was, except in the cache or the headers in the thread pane view.
>
> However, the argument could certainly be made that using Tb's delete on
> a news message is different from using Tb's mark as read on a news message.
>
>
Delete marks the message such that its header won't appear in the list
of messages.  I strongly suspect it is still in the mbox file until a
compact is done.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1234 ... 6