Looks familiar?
Apr 27th 2005, 6:35 pm
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
dgs writes:
> That you considered it condescending reflects more on you. You were
> reading something into my words that wasn't there.
"There are times when it is obvious that one is not yet up to
understanding certain bits of technology, and I'm afraid you're living
in one of those moments now."
That sounds like a textbook example of condescension to me. And it
contributed nothing to the explanation.
> And hey there, sport - where the hell was *your* useful answer to
> the lady's question?
I didn't have one. I haven't used Netscape in many years.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> That you considered it condescending reflects more on you. You were
> reading something into my words that wasn't there.
"There are times when it is obvious that one is not yet up to
understanding certain bits of technology, and I'm afraid you're living
in one of those moments now."
That sounds like a textbook example of condescension to me. And it
contributed nothing to the explanation.
> And hey there, sport - where the hell was *your* useful answer to
> the lady's question?
I didn't have one. I haven't used Netscape in many years.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 27th 2005, 6:36 pm
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
JohnT writes:
> Congratulations! You are now rich so you must be happy because, as you so
> often say, money buys happiness. Does your good fortune, twice, in the
> French National Lottery mean that you will soon be returning to the USA?
I have not won the lottery.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Congratulations! You are now rich so you must be happy because, as you so
> often say, money buys happiness. Does your good fortune, twice, in the
> French National Lottery mean that you will soon be returning to the USA?
I have not won the lottery.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 27th 2005, 10:06 pm
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> JohnT writes:
>> Congratulations! You are now rich so you must be happy because, as you
>> so
>> often say, money buys happiness. Does your good fortune, twice, in the
>> French National Lottery mean that you will soon be returning to the USA?
> I have not won the lottery.
So you were just joking? Miguel must have been doing some reprogramming.
JohnT
news:[email protected]...
> JohnT writes:
>> Congratulations! You are now rich so you must be happy because, as you
>> so
>> often say, money buys happiness. Does your good fortune, twice, in the
>> French National Lottery mean that you will soon be returning to the USA?
> I have not won the lottery.
So you were just joking? Miguel must have been doing some reprogramming.
JohnT
Apr 27th 2005, 10:09 pm
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:50:36 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>nitram writes:
>> It was why half the world standardised on it. Idiots!
>Half the world isn't much when you consider that Netscape was the only
>player.
but as it wasn't why consider it?
wrote:
>nitram writes:
>> It was why half the world standardised on it. Idiots!
>Half the world isn't much when you consider that Netscape was the only
>player.
but as it wasn't why consider it?
Apr 27th 2005, 10:12 pm
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:46:58 -0700, dgs <[email protected]> wrote:
>And hey there, sport - where the hell was *your* useful answer to
>the lady's question? Seems you could've spent time posting that,
>instead of your usual childish method of hijacking a thread to post
>something about whatever ad-hoc subject occupies your fuzzy little head.
"Fuzzy little head" despite the depth of field thread?
>And hey there, sport - where the hell was *your* useful answer to
>the lady's question? Seems you could've spent time posting that,
>instead of your usual childish method of hijacking a thread to post
>something about whatever ad-hoc subject occupies your fuzzy little head.
"Fuzzy little head" despite the depth of field thread?
Apr 27th 2005, 10:53 pm
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:50:36 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> nitram writes:
>
>> It was why half the world standardised on it. Idiots!
>
> Half the world isn't much when you consider that Netscape was the only
> player.
It's quite a lot when you consider that only 12% have access to the
Internet.
--
Tim C.
> nitram writes:
>
>> It was why half the world standardised on it. Idiots!
>
> Half the world isn't much when you consider that Netscape was the only
> player.
It's quite a lot when you consider that only 12% have access to the
Internet.
--
Tim C.
Apr 27th 2005, 10:54 pm
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:13:06 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> nitram writes:
>
>> Firefox is developed from Netscape.
>
> Firefox was built from a stripped and corrected Mozilla codebase, which
> in turn had distant roots in the garbage that was Netscape 4.x (and it
> took a long time to purge it of most of that taint).
Are you correcting Martin or adding to his statement?
--
Tim C.
> nitram writes:
>
>> Firefox is developed from Netscape.
>
> Firefox was built from a stripped and corrected Mozilla codebase, which
> in turn had distant roots in the garbage that was Netscape 4.x (and it
> took a long time to purge it of most of that taint).
Are you correcting Martin or adding to his statement?
--
Tim C.
Apr 27th 2005, 11:23 pm
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:06:43 +0100, "JohnT"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> JohnT writes:
>>> Congratulations! You are now rich so you must be happy because, as you
>>> so
>>> often say, money buys happiness. Does your good fortune, twice, in the
>>> French National Lottery mean that you will soon be returning to the USA?
>> I have not won the lottery.
>So you were just joking? Miguel must have been doing some reprogramming.
We are waiting for wotshername to install Linux.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> JohnT writes:
>>> Congratulations! You are now rich so you must be happy because, as you
>>> so
>>> often say, money buys happiness. Does your good fortune, twice, in the
>>> French National Lottery mean that you will soon be returning to the USA?
>> I have not won the lottery.
>So you were just joking? Miguel must have been doing some reprogramming.
We are waiting for wotshername to install Linux.
Apr 28th 2005, 7:10 am
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
Tim Challenger writes:
> Are you correcting Martin or adding to his statement?
Adding to it.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Are you correcting Martin or adding to his statement?
Adding to it.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 28th 2005, 7:11 am
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
nitram writes:
> but as it wasn't why consider it?
It effectively was for quite some time, until MSIE reached version 3.x
or so and pulled ahead in quality.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> but as it wasn't why consider it?
It effectively was for quite some time, until MSIE reached version 3.x
or so and pulled ahead in quality.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 28th 2005, 7:11 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
JohnT writes:
> So you were just joking?
No, I was speaking hypothetically.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> So you were just joking?
No, I was speaking hypothetically.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Apr 29th 2005, 8:58 am
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
Hi,
OP just needs to install a media player capable of playing wmv files.
I'm using netscape 7.2 and winamp came right up and played it.
do a full install of netscape 7.2 and it's fixed.
do your windows updates too btw....
ttyl
akia
>>>>>>>> http://www.viralgods.com/clips/magic-missile.wmv
>>>>>> Nope, still gibberish. [...]
>>>>> It's a bog standard .wmv file - a Windows Media Auidio/Visual file.
>>>>> What are you trying to read it with?
>>>> My browser is Netscape 7.1 - is that what you meant?
>>> There are times when it is obvious that one is not yet up to
>>> understanding certain bits of technology, and I'm afraid you're
>>> living in one of those moments now. If you're using Nutscrape to
>>> read this, you have to right-click on the link and save the .wmv
>>> file to your computer. Than, you have to play the computer in
>>> a compatible player - in this case, Windows Media Player will do.
>>> Was it really that difficult to figure out?
>> Yes, for a computer illiterate like me! (Anyway, if I have to go to
>> all that trouble, why bother?)
>
>
> Understood. It is a pain in the backside for Nutscrape users.
>
> Also, if I read your replies correctly, you're using a Netscape browser
> to read rte via newsguy.com's Usenet-to-web service, correct? So you
> assumed that a link appearing in a post displayed in your browser would
> do what it was "supposed" to do. In this case, though, the link points
> to a WMV file, which is a Windows Media file that can contain audio and/
> or video content. If you were to use, say, The World's Most Dangerous
> Browser, a left-click on that link would probably have started Windows
> Media Player, and with any luck, it would have loaded the video file and
> played it. But NS sometimes doesn't play as well with Windoze as users
> might like, and so instead you just get gibberish in a browser. The
> browser is trying to read the contents of the WMV file, but that's just
> a bunch of binary encoding, so you get junk.
>
> The video was a joke - it's an excerpt from a show that spoofs the
> "live cops" shows on TV. And of course, the joke's meant to mean
> something else, too. Or at least I think that's why "nitram"
> posted it... ;-)
--
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted,
and I won't be layed a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people,
and I require the same from them"
J.B. Books (John Wayne)
OP just needs to install a media player capable of playing wmv files.
I'm using netscape 7.2 and winamp came right up and played it.
do a full install of netscape 7.2 and it's fixed.
do your windows updates too btw....
ttyl
akia
>>>>>>>> http://www.viralgods.com/clips/magic-missile.wmv
>>>>>> Nope, still gibberish. [...]
>>>>> It's a bog standard .wmv file - a Windows Media Auidio/Visual file.
>>>>> What are you trying to read it with?
>>>> My browser is Netscape 7.1 - is that what you meant?
>>> There are times when it is obvious that one is not yet up to
>>> understanding certain bits of technology, and I'm afraid you're
>>> living in one of those moments now. If you're using Nutscrape to
>>> read this, you have to right-click on the link and save the .wmv
>>> file to your computer. Than, you have to play the computer in
>>> a compatible player - in this case, Windows Media Player will do.
>>> Was it really that difficult to figure out?
>> Yes, for a computer illiterate like me! (Anyway, if I have to go to
>> all that trouble, why bother?)
>
>
> Understood. It is a pain in the backside for Nutscrape users.
>
> Also, if I read your replies correctly, you're using a Netscape browser
> to read rte via newsguy.com's Usenet-to-web service, correct? So you
> assumed that a link appearing in a post displayed in your browser would
> do what it was "supposed" to do. In this case, though, the link points
> to a WMV file, which is a Windows Media file that can contain audio and/
> or video content. If you were to use, say, The World's Most Dangerous
> Browser, a left-click on that link would probably have started Windows
> Media Player, and with any luck, it would have loaded the video file and
> played it. But NS sometimes doesn't play as well with Windoze as users
> might like, and so instead you just get gibberish in a browser. The
> browser is trying to read the contents of the WMV file, but that's just
> a bunch of binary encoding, so you get junk.
>
> The video was a joke - it's an excerpt from a show that spoofs the
> "live cops" shows on TV. And of course, the joke's meant to mean
> something else, too. Or at least I think that's why "nitram"
> posted it... ;-)
--
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted,
and I won't be layed a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people,
and I require the same from them"
J.B. Books (John Wayne)
Apr 30th 2005, 6:42 pm
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Looks familiar?
Mxsmanic wrote:
> dgs writes:
>
> [...] it
> contributed nothing to the explanation.
Given the nature of your, um, "participation" in this newsgroup, you're
intimately familiar with contributing nothing, since that's pretty much
all you do. Take a look at the subject matter of this newsgroup. It's
about travel in Europe - something about which you obviously know
bugger-all, and your alleged "contributions" to this newsgroup are
clear evidence of that.
Given the follow-up on-line conversation between Evelyn and myself in
this particular bit of the thread, in which she confirmed that she
wasn't terribly familiar with some aspects of computing technology, I
simply turned out to be right.
You simply came out looking like a pompous jackass.
Again.
No surprise there.
>>And hey there, sport - where the hell was *your* useful answer to
>>the lady's question?
>
> I didn't have one.
And you still don't. Pretty damn lame excuse, too.
Y'know, you really suck at this. Ever consider finding something
else to do?
--
dgs
> dgs writes:
>
> [...] it
> contributed nothing to the explanation.
Given the nature of your, um, "participation" in this newsgroup, you're
intimately familiar with contributing nothing, since that's pretty much
all you do. Take a look at the subject matter of this newsgroup. It's
about travel in Europe - something about which you obviously know
bugger-all, and your alleged "contributions" to this newsgroup are
clear evidence of that.
Given the follow-up on-line conversation between Evelyn and myself in
this particular bit of the thread, in which she confirmed that she
wasn't terribly familiar with some aspects of computing technology, I
simply turned out to be right.
You simply came out looking like a pompous jackass.
Again.
No surprise there.
>>And hey there, sport - where the hell was *your* useful answer to
>>the lady's question?
>
> I didn't have one.
And you still don't. Pretty damn lame excuse, too.
Y'know, you really suck at this. Ever consider finding something
else to do?
--
dgs
