Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #251372 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 08:15 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-01-02 15:33 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware
An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-01 08:15 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-01 13:27 -0600
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-02 00:38 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-01 23:01 -0200
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-01 19:09 -0600
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 00:34 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-03 00:37 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:59 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-03 21:00 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 18:47 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-08 07:31 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 14:24 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-10 05:00 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 13:25 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-10 22:22 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-10 19:50 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-11 09:41 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-13 20:44 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-13 20:51 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-14 07:19 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-14 09:33 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-14 19:20 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buh.boh> - 2016-01-14 15:14 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs none <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-14 12:47 -0800
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buh.uk> - 2016-01-15 07:15 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-14 20:14 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs none <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-14 13:17 -0800
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buh.uk> - 2016-01-15 07:16 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-15 16:44 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buh.uk> - 2016-01-15 11:50 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-15 16:59 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs none <none@none.invalid> - 2016-01-15 09:05 -0800
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-15 20:30 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-15 21:02 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-16 08:03 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-16 09:13 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-16 22:30 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-17 00:35 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 00:36 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-13 20:44 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-10 20:16 -0600
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-13 20:44 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-13 15:13 -0600
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-14 07:19 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-14 10:43 -0600
Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-15 21:12 -0500
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-16 12:11 +0700
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-16 08:35 -0600
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-17 09:35 +0700
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 22:22 -0500
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 18:27 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 15:45 -0500
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page "Andrzej P. Wozniak" <uszer@poczta.onet.pl.invalid> - 2016-01-17 22:10 +0100
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 21:24 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-17 19:55 -0600
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-18 12:14 -0500
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-18 18:59 +0700
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page "Andrzej P. Wozniak" <uszer@poczta.onet.pl.invalid> - 2016-01-17 22:02 +0100
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 21:24 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-17 22:04 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-18 04:16 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-17 20:13 -0600
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 18:27 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "Andrzej P. Wozniak" <uszer@poczta.onet.pl.invalid> - 2016-01-16 13:48 +0100
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-16 12:54 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "Andrzej P. Wozniak" <uszer@poczta.onet.pl.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:31 +0100
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-16 18:13 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-16 18:21 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 18:27 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-16 22:30 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "Andrzej P. Wozniak" <uszer@poczta.onet.pl.invalid> - 2016-01-17 00:09 +0100
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-17 00:38 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 00:48 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 18:27 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-17 20:09 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 21:02 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-17 21:57 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-18 04:16 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-18 20:02 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@buh.uk> - 2016-01-18 15:04 -0500
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-23 03:16 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-17 20:29 -0600
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-23 03:16 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-23 10:37 -0600
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-23 16:55 +0000
[OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-23 13:57 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 00:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-23 23:36 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 17:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-24 12:42 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 19:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 01:14 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-23 23:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 17:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-24 12:38 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 19:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-24 13:58 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-24 21:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-24 16:53 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-25 01:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-25 01:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid hummingbird <hummingbird@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-25 22:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-25 01:11 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-25 10:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-25 10:38 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-25 19:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid p-00-h the Kat in GPL hell - The voice of the Damned <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-25 20:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-25 14:53 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@mo.uk> - 2016-01-25 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-27 13:11 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-26 07:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-26 12:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-27 18:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)" <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> - 2016-01-27 20:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-26 08:34 -0600
Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-27 18:55 +0000
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Bill Day <extreeNONSENSE@verizon.net> - 2016-01-16 09:39 -0500
Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] Bill Day <extreeNONSENSE@verizon.net> - 2016-01-16 09:54 -0500
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 00:17 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-17 00:45 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 00:49 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-17 01:03 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 01:20 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-17 01:38 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-17 18:27 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs hummingbird <hummingbird@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-25 21:15 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs p-00-h the Kat in GPL hell - The voice of the Damned <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> - 2016-01-25 23:38 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs hummingbird <hummingbird@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-30 23:11 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-03 00:37 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-03 19:41 -0600
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-04 03:29 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-02 08:17 +0700
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-01 19:22 -0600
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-01-02 20:38 +0700
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-02 15:53 -0600
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2016-01-01 21:32 +0100
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2016-01-02 00:38 +0000
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:11 +0800
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs CRNG <noemail@atthisdomain.gov> - 2016-01-02 08:54 -0600
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2016-01-02 16:28 +0100
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 23:35 +0800
Re: An easy way to download Mozilla programs CRNG <noemail@atthisdomain.gov> - 2016-01-02 15:33 -0600
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 08:15 +0000 |
| Subject | An easy way to download Mozilla programs |
| Message-ID | <XnsA582225E94165F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
Visit this url, browse to the folder that contains the app and version in the language you want. :-) http://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/ If you want the full release of firefox v43.0.3... You don't want to go here https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ For some reason, it's still offering v43.0.1; which isn't the latest release. It's been broken for a bit of time now. I couldn't use it to download v43.0.2 either. Does anyone know of a specific reason they might have neglected to update the url to point to the latest release yet? When I click Help/about on v43.x prior to v3 they will all download and update (eventually) to 43.0.3. So, it is a public release, afaik... However... http://download- installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/43.0.3/ has it... win32 or win64. Full version or the stub (online download later) versions.. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 13:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <20160101132736.53e7995d@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #251372 |
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:15:36 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > If you want the full release of firefox v43.0.3... > > You don't want to go here > https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ > > For some reason, it's still offering v43.0.1; which isn't the latest > release. It's been broken for a bit of time now. I couldn't use it to > download v43.0.2 either. Does anyone know of a specific reason they > might have neglected to update the url to point to the latest release > yet? I'm a day late replying, but even two days ago that page was offering me 43.0.3. In case what you're seeing is coming from a cache, try going to the page and using shift+reload.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 00:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA582C8F18D51F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #251440 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160101132736.53e7995d@sepulchrave.remarqs Fri, 01 Jan 2016 19:27:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:15:36 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> If you want the full release of firefox v43.0.3... >> >> You don't want to go here >> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >> >> For some reason, it's still offering v43.0.1; which isn't the >> latest release. It's been broken for a bit of time now. I >> couldn't use it to download v43.0.2 either. Does anyone know of a >> specific reason they might have neglected to update the url to >> point to the latest release yet? > > I'm a day late replying, but even two days ago that page was > offering me 43.0.3. In case what you're seeing is coming from a > cache, try going to the page and using shift+reload. > My cache was empty, and, when I made the post, it was offering 43.0.1. I just tried it again as I'm writing this post. Sometimes, a screenshot is worth a thousand words. Taken just a few moments ago: http://www.picpaste.com/qaktGort.jpg Just to be sure, I tested it with another machine entirely, too. I cleared the cache. I used tfc as well to be absolutely certain. Allowed the machine to reboot, fired firefox back up, got the same exact result as you're seeing on the screenshot above on the first computer. I doubt two entirely seperate computer systems that don't even share much hardware in common both have the same magical problem with one specific link not pointing to the correct binary for the version I'm wanting to download. Possible, sure, but, highly unlikely. You can see the url should give me 43.0.3 by looking to the lower lefthand corner of the firefox window. However, when I click, up comes the box offering 43.0.1 and yes, I checked, it's 43.0.1. :( Both of the computers tested are running Windows XP Pro SP3, but do not have the same browser addons nor are they using the same versions of Firefox. The other machine is still using 43.0.2. This one is using 43.0.3. The other machine doesn't have Noscript loaded, either. I also tested this one with no script off and allow all for mozilla, no change. Unless Mozilla has an issue with a header saying it's an XP host requesting the download, it shouldn't be an issue for both machines. One, sure.. not both, though. The problem is either that or it's further up the stream than my network. It's not an actual 'problem' on this end although the result is I can't download v43.0.3 by clicking the link as I normally should be able to. And, it's been doing that since 43.0.2 was released for me. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shadow <Sh@dow.br> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 23:01 -0200 |
| Message-ID | <v98e8b1e4u5mjk5svbm0os3de0v3l7j5ev@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #251458 |
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 00:38:09 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: >=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >news:20160101132736.53e7995d@sepulchrave.remarqs Fri, 01 Jan 2016 >19:27:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:15:36 -0000 (UTC) >> Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> If you want the full release of firefox v43.0.3... >>> >>> You don't want to go here >>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >>> >>> For some reason, it's still offering v43.0.1; which isn't the >>> latest release. It's been broken for a bit of time now. I >>> couldn't use it to download v43.0.2 either. Does anyone know of a >>> specific reason they might have neglected to update the url to >>> point to the latest release yet? >> >> I'm a day late replying, but even two days ago that page was >> offering me 43.0.3. In case what you're seeing is coming from a >> cache, try going to the page and using shift+reload. >> > >My cache was empty, and, when I made the post, it was offering 43.0.1. > >I just tried it again as I'm writing this post. Sometimes, a screenshot >is worth a thousand words. Taken just a few moments ago: > >http://www.picpaste.com/qaktGort.jpg > >Just to be sure, I tested it with another machine entirely, too. > >I cleared the cache. I used tfc as well to be absolutely certain. >Allowed the machine to reboot, fired firefox back up, got the same >exact result as you're seeing on the screenshot above on the first >computer. > >I doubt two entirely seperate computer systems that don't even share >much hardware in common both have the same magical problem with one >specific link not pointing to the correct binary for the version I'm >wanting to download. Possible, sure, but, highly unlikely. > >You can see the url should give me 43.0.3 by looking to the lower >lefthand corner of the firefox window. However, when I click, up comes >the box offering 43.0.1 and yes, I checked, it's 43.0.1. :( > >Both of the computers tested are running Windows XP Pro SP3, but do not >have the same browser addons nor are they using the same versions of >Firefox. The other machine is still using 43.0.2. This one is using >43.0.3. The other machine doesn't have Noscript loaded, either. > >I also tested this one with no script off and allow all for mozilla, no >change. > >Unless Mozilla has an issue with a header saying it's an XP host >requesting the download, it shouldn't be an issue for both machines. >One, sure.. not both, though. > >The problem is either that or it's further up the stream than my >network. It's not an actual 'problem' on this end although the result >is I can't download v43.0.3 by clicking the link as I normally should >be able to. And, it's been doing that since 43.0.2 was released for me. http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ Not that I ever update, but it's in my favorites. HTH []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 19:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <20160101190923.00a4641f@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #251458 |
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 00:38:09 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > news:20160101132736.53e7995d@sepulchrave.remarqs Fri, 01 Jan 2016 > 19:27:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ > > I'm a day late replying, but even two days ago that page was > > offering me 43.0.3. In case what you're seeing is coming from a > > cache, try going to the page and using shift+reload. > > My cache was empty, and, when I made the post, it was offering 43.0.1. It's not *your* cache I was suggesting you try bypassing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 00:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dep5pcFdj5uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #251465 |
On 1/1/2016 8:09 PM, »Q« wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 00:38:09 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >> news:20160101132736.53e7995d@sepulchrave.remarqs Fri, 01 Jan 2016 >> 19:27:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ > >>> I'm a day late replying, but even two days ago that page was >>> offering me 43.0.3. In case what you're seeing is coming from a >>> cache, try going to the page and using shift+reload. >> >> My cache was empty, and, when I made the post, it was offering 43.0.1. > > It's not *your* cache I was suggesting you try bypassing. There does seem to be a problem with *SOME* of the downloads. I checked the DLs for the US English version and of the 5 downloads *ONLY* the two Windows downloads appear to be redirecting to the wrong version. For example: the "32 bit version Windows version" shows this link: <https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-43.0.3-SSL&os=win&lang=en-US>: *BUT* here (Michigan) that link redirects to: <https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/43.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2043.0.1.exe> Susan -- Posted to alt.comp.freeware (using WinXP-SP2, Win7professional-32 bit) <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pricelesswarehome.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 00:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA583C8D42FCEDF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #251472 |
Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> news:dep5pcFdj5uU1@mid.individual.net Sat, 02 Jan 2016 05:34:41 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On 1/1/2016 8:09 PM, »Q« wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 00:38:09 -0000 (UTC) >> Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >>> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >>> news:20160101132736.53e7995d@sepulchrave.remarqs Fri, 01 Jan >>> 2016 19:27:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> >>>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >> >>>> I'm a day late replying, but even two days ago that page was >>>> offering me 43.0.3. In case what you're seeing is coming from >>>> a cache, try going to the page and using shift+reload. >>> >>> My cache was empty, and, when I made the post, it was offering >>> 43.0.1. >> >> It's not *your* cache I was suggesting you try bypassing. > > There does seem to be a problem with *SOME* of the downloads. I > checked the DLs for the US English version and of the 5 downloads > *ONLY* the two Windows downloads appear to be redirecting to the > wrong version. For example: > > the "32 bit version Windows version" shows this link: > <https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-43.0.3-SSL&os=win&la > ng=en-US>: *BUT* here (Michigan) that link redirects to: > <https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/43 > .0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2043.0.1.exe> Yes. I didn't check the non windows downloads. Thanks for also looking into it and confirming the results I'd gotten. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 11:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <det2a6Fdk7pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #251526 |
On 1/2/2016 7:37 PM, Diesel wrote: > Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> > news:dep5pcFdj5uU1@mid.individual.net Sat, 02 Jan 2016 05:34:41 GMT > in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >> On 1/1/2016 8:09 PM, »Q« wrote: >>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 00:38:09 -0000 (UTC) >>> Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> >>>> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >>>> news:20160101132736.53e7995d@sepulchrave.remarqs Fri, 01 Jan >>>> 2016 19:27:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>> >>>>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >>> >>>>> I'm a day late replying, but even two days ago that page was >>>>> offering me 43.0.3. In case what you're seeing is coming from >>>>> a cache, try going to the page and using shift+reload. >>>> >>>> My cache was empty, and, when I made the post, it was offering >>>> 43.0.1. >>> >>> It's not *your* cache I was suggesting you try bypassing. >> >> There does seem to be a problem with *SOME* of the downloads. I >> checked the DLs for the US English version and of the 5 downloads >> *ONLY* the two Windows downloads appear to be redirecting to the >> wrong version. For example: >> >> the "32 bit version Windows version" shows this link: >> <https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-43.0.3-SSL&os=win&la >> ng=en-US>: *BUT* here (Michigan) that link redirects to: >> <https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/43 >> .0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2043.0.1.exe> > > Yes. I didn't check the non windows downloads. Thanks for also > looking into it and confirming the results I'd gotten. YW. Please note that I also "confirmed" Q's results. It was a clear case of of two blind men looking at an elephant. ;) Susan -- Posted to alt.comp.freeware (using WinXP-SP2, Win7professional-32 bit) <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pricelesswarehome.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA584A40A051CBF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #251543 |
Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> news:det2a6Fdk7pU1@mid.individual.net Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:59:58 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On 1/2/2016 7:37 PM, Diesel wrote: >> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >> news:dep5pcFdj5uU1@mid.individual.net Sat, 02 Jan 2016 05:34:41 >> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> >>> On 1/1/2016 8:09 PM, »Q« wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 00:38:09 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >>>>> news:20160101132736.53e7995d@sepulchrave.remarqs Fri, 01 Jan >>>>> 2016 19:27:36 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >>>> >>>>>> I'm a day late replying, but even two days ago that page was >>>>>> offering me 43.0.3. In case what you're seeing is coming >>>>>> from a cache, try going to the page and using shift+reload. >>>>> >>>>> My cache was empty, and, when I made the post, it was offering >>>>> 43.0.1. >>>> >>>> It's not *your* cache I was suggesting you try bypassing. >>> >>> There does seem to be a problem with *SOME* of the downloads. I >>> checked the DLs for the US English version and of the 5 >>> downloads *ONLY* the two Windows downloads appear to be >>> redirecting to the wrong version. For example: >>> >>> the "32 bit version Windows version" shows this link: >>> <https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-43.0.3-SSL&os=win& >>> la ng=en-US>: *BUT* here (Michigan) that link redirects to: >>> <https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/ >>> 43 .0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2043.0.1.exe> >> >> Yes. I didn't check the non windows downloads. Thanks for also >> looking into it and confirming the results I'd gotten. > > YW. Please note that I also "confirmed" Q's results. It was a > clear case of of two blind men looking at an elephant. ;) Perhaps. :) It's my own fault I didn't specifically mention trying to download the Windows versions... With that said though, Aren't most of the applications being recommended here either native for Windows or default assumption, Windows install? -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 18:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <detq5eFjnilU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #251551 |
On 1/3/2016 4:00 PM, Diesel wrote: > Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> > news:det2a6Fdk7pU1@mid.individual.net Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:59:58 GMT > in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> On 1/2/2016 7:37 PM, Diesel wrote: >>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>> news:dep5pcFdj5uU1@mid.individual.net Sat, 02 Jan 2016 05:34:41 >>> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>>>>>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ <SNIP> >>>> There does seem to be a problem with *SOME* of the downloads. I >>>> checked the DLs for the US English version and of the 5 >>>> downloads *ONLY* the two Windows downloads appear to be >>>> redirecting to the wrong version. For example: >>>> >>>> the "32 bit version Windows version" shows this link: >>>> <https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-43.0.3-SSL&os=win& >>>> la ng=en-US>: *BUT* here (Michigan) that link redirects to: >>>> <https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/ >>>> 43 .0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2043.0.1.exe> >>> >>> Yes. I didn't check the non windows downloads. Thanks for also >>> looking into it and confirming the results I'd gotten. >> >> YW. Please note that I also "confirmed" Q's results. It was a >> clear case of of two blind men looking at an elephant. ;) > > Perhaps. :) > > It's my own fault I didn't specifically mention trying to download > the Windows versions... With that said though, Aren't most of the > applications being recommended here either native for Windows or > default assumption, Windows install? That was true some years ago. I don't think "Windows user" is a good "default assumption" today even when there is a Windows version of a program or even when there is only a Windows version if the program will run under Wine. Susan -- Posted to alt.comp.freeware (using WinXP-SP2, Win7professional-32 bit) <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pricelesswarehome.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 07:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5891AFB8658BF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #251556 |
Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> news:detq5eFjnilU1@mid.individual.net Sun, 03 Jan 2016 23:47:03 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On 1/3/2016 4:00 PM, Diesel wrote: > >> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >> news:det2a6Fdk7pU1@mid.individual.net Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:59:58 >> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >>> On 1/2/2016 7:37 PM, Diesel wrote: > >>>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>>> news:dep5pcFdj5uU1@mid.individual.net Sat, 02 Jan 2016 05:34:41 >>>> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >>>>>>>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ > <SNIP> > >>>>> There does seem to be a problem with *SOME* of the downloads. >>>>> I checked the DLs for the US English version and of the 5 >>>>> downloads *ONLY* the two Windows downloads appear to be >>>>> redirecting to the wrong version. For example: >>>>> >>>>> the "32 bit version Windows version" shows this link: >>>>> <https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-43.0.3-SSL&os=wi >>>>> n& la ng=en-US>: *BUT* here (Michigan) that link redirects to: >>>>> <https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/release >>>>> s/ 43 .0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2043.0.1.exe> >>>> >>>> Yes. I didn't check the non windows downloads. Thanks for also >>>> looking into it and confirming the results I'd gotten. >>> >>> YW. Please note that I also "confirmed" Q's results. It was a >>> clear case of of two blind men looking at an elephant. ;) >> >> Perhaps. :) >> >> It's my own fault I didn't specifically mention trying to >> download the Windows versions... With that said though, Aren't >> most of the applications being recommended here either native for >> Windows or default assumption, Windows install? > > That was true some years ago. I don't think "Windows user" is a > good "default assumption" today even when there is a Windows > version of a program or even when there is only a Windows version > if the program will run under Wine. Hmm. Are you of the opinion that linux has in some way gained major ground? Or am I missing something? As last time I checked, the majority of applications being mentioned here are either native windows and only windows or windows with linux builds available too. Generally though, it's discussions on Windows related software and a lot of trolling? concerning linux vs windows which one is better for whatever. In other words, I tend to disagree with the notion that it was a case of two blind men looking at an elephant. I was specifically looking for the Windows versions of firefox and although I didn't infact mention that, I was not wrong concerning a problem on Mozilla's end with the url not pointing to the correct binary. As you yourself, confirmed. In the future though, to prevent communications issues or misunderstandings?, I'll be sure to specify "Windows" or "Linux" when I post concerning being unable to download a specific version of something because the url is pointing to the wrong binary. :) -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 14:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #251834 |
On 1/8/2016 2:31 AM, Diesel wrote: > Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 1/3/2016 4:00 PM, Diesel wrote: >>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >> <SNIP> >> >>>>>> There does seem to be a problem with *SOME* of the downloads. >>>>>> I checked the DLs for the US English version and of the 5 >>>>>> downloads *ONLY* the two Windows downloads appear to be >>>>>> redirecting to the wrong version. For example: >>>>>> >>>>>> the "32 bit version Windows version" shows this link: >>>>>> <https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-43.0.3-SSL&os=wi >>>>>> n& la ng=en-US>: *BUT* here (Michigan) that link redirects to: >>>>>> <https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/release >>>>>> s/ 43 .0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2043.0.1.exe> <SNIP> > In the future though, to prevent communications issues or > misunderstandings?, I'll be sure to specify "Windows" or "Linux" > when I post concerning being unable to download a specific version > of something because the url is pointing to the wrong binary. :) <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/> has several hundred links that lead to an unknkown (to me) number of repositories. When I responded to your post I furnished one particular link's description.and the resulting download link of the file itself. I did that so that anyone reading my post could easily check my results If you want to prevent communication issues in future posts, I suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction (Linux vs. Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* information to identifiy the specific problem file or files.you're posting about. Susan -- Posted to alt.comp.freeware (using WinXP-SP2, Win7professional-32 bit) <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pricelesswarehome.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 05:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA58B1686743CF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #251873 |
Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> news:dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Jan 2016 19:24:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > If you want to prevent communication issues in future posts, I > suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction (Linux vs. > Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* information to > identifiy the specific problem file or files.you're posting about. I already stated that I'd obviously made an error by not specifically mentioning it was the Windows English-US binaries I was hunting for. I figured the news reader I use/previous discussions I've taken part in (few having anything to do with linux) would have made the OS binaries (perhaps not the language) obvious. I realize that was a gross error on my part and I shouldn't make any such assumptions in the future. As far as linux vs windows and looking in the wrong direction, I don't know what you mean by the statement. I'm fairly neutral as far as the OS wars topics go... -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 13:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dfflu9F69d8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #251987 |
On 1/10/2016 12:00 AM, Diesel wrote: > Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> > news:dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Jan 2016 19:24:17 GMT > in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> If you want to prevent communication issues in future posts, I >> suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction (Linux vs. >> Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* information to >> identifiy the specific problem file or files.you're posting about. > > I already stated that I'd obviously made an error by not specifically > mentioning it was the Windows English-US binaries I was hunting for. I > figured the news reader I use/previous discussions I've taken part in > (few having anything to do with linux) would have made the OS binaries > (perhaps not the language) obvious. I realize that was a gross error on > my part and I shouldn't make any such assumptions in the future. > > As far as linux vs windows and looking in the wrong direction, I don't > know what you mean by the statement. I'm fairly neutral as far as the > OS wars topics go... I meant that your definition of the communication issue was wrong. Linux vs. Windows was immaterial. The same type of problem can occur with Windows only programs. A theoritical example : <http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/irfanview.html> There are three download links on the web page. In theory they all produce the same file. If you get the wrong file from ONE of those links that does not mean you can assume the other two links will also produce the wrong file. FWIW I actually ran into the *one* bad file case on Major Geeks once (different program whose name I don't recall). I emailed them, they checked and fixed the problem. Susan -- Posted to alt.comp.freeware (using WinXP-SP2, Win7professional-32 bit) <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pricelesswarehome.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA58BB1F4EA617F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #252027 |
Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> news:dfflu9F69d8U1@mid.individual.net Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:25:37 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On 1/10/2016 12:00 AM, Diesel wrote: >> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >> news:dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Jan 2016 19:24:17 >> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >>> If you want to prevent communication issues in future posts, I >>> suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction (Linux vs. >>> Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* information to >>> identifiy the specific problem file or files.you're posting >>> about. >> >> I already stated that I'd obviously made an error by not >> specifically mentioning it was the Windows English-US binaries I >> was hunting for. I figured the news reader I use/previous >> discussions I've taken part in (few having anything to do with >> linux) would have made the OS binaries (perhaps not the language) >> obvious. I realize that was a gross error on my part and I >> shouldn't make any such assumptions in the future. >> >> As far as linux vs windows and looking in the wrong direction, I >> don't know what you mean by the statement. I'm fairly neutral as >> far as the OS wars topics go... > > I meant that your definition of the communication issue was wrong. > Linux vs. Windows was immaterial. The same type of problem can > occur with Windows only programs. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ Is still broken. If you try to download the Windows English-US versions, you will be provided the WRONG binary - confirmed again as of writing this post. It never had anything to do with a bad cache on my end, and it *did not* work either time I mentioned the issue. It's still *not* working. It's known by many regulars that I'm based in the USA, so logically, I would have been trying to download Windows english-US firefox from the url above, that I mentioned, days ago, wasn't working properly. It's really not a hard stretch on this. > A theoritical example : > <http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/irfanview.html> > There are three download links on the web page. In theory they all > produce the same file. If you get the wrong file from ONE of those > links that does not mean you can assume the other two links will > also produce the wrong file. The links offered on the mozilla site are not supposed to offer the 'same' file for all download links. Some are clearly intended for non Windows OS. your example doesn't really fit in this case. It's the english-US firefox for windows links that remain broken on Mozilla's end. > FWIW I actually ran into the *one* bad file case on Major Geeks > once (different program whose name I don't recall). I emailed > them, they checked and fixed thI properly I seriously doubt i'm the only user who's tried to download the English-US versions of Windows Firefox from the aforementioned url only to be provided v43.0.1. It's been doing this since 43.0.2 was released as a matter of fact. So I'm not thinking an email from me would be necessary at this point. They have to know somethings wrong already. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-10 19:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dfgcgdFbrjkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #252044 |
On 1/10/2016 5:22 PM, Diesel wrote: > Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> > news:dfflu9F69d8U1@mid.individual.net Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:25:37 GMT > in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> On 1/10/2016 12:00 AM, Diesel wrote: >>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>> news:dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Jan 2016 19:24:17 >>> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>>> If you want to prevent communication issues in future posts, I >>>> suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction (Linux vs. >>>> Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* information to >>>> identifiy the specific problem file or files.you're posting >>>> about. >>> >>> I already stated that I'd obviously made an error by not >>> specifically mentioning it was the Windows English-US binaries I >>> was hunting for. I figured the news reader I use/previous >>> discussions I've taken part in (few having anything to do with >>> linux) would have made the OS binaries (perhaps not the language) >>> obvious. I realize that was a gross error on my part and I >>> shouldn't make any such assumptions in the future. >>> >>> As far as linux vs windows and looking in the wrong direction, I >>> don't know what you mean by the statement. I'm fairly neutral as >>> far as the OS wars topics go... >> >> I meant that your definition of the communication issue was wrong. >> Linux vs. Windows was immaterial. The same type of problem can >> occur with Windows only programs. > > https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ > > Is still broken. If you try to download the Windows English-US > versions, you will be provided the WRONG binary - confirmed again as > of writing this post. It never had anything to do with a bad cache on > my end, and it *did not* work either time I mentioned the issue. It's > still *not* working. > > It's known by many regulars that I'm based in the USA, so logically, > I would have been trying to download Windows english-US firefox from > the url above, that I mentioned, days ago, wasn't working properly. > It's really not a hard stretch on this. > >> A theoritical example : >> <http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/irfanview.html> >> There are three download links on the web page. In theory they all >> produce the same file. If you get the wrong file from ONE of those >> links that does not mean you can assume the other two links will >> also produce the wrong file. > > The links offered on the mozilla site are not supposed to offer the > 'same' file for all download links. Some are clearly intended for non > Windows OS. your example doesn't really fit in this case. It's the > english-US firefox for windows links that remain broken on Mozilla's > end. > >> FWIW I actually ran into the *one* bad file case on Major Geeks >> once (different program whose name I don't recall). I emailed >> them, they checked and fixed thI properly > > I seriously doubt i'm the only user who's tried to download the > English-US versions of Windows Firefox from the aforementioned url > only to be provided v43.0.1. It's been doing this since 43.0.2 was > released as a matter of fact. So I'm not thinking an email from me > would be necessary at this point. They have to know somethings wrong > already. You said "your example doesn't really fit in this case" while I think it fits very well. That makes it EOT time for me. HAND Susan -- Posted to alt.comp.freeware (using WinXP-SP2, Win7professional-32 bit) <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pricelesswarehome.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g2dncdv89yrb.jd02ak3ex7j2$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #252047 |
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:50:46 -0500, Susan Bugher wrote: > On 1/10/2016 5:22 PM, Diesel wrote: >> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >> news:dfflu9F69d8U1@mid.individual.net Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:25:37 GMT >> in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>> On 1/10/2016 12:00 AM, Diesel wrote: >>>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>>> news:dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Jan 2016 19:24:17 >>>> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >>>>> If you want to prevent communication issues in future posts, I >>>>> suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction (Linux vs. >>>>> Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* information to >>>>> identifiy the specific problem file or files.you're posting >>>>> about. >>>> >>>> I already stated that I'd obviously made an error by not >>>> specifically mentioning it was the Windows English-US binaries I >>>> was hunting for. I figured the news reader I use/previous >>>> discussions I've taken part in (few having anything to do with >>>> linux) would have made the OS binaries (perhaps not the language) >>>> obvious. I realize that was a gross error on my part and I >>>> shouldn't make any such assumptions in the future. >>>> >>>> As far as linux vs windows and looking in the wrong direction, I >>>> don't know what you mean by the statement. I'm fairly neutral as >>>> far as the OS wars topics go... >>> >>> I meant that your definition of the communication issue was wrong. >>> Linux vs. Windows was immaterial. The same type of problem can >>> occur with Windows only programs. >> >> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >> >> Is still broken. If you try to download the Windows English-US >> versions, you will be provided the WRONG binary - confirmed again as >> of writing this post. It never had anything to do with a bad cache on >> my end, and it *did not* work either time I mentioned the issue. It's >> still *not* working. >> >> It's known by many regulars that I'm based in the USA, so logically, >> I would have been trying to download Windows english-US firefox from >> the url above, that I mentioned, days ago, wasn't working properly. >> It's really not a hard stretch on this. >> >>> A theoritical example : >>> <http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/irfanview.html> >>> There are three download links on the web page. In theory they all >>> produce the same file. If you get the wrong file from ONE of those >>> links that does not mean you can assume the other two links will >>> also produce the wrong file. >> >> The links offered on the mozilla site are not supposed to offer the >> 'same' file for all download links. Some are clearly intended for non >> Windows OS. your example doesn't really fit in this case. It's the >> english-US firefox for windows links that remain broken on Mozilla's >> end. >> >>> FWIW I actually ran into the *one* bad file case on Major Geeks >>> once (different program whose name I don't recall). I emailed >>> them, they checked and fixed thI properly >> >> I seriously doubt i'm the only user who's tried to download the >> English-US versions of Windows Firefox from the aforementioned url >> only to be provided v43.0.1. It's been doing this since 43.0.2 was >> released as a matter of fact. So I'm not thinking an email from me >> would be necessary at this point. They have to know somethings wrong >> already. > > You said "your example doesn't really fit in this case" while I think it > fits very well. That makes it EOT time for me. > > HAND > > Susan Well spanked Susan. Diesel [Dusty, Dustin, Slam and many other nyms] is a nasty misogynist troll. +1 Jessalyn Rider Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly. -- p-0.0-h the cat Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat, Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy, Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, the OVERCAT[The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll, shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball. NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery. By Appointment to God Frank-Lin. Signature integrity check md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA58EA173944CFF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #252058 |
"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> news:g2dncdv89yrb.jd02ak3ex7j2$.dlg@40tude.net Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:41:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:50:46 -0500, Susan Bugher wrote: > >> On 1/10/2016 5:22 PM, Diesel wrote: >>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>> news:dfflu9F69d8U1@mid.individual.net Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:25:37 >>> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>>> On 1/10/2016 12:00 AM, Diesel wrote: >>>>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>>>> news:dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Jan 2016 >>>>> 19:24:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> >>>>>> If you want to prevent communication issues in future posts, >>>>>> I suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction (Linux vs. >>>>>> Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* information to >>>>>> identifiy the specific problem file or files.you're posting >>>>>> about. >>>>> >>>>> I already stated that I'd obviously made an error by not >>>>> specifically mentioning it was the Windows English-US binaries >>>>> I was hunting for. I figured the news reader I use/previous >>>>> discussions I've taken part in (few having anything to do with >>>>> linux) would have made the OS binaries (perhaps not the >>>>> language) obvious. I realize that was a gross error on my part >>>>> and I shouldn't make any such assumptions in the future. >>>>> >>>>> As far as linux vs windows and looking in the wrong direction, >>>>> I don't know what you mean by the statement. I'm fairly >>>>> neutral as far as the OS wars topics go... >>>> >>>> I meant that your definition of the communication issue was >>>> wrong. Linux vs. Windows was immaterial. The same type of >>>> problem can occur with Windows only programs. >>> >>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >>> >>> Is still broken. If you try to download the Windows English-US >>> versions, you will be provided the WRONG binary - confirmed >>> again as of writing this post. It never had anything to do with >>> a bad cache on my end, and it *did not* work either time I >>> mentioned the issue. It's still *not* working. >>> >>> It's known by many regulars that I'm based in the USA, so >>> logically, I would have been trying to download Windows >>> english-US firefox from the url above, that I mentioned, days >>> ago, wasn't working properly. It's really not a hard stretch on >>> this. >>> >>>> A theoritical example : >>>> <http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/irfanview.html> >>>> There are three download links on the web page. In theory they >>>> all produce the same file. If you get the wrong file from ONE >>>> of those links that does not mean you can assume the other two >>>> links will also produce the wrong file. >>> >>> The links offered on the mozilla site are not supposed to offer >>> the 'same' file for all download links. Some are clearly >>> intended for non Windows OS. your example doesn't really fit in >>> this case. It's the english-US firefox for windows links that >>> remain broken on Mozilla's end. >>> >>>> FWIW I actually ran into the *one* bad file case on Major Geeks >>>> once (different program whose name I don't recall). I emailed >>>> them, they checked and fixed thI properly >>> >>> I seriously doubt i'm the only user who's tried to download the >>> English-US versions of Windows Firefox from the aforementioned >>> url only to be provided v43.0.1. It's been doing this since >>> 43.0.2 was released as a matter of fact. So I'm not thinking an >>> email from me would be necessary at this point. They have to >>> know somethings wrong already. >> >> You said "your example doesn't really fit in this case" while I >> think it fits very well. That makes it EOT time for me. >> >> HAND >> >> Susan > > Well spanked Susan. Diesel [Dusty, Dustin, Slam and many other > nyms] is a nasty misogynist troll. I don't know Dusty. I've never used any such nym. It's a pet name you've decided to use because you can't reasonably defend your side of the argument concerning some discussions we've had. You don't appreciate logic and reason. SLAM isn't a nym. It was (long since disbanded) a pro VX group. I've had very few nyms, actually. And, unlike yourself, I've never attemped to hide/mask my identity while using one. I'm upfront and tell people who I am. I did it when I decided to use the nym, Diesel, as well. It's clear one of us is mostly a troll, but, I'll leave that upto the audience to decide. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 20:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1bu2y509yhj4y$.1jolgrtl8hj8g$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #252247 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:44:43 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote: > "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" > <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> > news:g2dncdv89yrb.jd02ak3ex7j2$.dlg@40tude.net Mon, 11 Jan 2016 > 09:41:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:50:46 -0500, Susan Bugher wrote: >> >>> On 1/10/2016 5:22 PM, Diesel wrote: >>>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>>> news:dfflu9F69d8U1@mid.individual.net Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:25:37 >>>> GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>>>> On 1/10/2016 12:00 AM, Diesel wrote: >>>>>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>>>>> news:dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Jan 2016 >>>>>> 19:24:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>> >>>>>>> If you want to prevent communication issues in future posts, >>>>>>> I suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction (Linux vs. >>>>>>> Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* information to >>>>>>> identifiy the specific problem file or files.you're posting >>>>>>> about. >>>>>> >>>>>> I already stated that I'd obviously made an error by not >>>>>> specifically mentioning it was the Windows English-US binaries >>>>>> I was hunting for. I figured the news reader I use/previous >>>>>> discussions I've taken part in (few having anything to do with >>>>>> linux) would have made the OS binaries (perhaps not the >>>>>> language) obvious. I realize that was a gross error on my part >>>>>> and I shouldn't make any such assumptions in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as linux vs windows and looking in the wrong direction, >>>>>> I don't know what you mean by the statement. I'm fairly >>>>>> neutral as far as the OS wars topics go... >>>>> >>>>> I meant that your definition of the communication issue was >>>>> wrong. Linux vs. Windows was immaterial. The same type of >>>>> problem can occur with Windows only programs. >>>> >>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >>>> >>>> Is still broken. If you try to download the Windows English-US >>>> versions, you will be provided the WRONG binary - confirmed >>>> again as of writing this post. It never had anything to do with >>>> a bad cache on my end, and it *did not* work either time I >>>> mentioned the issue. It's still *not* working. >>>> >>>> It's known by many regulars that I'm based in the USA, so >>>> logically, I would have been trying to download Windows >>>> english-US firefox from the url above, that I mentioned, days >>>> ago, wasn't working properly. It's really not a hard stretch on >>>> this. >>>> >>>>> A theoritical example : >>>>> <http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/irfanview.html> >>>>> There are three download links on the web page. In theory they >>>>> all produce the same file. If you get the wrong file from ONE >>>>> of those links that does not mean you can assume the other two >>>>> links will also produce the wrong file. >>>> >>>> The links offered on the mozilla site are not supposed to offer >>>> the 'same' file for all download links. Some are clearly >>>> intended for non Windows OS. your example doesn't really fit in >>>> this case. It's the english-US firefox for windows links that >>>> remain broken on Mozilla's end. >>>> >>>>> FWIW I actually ran into the *one* bad file case on Major Geeks >>>>> once (different program whose name I don't recall). I emailed >>>>> them, they checked and fixed thI properly >>>> >>>> I seriously doubt i'm the only user who's tried to download the >>>> English-US versions of Windows Firefox from the aforementioned >>>> url only to be provided v43.0.1. It's been doing this since >>>> 43.0.2 was released as a matter of fact. So I'm not thinking an >>>> email from me would be necessary at this point. They have to >>>> know somethings wrong already. >>> >>> You said "your example doesn't really fit in this case" while I >>> think it fits very well. That makes it EOT time for me. >>> >>> HAND >>> >>> Susan >> >> Well spanked Susan. Diesel [Dusty, Dustin, Slam and many other >> nyms] is a nasty misogynist troll. > > I don't know Dusty. I've never used any such nym. It's a pet name > you've decided to use because you can't reasonably defend your side > of the argument concerning some discussions we've had. You don't > appreciate logic and reason. > > SLAM isn't a nym. It was (long since disbanded) a pro VX group. I've > had very few nyms, actually. And, unlike yourself, I've never > attemped to hide/mask my identity while using one. Liar, liar, pants on fire. > I'm upfront and > tell people who I am. I did it when I decided to use the nym, > Diesel, as well. > > It's clear one of us is mostly a troll, but, I'll leave that upto > the audience to decide. Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly. -- p-0.0-h the cat Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat, Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy, Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath, the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme, the OVERCAT[The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll, shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook, smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag, liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball. NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery. By Appointment to God Frank-Lin. Signature integrity check md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 07:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA58F19034DFCF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #252250 |
"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> news:1bu2y509yhj4y$.1jolgrtl8hj8g$.dlg@40tude.net Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:51:06 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 20:44:43 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote: > >> "p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" >> <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> >> news:g2dncdv89yrb.jd02ak3ex7j2$.dlg@40tude.net Mon, 11 Jan 2016 >> 09:41:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:50:46 -0500, Susan Bugher wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/10/2016 5:22 PM, Diesel wrote: >>>>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>>>> news:dfflu9F69d8U1@mid.individual.net Sun, 10 Jan 2016 >>>>> 18:25:37 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>>>>> On 1/10/2016 12:00 AM, Diesel wrote: >>>>>>> Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com> >>>>>>> news:dfagkdFr7ucU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 08 Jan 2016 >>>>>>> 19:24:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> If you want to prevent communication issues in future >>>>>>>> posts, I suggest you stop looking in the wrong direction >>>>>>>> (Linux vs. Windiows) and focus on furnishing *adequate* >>>>>>>> information to identifiy the specific problem file or >>>>>>>> files.you're posting about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I already stated that I'd obviously made an error by not >>>>>>> specifically mentioning it was the Windows English-US >>>>>>> binaries I was hunting for. I figured the news reader I >>>>>>> use/previous discussions I've taken part in (few having >>>>>>> anything to do with linux) would have made the OS binaries >>>>>>> (perhaps not the language) obvious. I realize that was a >>>>>>> gross error on my part and I shouldn't make any such >>>>>>> assumptions in the future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as linux vs windows and looking in the wrong >>>>>>> direction, I don't know what you mean by the statement. I'm >>>>>>> fairly neutral as far as the OS wars topics go... >>>>>> >>>>>> I meant that your definition of the communication issue was >>>>>> wrong. Linux vs. Windows was immaterial. The same type of >>>>>> problem can occur with Windows only programs. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ >>>>> >>>>> Is still broken. If you try to download the Windows English-US >>>>> versions, you will be provided the WRONG binary - confirmed >>>>> again as of writing this post. It never had anything to do >>>>> with a bad cache on my end, and it *did not* work either time >>>>> I mentioned the issue. It's still *not* working. >>>>> >>>>> It's known by many regulars that I'm based in the USA, so >>>>> logically, I would have been trying to download Windows >>>>> english-US firefox from the url above, that I mentioned, days >>>>> ago, wasn't working properly. It's really not a hard stretch >>>>> on this. >>>>> >>>>>> A theoritical example : >>>>>> <http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/irfanview.html> >>>>>> There are three download links on the web page. In theory >>>>>> they all produce the same file. If you get the wrong file >>>>>> from ONE of those links that does not mean you can assume the >>>>>> other two links will also produce the wrong file. >>>>> >>>>> The links offered on the mozilla site are not supposed to >>>>> offer the 'same' file for all download links. Some are clearly >>>>> intended for non Windows OS. your example doesn't really fit >>>>> in this case. It's the english-US firefox for windows links >>>>> that remain broken on Mozilla's end. >>>>> >>>>>> FWIW I actually ran into the *one* bad file case on Major >>>>>> Geeks once (different program whose name I don't recall). I >>>>>> emailed them, they checked and fixed thI properly >>>>> >>>>> I seriously doubt i'm the only user who's tried to download >>>>> the English-US versions of Windows Firefox from the >>>>> aforementioned url only to be provided v43.0.1. It's been >>>>> doing this since 43.0.2 was released as a matter of fact. So >>>>> I'm not thinking an email from me would be necessary at this >>>>> point. They have to know somethings wrong already. >>>> >>>> You said "your example doesn't really fit in this case" while I >>>> think it fits very well. That makes it EOT time for me. >>>> >>>> HAND >>>> >>>> Susan >>> >>> Well spanked Susan. Diesel [Dusty, Dustin, Slam and many other >>> nyms] is a nasty misogynist troll. >> >> I don't know Dusty. I've never used any such nym. It's a pet name >> you've decided to use because you can't reasonably defend your >> side of the argument concerning some discussions we've had. You >> don't appreciate logic and reason. >> >> SLAM isn't a nym. It was (long since disbanded) a pro VX group. >> I've had very few nyms, actually. And, unlike yourself, I've >> never attemped to hide/mask my identity while using one. > > Liar, liar, pants on fire. Be specific. What are you accusing me of lying about? If you're trying for the nym Raid during my pro vx days, you're *really* stretching. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware
csiph-web