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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo