Damn. Missed 6000. Closing.

Re-opened. How do you expect QA to confirm this bug as invalid? There are no steps to reproduce, expected results, or platform information. ;)

And, really, this bug should have been filed against Chris Pratt or Ian Hickson. ;)

Steps to reproduce: Click on the URL above. You will notice 39 bugs that eli has filed on Mozilla. This is way too many. For example, claudius has only filed 15, and phillip 2. What I expected to see: A number of bugs in the low teens. Whenever I walk into Eli's cubicle, he's surfing the net and listening to some weird kind of music called filk.

Definitely an invalid bug, as the sample size used to conduct regression testing is insufficient. For example, I replace the above URL test case with 'cpratt', I see 116 bugs. I'm going to QA Assign this to cpratt, so that he can determine whether or not this is the methodology applied was valid.

Tipper Gore and the PMRC have warned us in the past about unfettered filksinging and the deleterious effect it has on the nation's youth (not to mention on the nation's twentysomething QA engineers). What that has to do with this bug, I of course have no idea. To paraphase a character in _Apocalypse Now_ whose name eludes me at the moment, your ideas... your methods... are unsound. Unsound.

man you guys have way too much time on your hands.

Closing bug, the problem that mozilla.org engineers have too much free time has been solved... =:-)