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 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 03:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] |
| Message-ID | <XnsA597E10E379EBF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #252660 |
"p-0''0-h the cat (UK) - The voice of the Sheeple" <super.pooh@furryfreeware.invalid> news:1nw97nknpzbh9.1pqd9clfcyprj$.dlg@40tude.net Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:02:51 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > the only thing I found interesting about this thread was you > getting Bughered. Really? Did you read the response I wrote after you reminded me I should go back and read my original post? I *did* mention the OS binary I was hunting for. Several people did *NOT* completely read my post before responding and making their suggestions. [g] 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.. [g] > Ha Ha. I was careful not to be too condescending when I pointed out the fact I had mentioned the OS binary version I was trying to get, and, could not get, which those who initially responded, didn't seem to notice before suggesting I tell them which version I was trying to get. [g] Since you wanted to try and spin it into something it wasn't (Me getting schooled rofl), I'll go ahead and laugh now, too. As I wasn't schooled, but, I did take some others to school real quick. You included. ROFL! -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 20:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] |
| Message-ID | <20160117202916.09dd1b2b@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #252547 |
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:02:37 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Which I theorized about, on Jan 1st [g] I notice I'm the only one who > put that aspect of the puzzle together, too. :) With that said, In > the future, if I find something is amiss, I now know better than to > ask for advice if it's technical in nature here. I'm not going to get > helpful replies from knowledgeable people. I'll get smartass comments > and techie 101 suggestions for troubleshooting, but, nothing of any > real value to assist me with the issue. In addition to asking you some questions you wouldn't answer, I suggested early on that not contacting Mozilla might be a mistake. I'm glad you were eventually able to clear the mystery up by contacting them. Since you're on about nothing useful being posted, I'll point out that if you'd answered my questions about what happened if you tried downloading with non-Firefox tools, the answers would have shed light, but you responded only with the opinion that you shouldn't have to, that the URL should just work in Firefox). IMO, your need to give yourself credit for your own speculations prior to contacting Mozilla, your need to discredit others', and your need to fight with the pooh thing did more than anything else to devalue the thread. > I'm not a newbie, I'm not a wannabe. Opinions vary. If you ever do make the mistake of asking for advice on anything technical here, I'll try to remember to stay away from the time-wastage. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 03:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Please help check Firefox DL page [was: An easy way to download Mozilla programs] |
| Message-ID | <XnsA597E10E9802FF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #252592 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160117202916.09dd1b2b@sepulchrave.remarqs Mon, 18 Jan 2016 02:29:16 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:02:37 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> Which I theorized about, on Jan 1st [g] I notice I'm the only one >> who put that aspect of the puzzle together, too. :) With that >> said, In the future, if I find something is amiss, I now know >> better than to ask for advice if it's technical in nature here. >> I'm not going to get helpful replies from knowledgeable people. >> I'll get smartass comments and techie 101 suggestions for >> troubleshooting, but, nothing of any real value to assist me with >> the issue. > > In addition to asking you some questions you wouldn't answer, I > suggested early on that not contacting Mozilla might be a mistake. > I'm glad you were eventually able to clear the mystery up by > contacting them. Hmm. Which questions did you ask me that I wouldn't answer? > Since you're on about nothing useful being posted, I'll point out > that if you'd answered my questions about what happened if you > tried downloading with non-Firefox tools, the answers would have > shed light, but you responded only with the opinion that you > shouldn't have to, that the URL should just work in Firefox). Correct, I did. And, it should. I'd already figured it was an XP header issue, Mozilla was able to confirm that for me. I mentioned that on Jan 1st as well, two, mebbe three posts into this thread... Do you see anything on the mozilla site that tells you if you try to download the latest version by clicking the link, you'll be provided an older version instead - if they determine you're running XP, and some editions of vista? If you do, then I have no right or expectation to think that by clicking the link I'll be provided the latest binary for that OS. If you don't, then, I feel I do have the expectation that I'll be provided the latest version of the OS binary I selected. > IMO, your need to give yourself credit for your own speculations > prior to contacting Mozilla, your need to discredit others', and > your need to fight with the pooh thing did more than anything else > to devalue the thread. See above. I discredited nothing and no-one. You did that to yourselves by neglecting to finish reading my post and chastise me for making newbie mistakes and not specifying the OS binary version I was trying to download. I didn't make any mistakes. had nothing to do with any cache, and, I did specify the OS binaries I was after... >> I'm not a newbie, I'm not a wannabe. > > Opinions vary. If you ever do make the mistake of asking for > advice on anything technical here, I'll try to remember to stay > away from the time-wastage. :) Heh... Well... I don't typically ask for advice from here. I do have a question, opinions in all. Has any antimalware or antivirus company recruited you for a job out of the blue due to your advanced skillset that you've previously demonstrated on both sides of the fence? If so, your opinion has value to me... If not, it's like a fart after a tasty mexican meal. :) -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 10:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Please help check Firefox DL page |
| Message-ID | <20160123103717.66ebdec8@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #253160 |
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 03:16:34 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Hmm. Which questions did you ask me that I wouldn't answer? One of them was the one to which your reply was "I shouldn't have to do anything", the actual answer to which would have confirmed your earlier speculation that it had to do with HTTP request headers. > I didn't make any mistakes. Which is why it took only two and a half weeks for you to find out why this was happening? > I don't typically ask for advice from here. That's smart. > I do have a question, opinions in all. Has any antimalware or > antivirus company recruited you for a job out of the blue due to your > advanced skillset that you've previously demonstrated on both sides > of the fence? If you'd titled the thread "Raid invites you to a pissing contest", fewer people would have bothered you in it during the weeks you were using your advanced skillset to try to figure out what was going on. I'll let you go now -- I know you have important pooh-fighting to get back to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 16:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Please help check Firefox DL page |
| Message-ID | <XnsA59877CDCE9A2F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253198 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160123103717.66ebdec8@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:37:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 03:16:34 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> Hmm. Which questions did you ask me that I wouldn't answer? > > One of them was the one to which your reply was "I shouldn't have > to do anything", the actual answer to which would have confirmed > your earlier speculation that it had to do with HTTP request > headers. I answered this in the specific area you neglected to respond to. :) So, here it sgain for your reading pleasure. Correct, I did. And, it should. I'd already figured it was an XP header issue, Mozilla was able to confirm that for me. I mentioned that on Jan 1st as well, two, mebbe three posts into this thread... Do you see anything on the mozilla site that tells you if you try to download the latest version by clicking the link, you'll be provided an older version instead - if they determine you're running XP, and some editions of vista? If you do, then I have no right or expectation to think that by clicking the link I'll be provided the latest binary for that OS. If you don't, then, I feel I do have the expectation that I'll be provided the latest version of the OS binary I selected. Why did you snip that? It's a bit rhetorical, but...One should expect to get the latest version for the OS binary they selected, unless Mozilla says somewhere on the page that you won't be if you're running XP and some flavors of Vista. It makes perfect logical sense to expect the latest OS binary when you don't see such a message, Doesn't it? And the following is from my 2nd post into the thread, dated Jan 1st; already determining (no confirmation from Mozilla yet) what's going on: 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. MID in the event you doubt the posting date: <XnsA582C8F18D51F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> If you read that post, you can clearly see I took reasonable troubleshooting steps before reaching the conclusion that it HAS TO BE something on Mozilla's end preventing me from downloading the OS binary version the url 'claims' to point to. [g] >> I didn't make any mistakes. > > Which is why it took only two and a half weeks for you to find out > why this was happening? See above. Snipping won't help you here. >> I don't typically ask for advice from here. > > That's smart. Isn't it though. See, I've been in the IT field for over twenty years. Most of the time, I've answered questions for others concerning various aspects of the IT world. I'm perfectly capable of finding the answers I need without having to ask less knowledgeable people via an unmoderated usenet forum. I have also realized that sharing bug reports here isn't always a productive use of my time either. >> I do have a question, opinions in all. Has any antimalware or >> antivirus company recruited you for a job out of the blue due to >> your advanced skillset that you've previously demonstrated on >> both sides of the fence? > > If you'd titled the thread "Raid invites you to a pissing > contest", fewer people would have bothered you in it during the > weeks you were using your advanced skillset to try to figure out > what was going on. LOL. So, that's a no to my question then? I figured as much. My advanced skillset already let me know what was going on, on Jan 1st. And btw, it had nothing to do with any cache(s); thanks for that worthless suggestion anyway, n00b. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 13:57 -0600 |
| Subject | [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) |
| Message-ID | <20160123135752.7d0685e6@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #253201 |
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:55:56 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > news:20160123103717.66ebdec8@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 > 16:37:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 03:16:34 -0000 (UTC) > > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> Hmm. Which questions did you ask me that I wouldn't answer? > > > > One of them was the one to which your reply was "I shouldn't have > > to do anything", the actual answer to which would have confirmed > > your earlier speculation that it had to do with HTTP request > > headers. > > I answered this in the specific area you neglected to respond to. :) No, you didn't. :) Which is why I quit trying to help you. :) Eventually, you specifically said you had tried pasting it into Firefox's address bar without answering my other question, which of course didn't help to confirm your earlier speculation about request headers. :) I'm glad you were able to sort it out much later by doing as I'd suggested earlier, asking Mozilla. :) Maybe the problem was that your "advanced skillset" got in the way of you seeing why I'd asked the question? > So, here it sgain for your reading pleasure. It's not much of a pleasure to keep reading the posts in which you *didn't* answer the questions, but feel free to keep pasting them. > Why did you snip that? Because of its irrelevance, I decided not to comment on its inaccuracy. HTH. > And the following is from my 2nd post into the thread, dated Jan 1st; > already determining (no confirmation from Mozilla yet) what's going > on: "Determining" is a funny word to use there. > If you read that post, you can clearly see I took reasonable > troubleshooting steps before reaching the conclusion that it HAS TO > BE something on Mozilla's end preventing me from downloading the OS > binary version the url 'claims' to point to. [g] <eyeroll> I read it the first time. If you'd also mentioned that you were unwilling to take any reasonable steps to confirm your speculation, that would have saved some wasted posts until such time as you got around to asking Mozilla. > My advanced skillset already let me know what was going on, on Jan > 1st. That's hilarious. It's also hilarious that you didn't mention to Mozilla that you had it all figured out when you let them know about it. <https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/dashboard/response/5779538> > And btw, it had nothing to do with any cache(s); I brought it up once and then corrected you once when you'd erroneously said that shift+reload would only bypass your local cache. Since then, you've mentioned it more times than I've bothered to count. Do you buy yourself trophies for pretending to win pissing contests or are your self-congratulatory posts pretending you'd had everything figured out weeks ago good enough for you? I know I said I was quitting, but it's too much fun reading about your alleged superpowers. Please post more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 00:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) |
| Message-ID | <XnsA598C995F9090F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253211 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160123135752.7d0685e6@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:57:52 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:55:56 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >> news:20160123103717.66ebdec8@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 >> 16:37:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> >> > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 03:16:34 -0000 (UTC) >> > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Hmm. Which questions did you ask me that I wouldn't answer? >> > >> > One of them was the one to which your reply was "I shouldn't >> > have to do anything", the actual answer to which would have >> > confirmed your earlier speculation that it had to do with HTTP >> > request headers. >> >> I answered this in the specific area you neglected to respond to. >> :) > > No, you didn't. :) Which is why I quit trying to help you. :) Sure I did. I *shouldn't* have to do anything other than click the icon. Unless! Mozilla tells us someplace on the site itself or via a popup or something that if you try to download the latest Windows OS binary using XP or some flavors of Vista?, you aren't going to get the latest version. It *shouldn't* matter what OS i'm using to download it. I might not even be intending to install it on the OS i'm using to download it. I'm unsure how I can be any more clear concerning this simple concept. > request headers. :) I'm glad you were able to sort it out much > later by doing as I'd suggested earlier, asking Mozilla. :) ROFL. I didn't sort it out later. I already obtained the Windows OS binary I wanted, by following the url I provided in the post which created this thread. I also disclosed the fact I believed it to be an issue with Mozilla and my OS header string being sent to them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to confirm that, without having to contact them. > Maybe the problem was that your "advanced skillset" got in the way > of you seeing why I'd asked the question? You asked the question because I again mentioned that I could NOT download the correct windows binary, despite having clicked the correct url that supposedly pointed to that binary. Your first response to my thread was that you got it fine. >> So, here it sgain for your reading pleasure. > > It's not much of a pleasure to keep reading the posts in which you > *didn't* answer the questions, but feel free to keep pasting them. I see... >> Why did you snip that? > > Because of its irrelevance, I decided not to comment on its > inaccuracy. HTH. How's that? The problem is with Mozilla. It's not unreasonable to expect that when you click the icon for the Windows OS binary of your choice, that you'll be provided the latest version. >> My advanced skillset already let me know what was going on, on >> Jan 1st. > > That's hilarious. It's also hilarious that you didn't mention to > Mozilla that you had it all figured out when you let them know > about it. ROFL. I reported a problem and provided them details concerning the issue. I didn't see any point in repeating myself; they could clearly see the OS version I was using in the form. [g] > <https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/dashboard/response/5779538> You're missing my reply, so here you are: Thanks for getting back to me so quick about this Chris. I do have a question though. I'm using XP SP3, and, afaik, It doesn't have a problem with the changes on SHA... I checked out the links you've provided and it appears to be some issue with the inability to determine the service pack? If that's the case, why not just generate a popup message and tell the user, this download might not install if you're using SP2 and let them decide if they still want it? Rather than redirect all of us to v43.0.1? Maybe I should copy/paste that to the report an issue so it's copied as well? I didn't see it in the link you shared. Incidently, I haven't received a response to that. >> And btw, it had nothing to do with any cache(s); > > I brought it up once and then corrected you once when you'd > erroneously said that shift+reload would only bypass your local > cache. *laugh*. Wasn't erroneous on my part in so much as lack of boring details that still didn't apply for the problem I and many others have had the pleasure of experiencing due to some entirely piss poor scripting decisions on the part of Mozilla. The url was always pointing to the correct binary when you hovered the mouse over it. So, it *couldn't have been a cache* issue. Nice umm, troubleshooting skills. > I know I said I was quitting, but it's too much fun reading about > your alleged superpowers. Please post more. alleged? [g] I can actually backup my statement I wrote the other night when I asked if you had been contacted by either type of company and offered a job with them, when you weren't looking for one, AND, didn't know they were hiring. <BFG> You can try your bigman routine with someone else if you'd like, but, don't bother trying it with me. I'll just take you to school. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 23:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) |
| Message-ID | <20160123233625.18ae6890@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #253223 |
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 00:58:17 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > news:20160123135752.7d0685e6@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 > 19:57:52 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:55:56 -0000 (UTC) > > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > >> news:20160123103717.66ebdec8@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 > >> 16:37:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 03:16:34 -0000 (UTC) > >> > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hmm. Which questions did you ask me that I wouldn't answer? > >> > > >> > One of them was the one to which your reply was "I shouldn't > >> > have to do anything", the actual answer to which would have > >> > confirmed your earlier speculation that it had to do with HTTP > >> > request headers. > >> > >> I answered this in the specific area you neglected to respond to. > >> :) > > > > No, you didn't. :) > > Sure I did. Nope. > > I'm glad you were able to sort it out much > > later by doing as > > I'd suggested earlier, asking Mozilla. :) > > ROFL. I didn't sort it out later. Oh, in that case, good luck with it once you manage to get back into your chair. :) > >> Why did you snip that? > > > > Because of its irrelevance, I decided not to comment on its > > inaccuracy. HTH. > > How's that? I generally snip the stuff that's irrelevant to the post I'm making. HTH. > You're missing my reply, so here you are: I wasn't missing it. As soon as you got it, you posted it in multiple replies to the thread, apparently because you erroneously believed it showed you to be shining "like a sunny day". Surely you've printed it out and gotten it framed by now? > The url was always pointing to the correct binary when you hovered > the mouse over it. Also when you didn't hover your mouse over it. > You can try your bigman routine with someone else if you'd like, but, > don't bother trying it with me. I'll just take you to school. Is that some kind of threat? I was just trying to get you to post more funny stuff about how impressed you are with your own alleged powers; you know, the "advanced skillset" stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 17:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5997EC94DCDBF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253232 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160123233625.18ae6890@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:36:25 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> How's that? > > I generally snip the stuff that's irrelevant to the post I'm > making. HTH. I don't see how you think it's not relevant. It certainly is. When you click a link/icon, you expect to be getting the version the url indicates you'll be getting. The url says v43.0.4, but, you'll be presented with 43.0.1 instead. If you're using XP and some editions of Vista, due, entirely to Mozilla's fuckup - and, that's exactly what they've done here. > I wasn't missing it. As soon as you got it, you posted it in > multiple replies to the thread, apparently because you erroneously > believed it showed you to be shining "like a sunny day". Surely > you've printed it out and gotten it framed by now? ROFL. I think I know what your problem is now. :) >> The url was always pointing to the correct binary when you >> hovered the mouse over it. > > Also when you didn't hover your mouse over it. Point is, when you click the link, if you're running XP and some flavors of Vista, you *aren't* getting the latest binary as you'd expect. Nothing on the download page tells you this, or warns you in advance. Nope. You're given 43.0.1 and that's how it is. Unless you go around their bullshit buggy script and don't fork out the OS you're using and/or use the url I provided and download the binary you want, directly. >> You can try your bigman routine with someone else if you'd like, >> but, don't bother trying it with me. I'll just take you to >> school. > > Is that some kind of threat? I was just trying to get you to post > more funny stuff about how impressed you are with your own alleged > powers; you know, the "advanced skillset" stuff. *yawn* If you have something to bring to the table for comparison, feel free to do so. Until then, You're an end user. Accept it, Embrace it. I really don't care. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 12:42 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) |
| Message-ID | <20160124124239.7dda0914@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #253272 |
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:36:52 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > news:20160123233625.18ae6890@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 > 05:36:25 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > > > >> How's that? > > > > I generally snip the stuff that's irrelevant to the post I'm > > making. HTH. > > I don't see how you think it's not relevant. I know. > It certainly is. Nope. > >> You can try your bigman routine with someone else if you'd like, > >> but, don't bother trying it with me. I'll just take you to > >> school. > > > > Is that some kind of threat? I was just trying to get you to post > > more funny stuff about how impressed you are with your own alleged > > powers; you know, the "advanced skillset" stuff. > > *yawn* If you have something to bring to the table for comparison, > feel free to do so. Until then, You're an end user. Accept it, > Embrace it. I really don't care. Don't care? After posting at length how proud you are to be working in IT, I thought you cared about it more than anything else. C'mon, can't you manage just a little more bluster?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 19:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5999095AB49AF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253280 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160124124239.7dda0914@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:42:39 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:36:52 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >> news:20160123233625.18ae6890@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 >> 05:36:25 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> >> >> >> How's that? >> > >> > I generally snip the stuff that's irrelevant to the post I'm >> > making. HTH. >> >> I don't see how you think it's not relevant. > > I know. > >> It certainly is. > > Nope. Hmm. Considering I created the thread because clicking the icon/url doesn't provide you the version you're expecting, it's completely relevant to the discussion. >> *yawn* If you have something to bring to the table for >> comparison, feel free to do so. Until then, You're an end user. >> Accept it, Embrace it. I really don't care. > > Don't care? After posting at length how proud you are to be > working in IT, I thought you cared about it more than anything > else. C'mon, can't you manage just a little more bluster? Like I said.. an end user. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 01:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid (was: Please help check Firefox DL page) |
| Message-ID | <XnsA598CC63C7F02F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253211 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160123135752.7d0685e6@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:57:52 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > I brought it up once and then corrected you once when you'd > erroneously said that shift+reload would only bypass your local > cache. Since then, you've mentioned it more times than I've > bothered to count. Do you buy yourself trophies for pretending to > win pissing contests or are your self-congratulatory posts > pretending you'd had everything figured out weeks ago good enough > for you? :) I couldn't help but notice I'd responded to you concerning refreshing the cache already and asked another question of you. I didn't see any reply to it: Message-ID: <XnsA584E6100BB16F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal- september.org> >> The cache was effectively already bypassed when I cleared it out. >> shift+reload doesn't do anything aside from ask site for copy as >> opposed to pulling from a locally cached copy. >> >> I could be wrong though. Do you know something differently? > > Shift+reload also sends the headers that request remote caching > proxies not serve cached copies they might have. True, but, again, unless mozilla and/or my isp (I don't know of any reason they would or why it wouldn't be uptodate with the amount of users they have) has one (I'm not trying to access it at work or anything), I shouldn't have any 3rd party proxy or man in the middle proxy issues on this one? Even still, why would a bad cache'd version show the correct version 43.0.3, but, still not provide the correct download url? Doesn't really make any sense to me. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-23 23:05 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid |
| Message-ID | <20160123230514.6e85be52@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #253224 |
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 01:14:49 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > news:20160123135752.7d0685e6@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 > 19:57:52 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > > > I brought it up once and then corrected you once when you'd > > erroneously said that shift+reload would only bypass your local > > cache. Since then, you've mentioned it more times than I've > > bothered to count. Do you buy yourself trophies for pretending to > > win pissing contests or are your self-congratulatory posts > > pretending you'd had everything figured out weeks ago good enough > > for you? > > :) I couldn't help but notice I'd responded to you concerning > refreshing the cache already and asked another question of you. And you've gotten worked up about it now why? :) > I didn't see any reply to it: The question you asked was about the possibility of a cached version of the web page where you got the link; that had already been ruled out by that time, so I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you didn't need any reply from me. You did keep bringing up caching over and over and over and over, and you haven't stopped yet. Obsess much?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 17:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5997EC99DB80F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253228 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160123230514.6e85be52@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:05:14 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 01:14:49 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >> news:20160123135752.7d0685e6@sepulchrave.remarqs Sat, 23 Jan 2016 >> 19:57:52 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> >> > I brought it up once and then corrected you once when you'd >> > erroneously said that shift+reload would only bypass your local >> > cache. Since then, you've mentioned it more times than I've >> > bothered to count. Do you buy yourself trophies for pretending >> > to win pissing contests or are your self-congratulatory posts >> > pretending you'd had everything figured out weeks ago good >> > enough for you? >> >> :) I couldn't help but notice I'd responded to you concerning >> refreshing the cache already and asked another question of you. > > And you've gotten worked up about it now why? :) I'm not worked up. I enjoy catching people try to spin and save their ego/credibility. :) You said I'd made an error concerning shift+reload, but, the response I wrote to you clearly shows I understand WTF it was doing and how it was COMPLETELY USELESS advice considering the situation :) -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 12:38 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid |
| Message-ID | <20160124123858.7ac9ee03@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #253273 |
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:36:53 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > I enjoy catching people try to spin and save their ego/credibility. :) You're breaking all the irony meters. > You said I'd made an error concerning shift+reload, And you later admitted that, but not before you developed a crazy obsession with it. > but, the response I wrote to you clearly shows I understand WTF it > was doing and how it was COMPLETELY USELESS advice considering the > situation :) Not considering the situation as you'd presented it up to that point; remember how much you went on inarticulately speculating about problems in the html at <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/>? Of course you don't remember, because you've retconned everything to "Raid is so smrt, s-m-r-t smrt!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 19:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5999095FD224F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253279 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160124123858.7ac9ee03@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:38:58 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:36:53 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> I enjoy catching people try to spin and save their >> ego/credibility. :) > > You're breaking all the irony meters. > >> You said I'd made an error concerning shift+reload, > > And you later admitted that, but not before you developed a crazy > obsession with it. Hmm? I agreed with you concerning the additional details. How is that admitting anything? >> but, the response I wrote to you clearly shows I understand WTF >> it was doing and how it was COMPLETELY USELESS advice considering >> the situation :) > > Not considering the situation as you'd presented it up to that > point; remember how much you went on inarticulately speculating The situation was simple. The url redirects you based on OS header data. It shouldn't do so. It *should* provide you the OS binary you're expecting when you click to download it, regardless of the OS you're using. This isn't rocket science. > about problems in the html at > <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/>? Of course you don't > remember, because you've retconned everything to "Raid is so smrt, > s-m-r-t smrt!" I haven't used the nym Raid in years. Does my past offend you that much? Or do you find my intelligence to be a challenge to you after all these years? :-) -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 13:58 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid |
| Message-ID | <20160124135801.2b8aa301@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #253286 |
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:21:51 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > news:20160124123858.7ac9ee03@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 > 18:38:58 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >> You said I'd made an error concerning shift+reload, > > > > And you later admitted that, but not before you developed a crazy > > obsession with it. > > Hmm? I agreed with you concerning the additional details. How is that > admitting anything? "shift+reload doesn't do anything aside from ask site for copy as opposed to pulling from a locally cached copy" was your incorrect statement. Are you now telling me you still haven't recognized that you were wrong despite agreeing with the "additional details" which contradicted you? > >> but, the response I wrote to you clearly shows I understand WTF > >> it was doing and how it was COMPLETELY USELESS advice considering > >> the situation :) > > > > Not considering the situation as you'd presented it up to that > > point; remember how much you went on inarticulately speculating > > about problems in the html at > > <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/>? > > The situation was simple. And your alleged "advanced skillset" helped you figure it out in only two and a half weeks, despite the red herrings you tossed in. > > Of course you don't remember, because you've retconned everything > > to "Raid is so smrt, s-m-r-t smrt!" > > I haven't used the nym Raid in years. The bluster hasn't changed through your nymshifts. . You're up to about fifty posts in these threads now, all because of your need to pretend you had everything figured out before you made the first post about it. Don't you worry that if you don't keep posting about your superpowers, some people won't realize how awesome you think you are?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 21:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid |
| Message-ID | <XnsA599A7E9BFA0CF7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253288 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160124135801.2b8aa301@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:58:01 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:21:51 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >> news:20160124123858.7ac9ee03@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 >> 18:38:58 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > >> >> You said I'd made an error concerning shift+reload, >> > >> > And you later admitted that, but not before you developed a >> > crazy obsession with it. >> >> Hmm? I agreed with you concerning the additional details. How is >> that admitting anything? > > "shift+reload doesn't do anything aside from ask site for copy as > opposed to pulling from a locally cached copy" was your incorrect > statement. Are you now telling me you still haven't recognized > that you were wrong despite agreeing with the "additional details" > which contradicted you? Hmm... Are you intentionally ignoring my response, again? Here you go: Mid: <XnsA584E6100BB16F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> You wrote: > Shift+reload also sends the headers that request remote caching > proxies not serve cached copies they might have. And I responded with: True, but, again, unless mozilla and/or my isp (I don't know of any reason they would or why it wouldn't be uptodate with the amount of users they have) has one (I'm not trying to access it at work or anything), I shouldn't have any 3rd party proxy or man in the middle proxy issues on this one? Even still, why would a bad cache'd version show the correct version 43.0.3, but, still not provide the correct download url? Doesn't really make any sense to me. Do you have a legitimate answer to the question I asked you on the 3rd concerning the cache having anything to do with the issue? You suggested it could be a cache problem, and a cloud problem., but, uhh, it wasn't. > And your alleged "advanced skillset" helped you figure it out in > only two and a half weeks, despite the red herrings you tossed in. Umm, again, No. I already acquired the windows OS binary I needed via the url I shared in the initial post that created this thread. I didn't need your half assed suggestion to refresh a cache or bypass one. Your advice wasn't sound when you offered it. It was a generic suggestion that didn't do me any good whatsoever. MID: <XnsA582C8F18D51F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> You wrote: > 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. Posted on Jan 1st, the 3rd post into this thread. So, you can see, I already figured out what the problem was, AND, was able to obtain the correct binaries, without your useless suggestions involving a cache and/or cloud service (ROFL, that was funny as all hell, thanks!) > You're up to about fifty posts in these threads now, all because > of your need to pretend you had everything figured out before you > made the first post about it. Don't you worry that if you don't > keep posting about your superpowers, some people won't realize how > awesome you think you are? LOL. I'm not pretending anything. You've been in damage control mode for awhile now, though. My first post clearly told people how to obtain the OS version binary for the OS they wanted, even if the normal url wouldn't provide it, due entirely, to Mozilla fucking up their scripting. Entirely on Mozilla. As of today, they still don't mention you're about to get the old version of Firefox if you try to download the latest Windows OS binary from XP and certain editions of Vista. That's on them, not me. If you want to try answering the questions I've asked of you, I'll continue to reply. If you're looking for a circle jerk session instead, you should try pinging pooh. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 16:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid |
| Message-ID | <20160124165312.1842b997@sepulchrave.remarqs> |
| In reply to | #253296 |
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:39:26 -0000 (UTC) Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > news:20160124135801.2b8aa301@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 > 19:58:01 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:21:51 -0000 (UTC) > > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> > >> news:20160124123858.7ac9ee03@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 > >> 18:38:58 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > > > >> >> You said I'd made an error concerning shift+reload, > >> > > >> > And you later admitted that, but not before you developed a > >> > crazy obsession with it. > >> > >> Hmm? I agreed with you concerning the additional details. How is > >> that admitting anything? > > > > "shift+reload doesn't do anything aside from ask site for copy as > > opposed to pulling from a locally cached copy" was your incorrect > > statement. Are you now telling me you still haven't recognized > > that you were wrong despite agreeing with the "additional details" > > which contradicted you? > > Hmm... Are you intentionally ignoring my response, again? No, your response was precisely what I correctly referred to as you admitting your earlier error. > You wrote: > > > Shift+reload also sends the headers that request remote caching > > proxies not serve cached copies they might have. > > And I responded with: > > True, Congrats on finding your admission that you had been wrong when you posted ""shift+reload doesn't do anything aside from ask site for copy as opposed to pulling from a locally cached copy". I considered it tangential, but at least your obsession with it has led you back to reconsider your error. > Do you have a legitimate answer to the question I asked you on the > 3rd concerning the cache having anything to do with the issue? Thanks for reminding us that you remain obsessed with caching long after it was ruled out. > You suggested it could be a cache problem, and a cloud problem., but, > uhh, it wasn't. Oh no, you still don't realize that the redirection to the 43.0.1 installers occurs in the cloud? I take back all that stuff about you only needing two and a half weeks to get it figured out. > > And your alleged "advanced skillset" helped you figure it out in > > only two and a half weeks, despite the red herrings you tossed in. > > Umm, again, No. In that case, I continue to wish you luck in figuring it out. > I already acquired the windows OS binary I needed via > the url I shared in the initial post that created this thread. I never suggested that you'd ever been unable to obtain the installer you wanted; that red herring is unrelated to what it took you two and a half weeks to resolve. Now if you can clear up your misconception about the cloud, you'll have the whole thing; don't ask for any help with the cloud, though, because no one is qualified to help the Great and Powerful Raid. > Posted on Jan 1st, the 3rd post into this thread. So, you can see, I > already figured out what the problem was, How many times do you have to hit yourself over the head with a hammer to make you believe you see that? > You've been in damage control mode for awhile now, though. It's good to see you still have hammers left over to use on the irony meters. > If you want to try answering the questions I've asked of you, I'll > continue to reply. You mean you won't continue to reply if I just point out again that your need to promote belief in the "advanced skillset" of the Great and Powerful Raid is what keeps you going? I mean, are you *sure* you won't spend more of your time copying and pasting the alleged evidence of you allegedly never making a mistake?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Diesel <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 01:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Pissing match with Raid |
| Message-ID | <XnsA599CCA6D45C9F7D9A8@dieselpower.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #253300 |
=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> news:20160124165312.1842b997@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:53:12 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:39:26 -0000 (UTC) > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: > >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >> news:20160124135801.2b8aa301@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan 2016 >> 19:58:01 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:21:51 -0000 (UTC) >> > Diesel <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> > >> >> =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> >> >> news:20160124123858.7ac9ee03@sepulchrave.remarqs Sun, 24 Jan >> >> 2016 18:38:58 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote: >> > >> >> >> You said I'd made an error concerning shift+reload, >> >> > >> >> > And you later admitted that, but not before you developed a >> >> > crazy obsession with it. >> >> >> >> Hmm? I agreed with you concerning the additional details. How >> >> is that admitting anything? >> > >> > "shift+reload doesn't do anything aside from ask site for copy >> > as opposed to pulling from a locally cached copy" was your >> > incorrect statement. Are you now telling me you still haven't >> > recognized that you were wrong despite agreeing with the >> > "additional details" which contradicted you? >> >> Hmm... Are you intentionally ignoring my response, again? > > No, your response was precisely what I correctly referred to as > you admitting your earlier error. > >> You wrote: >> >> > Shift+reload also sends the headers that request remote caching >> > proxies not serve cached copies they might have. >> >> And I responded with: >> >> True, > > Congrats on finding your admission that you had been wrong when > you posted ""shift+reload doesn't do anything aside from ask site > for copy as opposed to pulling from a locally cached copy". I > considered it tangential, but at least your obsession with it has > led you back to reconsider your error. Umm... If by error you mean, neglected to bother mentioning that it also sends headers that request caches to also send me a new copy, direct from the host, instead of one they might have, then.. sure, I made a boo boo or an error, if you'd prefer. OTH, If you're trying to spin what I wrote into something it isn't (that I wasn't aware of the header information or something), that's not actually the case. >> Do you have a legitimate answer to the question I asked you on >> the 3rd concerning the cache having anything to do with the >> issue? > > Thanks for reminding us that you remain obsessed with caching long > after it was ruled out. I'm not obsessed with anything and there's no real need to snip my replies and take words out of context...It's a simple question. Just say no if you don't have a reasonable explanation instead of trying to dance around it. Ok? >> You suggested it could be a cache problem, and a cloud problem., >> but, uhh, it wasn't. > > Oh no, you still don't realize that the redirection to the 43.0.1 > installers occurs in the cloud? I take back all that stuff about > you only needing two and a half weeks to get it figured out. Christ, I feel like i'm corresponding with pooh. Neither of you are willing to admit when you're wrong about something. You'll both evidently try to spin your way out of it. > I already acquired the windows OS binary I needed via >> the url I shared in the initial post that created this thread. > > I never suggested that you'd ever been unable to obtain the > installer you wanted; that red herring is unrelated to what it > took you two and a half weeks to resolve. Now if you can clear up > your misconception about the cloud, you'll have the whole thing; > don't ask for any help with the cloud, though, because no one is > qualified to help the Great and Powerful Raid. Where do you get the two and a half weeks idea? I'd already resolved the issue for me. Included in the original post were 'instructions' for others having the same problem to be able to get the installer they actually wanted. >> If you want to try answering the questions I've asked of you, >> I'll continue to reply. > > You mean you won't continue to reply if I just point out again > that your need to promote belief in the "advanced skillset" of the > Great and Powerful Raid is what keeps you going? I mean, are you > *sure* you won't spend more of your time copying and pasting the > alleged evidence of you allegedly never making a mistake? How did this turn from a simple question concerning Mozilla fucking up (and still doing so) into a lame, but, amusing, attack on me? Have I done something personally to you in the past or something? Did you get 0wned by some old code of mine? If you did, it was a long long time ago and I just don't do those things anymore. I'm sorry. Otherwise, I don't really know what your attitude is with me...? If I've offended you by pointing out that you weren't very helpful in diagnosing the issue I was having, I'm sorry. I was a little testy with you and Sarah. I didn't appreciate the fact one of you assumed I'd neglected to provide information and the other assuming I didn't know how to use the damn reload features on firefox. I only mentioned some skills when you made a smartass comment concerning my expertise in IT. [g] If you know anything about the Raid days, you know I wrote what I said I'd write and backed up the things I said I'd do. And, I wasn't exactly an idiot then, either. We both know you can't hold a fucking candle to me, and, I don't care if that bothers you. I put the time in. You can waste the time too, if you really wanted. In hindsight, I'd advise against it. -- Hey listen... On your way back up, bring some popcorn...With salt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware
csiph-web