Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread John Sessoms
On 7/27/2013 3:47 PM, John Francis wrote: On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is something wrong, there's just no way for an u

Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread John Sessoms
I think you're confusing Joe Btfspik with Lonesome Polecat. Actually, I had let the subject go until someone told me I didn't know what the words mean. I may be wrong on a subject, but I do know what my words mean. On 7/27/2013 1:00 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: John, Are you old enough to remember t

RE: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread Gerrit Visser
y, July 27, 2013 4:14 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up On Sat, Jul 27, 2013, John Francis wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: >> >> You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being >> literal or fi

Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread Aahz Maruch
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013, John Francis wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: >> >> You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or >> figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is >> something wrong, there's just no w

Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread John Francis
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: > > You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or > figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is > something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a > hundred tim

Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread Bob Sullivan
John, Are you old enough to remember the cartoon 'Little Abner'. I think that's where I met Chief Rain-in-the-Face, always followed around by his own rain clouds. You need to make yourself a sunnier climate. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, John wrote: > I *do* understand exactl

Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote: > You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or > figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is > something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a > hundred times slower

Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread Aahz Maruch
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013, John wrote: > On 7/27/2013 12:01 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: >>On Sun, Jul 14, 2013, John wrote: >>> >>>I finally gave in to the badgering & installed the latest version of >>>Firefox. Got rid of the nag tab, but it ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower >>>to load anything than the previous v

Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-27 Thread John
I *do* understand exactly what "ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE" means. I chose those words deliberately and with malice aforethought ... There's nothing wrong with the computer, it's just old. I was using the older version of Firefox because I didn't want all the added overhead processing that comes with fe

Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-26 Thread Aahz Maruch
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013, John wrote: > > I finally gave in to the badgering & installed the latest version of > Firefox. Got rid of the nag tab, but it ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower > to load anything than the previous version I was using. One order of magnitude would be ten times slower. "Orders" plur

OT: Firefox - a follow up

2013-07-14 Thread John
I finally gave in to the badgering & installed the latest version of Firefox. Got rid of the nag tab, but it ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower to load anything than the previous version I was using. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBS