Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?



VK wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
1. You don't understand javascript sufficiently well to understand
the code that you write yourself.
<snip>

Rather strong statement from a person who just recently learned how to
add <script> elements to the page (see the relevant thread)

;-)

Is there a troll convention going on in the UK this weekend :-). Just
look at the post history of some of the trolls responding to this
thread, and you will see that they treat everyone in the same rude,
troll-like way. The best tactic likely is just to ignore them. Most see
them for what they are.

Since some of the trolls appear to have far too much free time, as
indicated by their many and often extremely long and rude posts to this
group and others, perhaps they need something more productive to keep
them busy and to avoid boredom. Since several appear to be in the UK, I
would like to suggest a useful project for them. The Queen has a web
site at http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp . Of course the Queen
would hire someone to write her pages. If you take the noted url to the
W3C validator, you find many errors, including some javascript ones. It
would seem the Queen should deserve a site that validates perfectly.
Perhaps some of the UK trolls could correct the code in the site and
contact a member of the royal household staff to explain the problem
and how it could be corrected. The Queen appears to be a very nice and
polite lady in her public speeches. Usenet trolls could benefit greatly
by studying the Queen's speeches in details.

.