The Safari problem is, that apparentlyon my software update and
probably on my original installation of Tiger safari didn't upgrade.
Am still running safari 1.2.4. I had followed the prompts from the
website at gmail to get a "fully supported browser," and well, after
typing in the search bar several times found version 2.1. This I
downloaded, and it was through the Apple website system because
that's where gmail links back to for Mac users.
Now I can get through the installation process up until it is time
for the ap to be put into it's folder. At that point I am told
there's not enough room in the folder and that it requires 10.7
megs. Well I know I have at least 4.85 GB left on hard drive, but
am still getting same message. The folder it selects btw, has a
bunch of stuff in there a lot of wich relates back to Panther and OS
9. I have removed old documents from the past that I knew wasn't
necessary for the computer to run, but left the os 9 aps still in
tact there.
So this topic of discussion also brought up the question of why
software update itself wasn't even picking up safari, or why it
never installed from any of the Tiger upgrades either. I amcurrently
running 10.47, and everything else seems to be current, even airport
which at this time I don't even use because I'm on dialup here.
Can't say that's the long and short of it, because this in itself is
a long e-mail, but that should catch you up in general to the problem.
73s.
On Aug 12, 2006, at 8:51 PM, Gabriel Vega wrote:
Because i am too lazy to research what the original sofarie issue
was can some onee tell me and I'll see what i could come up with??
Thanks
Gabriel Vega
The BlindTechs Network
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: http://blindtechs.net
Phoenix (602) 476-2307 ext: 2863
Los Angeles (562) 261-5277 ext: 2863
Toll Free (866) 714-4244 ext: 2863
On Aug 12, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Tom McMahan wrote:
Took several times, and still was sloppy.But fortunately, or
unfortunately, that's kind of how I view things. Comes back to my
choice, as it comes to your choice. I am acountable for mine, or
at least feel that I am. And I've made plenty of bad ones for
sure, but that would be going totally off topic wouldn't it?
Btw, I still haven't taken care of the Safari problem. Haven't
gotten up the ambition to try a ree install yet. Might not, not
realy sure yet. Guess if I start having more trouble from more
websites than gmail, then might consider it. Still has something
to do with the folder iteself though, I've gotten my total free
space on hard drive back to over four gigs. Just cleaning out i
tunes, and there's still stuff that can be cleared out of there
I'll bet.
But got same message at same place in the Safari install, so going
to have to do some more thinking, so if you all see and or smell
smoke, you know where it's comming from.
73s. On Aug 12, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Gabriel Vega wrote:
Tom:
in all honesty sir, that was a great email. I really enjoyed
reading it and am glad you look at the siituation in such a good
perspective.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Gabriel Vega
The BlindTechs Network
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: http://blindtechs.net
Phoenix (602) 476-2307 ext: 2863
Los Angeles (562) 261-5277 ext: 2863
Toll Free (866) 714-4244 ext: 2863
On Aug 12, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Tom McMahan wrote:
Hi Karen.
For the examples you wrote about below to apply fully, you would
have to be in a captive, or simi captive situation. Well, You
are where ever you are, and I am in my house. Thus I can
control what I listen to here, as can you, and stop reaching for
that deleet key!
But I think what I've said before still stands. It would be a
hard choice, but if it got bad enough here, I would make that
choice without a problem.
So Gabe is obnoctious,, I don't think he's threatened anybody
here yet has he? And since his business has beenmentioned to
some degree over the past few days, well, again, that's his
problem. He can choose to fail, just as he can make choices to
encourage success.
Right now, I am choosing to listen to the list in general, Since
I read my mail at least at the start one line at a time, it
doesn't take long for me to figure out if I want to read the
rest of it or not. I wish I could use a deleet key when I am
out on the streets or at stores, or basically out in public with
some of the things I've heard people say. That is realy being
in the public. The list is just cyber. Like the tv or radio
you have control to the greater degree of what you allow into
your house or workspace if your work allows you to do internet
and e-mail. Some don't.
So when I'm out in public and I'm hearing someone carrying on in
a way I don't wish to hear, I can simply change direction, thus
"not listen." I still get some words of what was said,
otherwise how would I know that I should avoid them? Same here,
only faster, "deleet."
This still comes back to each one of us as an individual
regardless of what the list owner or moderators decide what to do.
I think though, I've just about said my piece on this matter
such as it is. Think we just see it a little differently.
Think you are able to pick up on the grays better than I do.
73s.
On Aug 12, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
Actually yes and no.
The constitution as interpreted via the Supreme court
jurisprudence does put some limits on free speech.
One of them was referenced before. Gabe's behavior might be
seen as unavoidable, and comparable to shouting fire in a
crowded room, where no one could escape his words.
The courts say that this, like burning an American flag at a
veteran's event is too provocative for protection.
Indeed there is no legal discussion about on-line services,
and indeed the list is privately owned.
But if the list owner feels that Gabe's behavior is costing him
traffic and it is, he would be within his right to either
monitor Gabe, my preference truth be told, or ban him all
together.
Unfortunately we cannot really avoid listening as other folks
have pointed out.
Karen
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Tom McMahan wrote:
Oh he can shout all he wants to, but nobody has to listen.
The constitution says "Free speech" not "obligation that
anyone has to listen."
On Aug 12, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
Sad but true. Granted I prefer not censoring anyone's right
to free speech, and realize we are likely rewarding Gabe's
obvious poor sense of self, but even the constitutional
legal history has cases when you just cannot let someone
shout what they wish to the decrement of others.
Karen
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Josh de Lioncourt wrote:
> Karen Lewellen wrote:
> > NO!
> > do not do this. We need the wisdom of others, and
leaving does not > > solve
> > the problem. Perhaps blocking that address, so you still
get and con
> > contribute to the discourse here without the problem
postings?
> > Karen
> > > Hi Karen,
> > I certainly share your sentiment. The problem is that its
hard to avoid > Gabe entirely, as he's very good at stirring
up drama on the list. Even > if you block his address, you'd
have to block many others to avoid the > problems entirely. I
really do not want to see this community deteriorate > any
further, so I continue to urge everyone to try to contact the
> MacVisionaries administrators, as i have done.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
