From: dorayme on 27 May 2010 21:21 In article <1jj5po7.lool4p1b2wfgaN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote: > Davoud <star(a)sky.net> wrote: > > > I'll bet you think your reply was more useful than mine. Firstly, you > > addressed it to me, not to the OP. > > No, I posted my response to the same newsgroup and thread the OP posted > to. > > > Secondly, your indirect reply to the > > OP said "works for me" (which is famously the least useful reply on > > USENET) and "round up the usual suspects," which is possibly the second > > least useful reply on USENET when one doesn't say who those suspects > > might be. Perhaps they are not at all usual to the OP. > > Since you didn't actually read his question, What is it about you guys? You are so argumentative! Why not take a leaf out of my book, you know, peaceful, low profile, humble, non-irritating... If any of you need some lessons, I run a franchise for the Dale Carnegie School courses and am prepared to give you folk a special discount... -- dorayme
From: Barry Margolin on 28 May 2010 00:04 In article <dorayme-EEB6D1.11210328052010(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article > <1jj5po7.lool4p1b2wfgaN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, > mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote: > > > Davoud <star(a)sky.net> wrote: > > > > > I'll bet you think your reply was more useful than mine. Firstly, you > > > addressed it to me, not to the OP. > > > > No, I posted my response to the same newsgroup and thread the OP posted > > to. > > > > > Secondly, your indirect reply to the > > > OP said "works for me" (which is famously the least useful reply on > > > USENET) and "round up the usual suspects," which is possibly the second > > > least useful reply on USENET when one doesn't say who those suspects > > > might be. Perhaps they are not at all usual to the OP. > > > > Since you didn't actually read his question, > > What is it about you guys? You are so argumentative! Why not take > a leaf out of my book, you know, peaceful, low profile, humble, > non-irritating... If any of you need some lessons, I run a > franchise for the Dale Carnegie School courses and am prepared to > give you folk a special discount... You seem to have forgotten that this is Usenet. I think it's international law that the slightest offense must immediately escalate into a flamewar. -- Barry Margolin, barmar(a)alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
From: John Varela on 28 May 2010 16:38 On Fri, 28 May 2010 01:20:24 UTC, "John Varela" <newlamps(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 00:48:39 UTC, "John Varela" > <newlamps(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > I'll try going thru the plugins and extensions turning them off one > > at a time to see if one of them is the source of the problem. > > Found it: NoScript was blocking Silverlight. Which is no excuse for Firefox crashing on a conflict between a plug-in and an add-on. -- John Varela
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: iWork and TextEdit icons have disappeared Next: Importing photo description in iPhoto |