Web lists-archives.org

Re: Who's this Supoch Seanganant?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>> Excuse me Peter, or Craig, or whatever your name is.
> 
> get it straight: its Grant, and I've mentioned that many, many times.  
> I've been mentioning that ever since I started helping out in November 
> of 2006.  But for some reason, you and others can't get it straight.
> 
>> However, when someone else requests/asks YOU not to post in a specific 
>> group, you ignore them. Please explain how you expect people to follow 
>> YOUR instructions when you ignore the instructions of others?
> 
> sorry, but you're wrong on that account.  The idiot in question has a 
> grudge against me. He's only banned the Purple Hippo's email address.  
> He has not banned it with another email address.  However, the idiot has 
> taken it upon himself to remove any posting of mine with another email 
> address, hence the grudge. The idoit has a grudge.  Get it!!!!
> 
> And until I get an apology of abuse of power from the Mozilla Bully and 
> his Gang, and from Gerv for the horrible treatment I've received, then I 
> don't want them replying to any of my postings.  Simple as that.
> 
> If you don't like it, and it seems to bother you, then why are you 
> reading and replying to my postings.  Killfile me. Create a filter and 
> remove my postings.
> 


Again, Grant, explain WHY I should listen to your request to stop 
posting in reply to you?

You were NOT appointed by anyone as a 'monitor', you were NOT given any 
authority to make decisions as to who can or who can not post, you have 
no more authority than, say, I do.

Yet you continue to ignore the request to stop posting as stated by 
Chris, who WAS appointed as 'monitor', who WAS given authority to make 
decisions as to who can or who can not post.

So, following YOUR example, I feel quite 'free' to IGNORE your requests 
to stop replying to your posts. After all, you ignore Chris's requests, 
so I shall do the same to you.

Put it this way, I will adhere to YOUR request when you adhere to 
Chris's request.

Both requests are quite childish anyway, in my view. But at least Chris 
had the authority to do so (and it was 'backed up' by the powers that be 
as well).

You see your 'banning' as childish and peevish, well, to be honest, I 
see YOUR request (to me or anyone else) to stop replying to you, in the 
same light, childish and peevish.


As I have stated all along, I disagreed with Chris's decision and made 
that fact known when it was discussed. But I recognize that Chris DID 
have the authority to make such a decision, and that the 'powers that 
be' backed him up when questioned about it.  Ergo sum facto, you Sir 
were banned and regardless if you agree with that decision or not you 
should have ceased posting in that newsgroup.

I don't agree with all the decisions made by the Prime Minister of 
Canada (or President of the United States for that matter), but they 
have the authority to make such decisions regardless if I agree or not. 
And many of their decisions are enshrined in law or reactions of the 
powers that exist, I must adhere to them regardless if I agree or not.

I don't agree with all the decisions made by the local Police, but they 
have the authority to make such decisions regardless if I agree or not.
Regardless that 'I' see some of their actions as being childish or 
peevish, or the target of their actions as being undeserving of such, 
their 'right' to make such decisions is not questioned.

I bring the Police into it because the police are NOT elected officials, 
much as Chris was not elected to his position, but rather by 
appointment, such as the Police are.

That's the way I see it. You are simply being childish.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general