Time to Dump Firefox

[Bear]

"Depending on which statistics you look at, about 2.5% of all Firefox users
are still working with version 3.6 of the browser. That’s millions of
users who are currently working with a version of the web browser that is
no longer maintained or supported with security updates.

Mozilla recently ended support for the browser and tried to get Firefox 3.6
users to update through the browser’s automatic update feature. The
organization furthermore published blog posts and information on its core
websites to inform users about the the unsupported version, and recommended
there as well to upgrade to the latest version of Firefox."

Add-ons keeping you on Firefox 3.6?

http://www.ghacks.net/2012/05/28/add-ons-keeping-you-on-firefox-3-6-try-
these-alternatives/

http://goo.gl/Q0EcJ

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
not-for-mail

[Man-wai Chang]

The HTML standard is evolving. New browser functions are emerging. You
have to adapt, or stay with old versions.

On 28/05/12 9:19 PM, Bear wrote:
> "Depending on which statistics you look at, about 2.5% of all Firefox users
> are still working with version 3.6 of the browser. That’s millions of
> users who are currently working with a version of the web browser that is
> no longer maintained or supported with security updates.

--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora 15 i686) Linux 3.4.0
^ ^ 21:21:02 up 2 days 6:06 0 users load average: 0.26 0.44 0.42
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[Poutnik]

In article posted 28 May 2012 13:19:26 GMT to alt.comp.freeware,
Bear posted this..

>
> "Depending on which statistics you look at, about 2.5% of all Firefox users

> are still working with version 3.6 of the browser. That?s millions of

> users who are currently working with a version of the web browser that is
> no longer maintained or supported with security updates.

Many of 3.6 users were interprise users,
where prolonged support of FF 3.6 was maintained by Mozilla
due requirements of enterprise support policies.

It is superseded by FF 10 ESR, and by future ESR releases in about
yearly intervals.

--
Poutnik

[Jon Danniken]

On 05/28/2012 06:23 AM, Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> The HTML standard is evolving. New browser functions are emerging. You
> have to adapt, or stay with old versions.

I remember when I finally had to quit using Netscape 3.04 after several
months of pages not loading and/or displaying improperly.

It took me awhile to get used to the different interface of IE, but in
time I managed.

I'm finally back with Mozilla using FF, now that there is an add-on that
substistutes for the "inline-autocomplete" feature which has kept me
glued to IE for lo these many years. There's also a really good
community around Mozilla, as well as a devotion to customization.

Jon

[Bear]

Jon Danniken <jonSPAM...@yaSMPAhoo.com> wrote in news:jq03cj$esn$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> I'm finally back with Mozilla using FF, now that there is an add-on that
> substistutes for the "inline-autocomplete" feature which has kept me
> glued to IE for lo these many years. There's also a really good
> community around Mozilla, as well as a devotion to customization.
>
> Jon
>
>
>

Chrome's in-line autocomplete is much better than both IE & FF.

[par4thecourse]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA061691F4B415be...@130.225.254.104:

> Jon Danniken <jonSPAM...@yaSMPAhoo.com> wrote in
> news:jq03cj$esn$1 @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>
>> I'm finally back with Mozilla using FF, now that there is an add-on
>> that substistutes for the "inline-autocomplete" feature which has
>> kept me glued to IE for lo these many years. There's also a really
>> good community around Mozilla, as well as a devotion to
>> customization.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>
> Chrome's in-line autocomplete is much better than both IE & FF.
>

It's the Chrome menu I can't get used to. I'm tempted to install it again
because of all the excellent Google add-ons (and of course the resulting
loss in privacy). I think I read that you can default to a File/Edit/View
etc menu in Chrome. True?

Firefox 12 is great for some things like download management and some cool
add-ons, but it gets bogged down with multiple pages opened and video
caching. I seem to have better luck with Opera. I find Internet Explorer
to be problematic for one reason - not enough adblockers for it.

[Bear]

par4thecourse wrote in news:T96dnShnsp-_Ol7S...@giganews.com:

Google Chrome has other features that web browsers have and doesn't have
like speed, easeof use, HTML5 support and better phishing and malware
blocker and most of all the speed, oh did I mention that?

--
Bear
http://bearware.info

[Bear]

par4thecourse wrote in
news:T96dnShnsp-_Ol7S...@giganews.com:


>

> It's the Chrome menu I can't get used to. I'm tempted to install it
> again because of all the excellent Google add-ons (and of course the
> resulting loss in privacy). I think I read that you can default to a
> File/Edit/View etc menu in Chrome. True?

No. Thereis not and never has been a toolbar for File/Edit/View. The
options those menus contain are under the wrench tool. Some don't like
this non-standard approach, but it's only one menu versus three.

>
> Firefox 12 is great for some things like download management and some
> cool add-ons, but it gets bogged down with multiple pages opened and
> video caching. I seem to have better luck with Opera. I find
> Internet Explorer to be problematic for one reason - not enough
> adblockers for it.

Chrome doesn't bog down unless you run out of system resources. There
are no memory leaks as met with FireFox.

There are no issues with extensions when you update and Chrome
extensions have matured enough to rival and in many case exceed what's
available for FF.

There is a reason Chrome has been the browser to surpass IE.

[Jaxoff]

*You love Chrome more than me*

Jaxoff

--
Jaxoff
http://beerware.nfo

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <MPG.2a2d9da...@news.eternal-september.org>

I'm staying with 3.6 because 12 doesn't support certain Add-Ons I use
and have come to depend on.

[Duddits]

SRWare Iron is Chrome without Google's spyware.
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

regards

Dud
--
Troll filter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

[Dustin]

Bear <REMOVEbea...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA061BD3E02C84be...@130.225.254.104:

> Google Chrome has other features that web browsers have and doesn't
> have like speed, easeof use, HTML5 support and better phishing and
> malware blocker and most of all the speed, oh did I mention that?

Chrome recently had over 8 bugs which allowed a couple of hackers to make
some money off google. IE: Chrome could be tricked into running code it
shouldn't be, outside the sandbox will full rights as chrome has. IE: the
code can make new files, delete files, whatever the author wants. An
uptodate chrome with a fully patched win7 machine.

Google hasn't fixed it completely yet either. they aren't diclosing over 4
of the bugs as they work to fix it. In the meantime, if it's taken
advantage of, it'll allow code to execute outside of the sandbox with
whatever rights the browser does.

You just keep preaching this browser. Google is taking days to fix it and
hoping security by obsecurity (IE: not telling anybody) will keep users of
it's browser safe until they fix it.





--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Poutnik]

In article posted Mon, 28 May 2012 23:11:46 +0200 (CEST) to
alt.comp.freeware,
Nomen Nescio posted this..

> >
> > Many of 3.6 users were interprise users,
> > where prolonged support of FF 3.6 was maintained by Mozilla
> > due requirements of enterprise support policies.
> >
> > It is superseded by FF 10 ESR, and by future ESR releases in about
> > yearly intervals.
> >
> > --
> > Poutnik
>
> I'm staying with 3.6 because 12 doesn't support certain Add-Ons I use
> and have come to depend on.

Yes, this is another reason.
I always stayed at older release,
until all my major addons were compatible with new one.

--
Poutnik

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
news:MPG.2a2e1fc...@news.eternal-september.org:

I just don't get sticking with a browser like that and it also still has
huge memory leak issues.

[Poutnik]

In article posted 28 May 2012 23:34:17 GMT to alt.comp.freeware,
Bear posted this..

>

> >>

> >> I'm staying with 3.6 because 12 doesn't support certain Add-Ons I use
> >> and have come to depend on.
> >
> > Yes, this is another reason.
> > I always stayed at older release,
> > until all my major addons were compatible with new one.
> >
>
> I just don't get sticking with a browser like that and it also still has
> huge memory leak issues.

Each has its own issues.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article posted 28 May 2012 23:34:17 GMT to alt.comp.freeware,
Bear posted this..

>

> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
> news:MPG.2a2e1fc...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article posted Mon, 28 May 2012 23:11:46 +0200 (CEST) to
> > alt.comp.freeware,
> > Nomen Nescio posted this..
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > Many of 3.6 users were interprise users,
> >> > where prolonged support of FF 3.6 was maintained by Mozilla
> >> > due requirements of enterprise support policies.
> >> >
> >> > It is superseded by FF 10 ESR, and by future ESR releases in about
> >> > yearly intervals.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Poutnik
> >>
> >> I'm staying with 3.6 because 12 doesn't support certain Add-Ons I use
> >> and have come to depend on.
> >
> > Yes, this is another reason.
> > I always stayed at older release,
> > until all my major addons were compatible with new one.
> >
>
> I just don't get sticking with a browser like that and it also still has
> huge memory leak issues.

Personally I take Chrome as one of worst "malware",
due its aggresive bundling policy.

One never knows, when he gets it on his PC,
if he is not careful enough.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article posted 28 May 2012 23:34:17 GMT to alt.comp.freeware,
Bear posted this..

> I just don't get sticking with a browser like that and it also still has
> huge memory leak issues.
>

There would be much less number of software of any kind,
if both its authors and its users did not think it is the best.

Lets reserve for others right and freedom
to have different opinion than ours.....

--
Poutnik

[Jon Danniken]

On 05/28/2012 09:26 AM, par4thecourse wrote:
>
> I find Internet Explorer
> to be problematic for one reason - not enough adblockers for it.

It's like you're reading my mind. Both IE7 and IE8 were just fine for
me, but without ABP they're not contenders.

Jon

[Jon Danniken]

On 05/28/2012 08:20 AM, Bear wrote:
>
>
> Chrome's in-line autocomplete is much better than both IE& FF.

This could be true, but I'm not going to use a google browser.

Jon

[Poutnik]

In article posted Tue, 29 May 2012 01:48:39 +0200 to alt.comp.freeware,
Poutnik posted this..

> > I just don't get sticking with a browser like that and it also
> > still has huge memory leak issues.
>
> Personally I take Chrome as one of worst "malware",
> due its aggresive bundling policy.
>
> One never knows, when he gets it on his PC,
> if he is not careful enough.

Another thing is ( at least was ) it did not ask
for folder to install into at all and even worse,
installed itself into Appdata folder tree.

I have also seen Google autoupdate services too intrusive.

I cannot help myself, I do not like Chrome.
I am afraid Chrom is pushed mainly because being from Google,
not because being the best.

I have read interesting article,
that people are flapping their hands for Google,
that is doing many same things as Microsoft years ago,
and people did not like MS for that.

I do not pretend I like Google company these days.
I liked it in very early period when they started.

But it is my personal choice. Pushing my opinion to others
as if it was the only right one would not be good thing.

--
Poutnik

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

Why?

I've been using Chrome as long as it has been available (even while in
development) and it has been no problem.

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2a2e8429844198035d2
@news.eternal-september.org:

> But it is my personal choice. Pushing my opinion to others
> as if it was the only right one would not be good thing.

It is the best browser currently for many factual reasons, not opinions.
Synchronization is just one of them...were it IE or Firefox that contained
them, I would be 'pushing' them.

[Poutnik]

In article posted Tue, 29 May 2012 10:30:34 +0100 to alt.comp.freeware,
Stephen Wolstenholme posted this..

>
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:02:16 -0700, Jon Danniken
> <jonSPAM...@yaSMPAhoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 05/28/2012 08:20 AM, Bear wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Chrome's in-line autocomplete is much better than both IE& FF.
> >
> >This could be true, but I'm not going to use a google browser.
> >
>
> Why?
>
> I've been using Chrome as long as it has been available (even while in
> development) and it has been no problem.
>
> Steve

Personal preference is not driven by if others have/have not problems.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

In article posted 29 May 2012 10:24:56 GMT to alt.comp.freeware,
Bear posted this..

>

> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2a2e8429844198035d2
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > But it is my personal choice. Pushing my opinion to others
> > as if it was the only right one would not be good thing.
>
> It is the best browser currently for many factual reasons, not opinions.

As they are evaluated by persons, they ARE opinions.
So does every trademark "BEST (R)" is based on opinion,
at least on opinion of authors of evaluation rule set.

> Synchronization is just one of them...were it IE or Firefox that contained
> them, I would be 'pushing' them.

Hm, I did know I am not able to synchronize FF,
I have to stop doing that immediately.

--
Poutnik

[p-0^0-h the cat]

On 29 May 2012 10:24:56 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:

>It is the best browser currently for many factual reasons, not opinions.
>Synchronization is just one of them..

Oh! wow. Like I need that. I hardly ever use bookmarks. I have this
thing built in called memory, and when that's lacking a search engine is
a click away. It's quicker, and more intuitive to the search process, or
at least it is for me. There are no surprises with bookmarks.

Not everyone thinks like you bully boy. Telling us how to think will get
you nowhere unless you back it up with some empirical evidence as to why
changing our view is advantageous to us.

To put it bluntly *** SHUT UPPA YOUR FACE ***

--
p-0^0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker

[Poutnik]

In article posted Tue, 29 May 2012 12:10:11 +0100 to alt.comp.freeware,
p-0^0-h the cat posted this..

>
> Oh! wow. Like I need that. I hardly ever use bookmarks. I have this
> thing built in called memory, and when that's lacking a search engine is
> a click away. It's quicker, and more intuitive to the search process, or
> at least it is for me. There are no surprises with bookmarks.
>

Bookmarks, combined with history, are great,
even if you as I did not bother with bookmark browsing at all.

FF is great in prioritized autocompleting addresses
according to addresses/titles/tagwords from them.

It is much faster and more accurate than googling.
And Xmarks, former Foxmarks are great in syncing.

--
Poutnik

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2a2e2f5d2f65a9df5d1
@news.eternal-september.org:

Let's not hasten to judgements that we later regret. Billy says if you're
going to be argumentative, back a winner so you win your arguments. It's good
advice for all of us.

Jax
--
Bear
http://bearware.info

[Poutnik]

In article posted Tue, 29 May 2012 15:37:56 +0100 to alt.comp.freeware,

Bear posted this..

>
> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2a2e2f5d2f65a9df5d1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article posted 28 May 2012 23:34:17 GMT to alt.comp.freeware,
> > Bear posted this..
> >
> >> I just don't get sticking with a browser like that and it also still has
> >> huge memory leak issues.
> >>
> >
> > There would be much less number of software of any kind,
> > if both its authors and its users did not think it is the best.
> >
> > Lets reserve for others right and freedom
> > to have different opinion than ours.....
>
> Let's not hasten to judgements that we later regret. Billy says if you're
> going to be argumentative, back a winner so you win your arguments. It's good
> advice for all of us.
>
> Jax

Who is Billy ?

Hm, if someone who respects different opinions is called argumentative,
how is called the one who does not ? ;-)

--
Poutnik

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
news:MPG.2a2f00a...@news.eternal-september.org:

Nice try at changing the subject. Firefox suffers by comparison and you
can't change that.

[Jon Danniken]

On 05/29/2012 02:30 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:02:16 -0700, Jon Danniken
> <jonSPAM...@yaSMPAhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/28/2012 08:20 AM, Bear wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Chrome's in-line autocomplete is much better than both IE& FF.
>>
>> This could be true, but I'm not going to use a google browser.
>>
>
> Why?
>
> I've been using Chrome as long as it has been available (even while in
> development) and it has been no problem.

I don't like Google. I don't trust Google. Google has a history of
censorship and destruction which disqualify it from being considered a
trustworthy supplier.

That having been said, I will admit that I do use their search engine as
my default search engine, because most of the time it returns the most
relvant results (Bing is a close second, but they don't filter out eHow
spam and other garbage).

I use Google search because there is no alternative, but I do not use
their browser because their are alternatives.

Jon

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:28:03 +0200, Yrrah <Yrra...@acf.invalid>
wrote:

>Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com>:

>
>> >This could be true, but I'm not going to use a google browser.
>
>> Why?
>>
>> I've been using Chrome as long as it has been available (even while in
>> development) and it has been no problem.
>

>You mean, what _you_ don't see doesn't exist?
>
>Yrrah

No, I'm sure there are lots of things that I never see but if they do
nothing harmful I don't care about them.

[Poutnik]

In article posted Tue, 29 May 2012 15:59:21 +0100 to alt.comp.freeware,

Bear posted this..

>
> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
> news:MPG.2a2f00a...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article posted Tue, 29 May 2012 15:37:56 +0100 to alt.comp.freeware,
> > Bear posted this..
> >
> >>
> >> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:MPG.2a2e2f5d2f65a9df5d1
> >> @news.eternal-september.org:
> >>
> >> > In article posted 28 May 2012 23:34:17 GMT to alt.comp.freeware,
> >> > Bear posted this..
> >> >
> >> >> I just don't get sticking with a browser like that and it also still
> >> >> has huge memory leak issues.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > There would be much less number of software of any kind,
> >> > if both its authors and its users did not think it is the best.
> >> >
> >> > Lets reserve for others right and freedom
> >> > to have different opinion than ours.....
> >>
> >> Let's not hasten to judgements that we later regret. Billy says if
> >> you're going to be argumentative, back a winner so you win your
> >> arguments. It's good advice for all of us.
> >>
> >> Jax
> >
> > Who is Billy ?
> >
> > Hm, if someone who respects different opinions is called argumentative,
> > how is called the one who does not ? ;-)
>
> Nice try at changing the subject. Firefox suffers by comparison and you
> can't change that.
>

I did not to change anything, see above.

Final comparison is done
by user mind, eyes and hands,
and you cannot change that.


--
Poutnik

[technomaNge]

Try Chromium browser: http://www.chromium.org/

Read about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_%28web_browser%29

Those crafty Germans took out the Google nastiness.



technomaNge
--
Hummingbird the Transvestite Psychic/Chris, you're as queer as a
football bat. Sue me, asswipe.

ATTN Newbies, Bear Bottoms is a lying sack of shit. Do not believe
anything Bear says.

[Bear]

p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
news:p0b9s7153ld1hsm9i...@4ax.com:

> On 29 May 2012 10:24:56 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>>It is the best browser currently for many factual reasons, not opinions.
>>Synchronization is just one of them..
>
> Oh! wow. Like I need that. I hardly ever use bookmarks. I have this
> thing built in called memory, and when that's lacking a search engine is
> a click away. It's quicker, and more intuitive to the search process, or
> at least it is for me. There are no surprises with bookmarks.
>
> Not everyone thinks like you bully boy. Telling us how to think will get
> you nowhere unless you back it up with some empirical evidence as to why
> changing our view is advantageous to us.
>
> To put it bluntly *** SHUT UPPA YOUR FACE ***

So you do battle with forgers now silly one? Such a fool ye are.

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
Header Path: weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!
news.datemas.de

[par4thecourse]

Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA061851ACEC2Abe...@130.225.254.104:

> No. Thereis not and never has been a toolbar for File/Edit/View. The
> options those menus contain are under the wrench tool. Some don't like
> this non-standard approach, but it's only one menu versus three.

I've had an easier time transitioning from Dos to Windows 3.1 to Win 95 to
Win 2000 to XP to Windows 7 than I have trying to get used to the Chrome
menu (ok maybe not Windows 7 and it's file placement for Documents and
Settings, roaming,apps and data/ini files of programs installed).

[Bear]

par4thecourse wrote in
news:EYqdnUkCgprIJlvS...@giganews.com:

Change is sometimes resisted, sometimes better, sometimes unappreciated or
even appreciated, and sometimes unwanted. Change will still come. You
either stay on the wave and move with it, or stop and live in the past.

My experience with it is it has only continued to get better overall.
Privacy, well such is not the place for the Internet. Don't expect that to
improve and you will less likely set yourself up for dissappointment.
Control what you reveal...though it may already be too late for you.

--
Bear
http://bearware.info
Header Path: news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!
not-for-mail

[Poutnik]

In article posted 31 May 2012 01:49:40 GMT,
Bear says..

>

> Control what you reveal...though it may already be too late for you.

Part of that can be not using Chrome... ;-)

--
Poutnik

[p-0^0-h the cat]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 06:53:15 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

Ha Ha.

[p-0^0-h the cat]

On 31 May 2012 01:49:40 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:

>Change is sometimes resisted, sometimes better, sometimes unappreciated or
>even appreciated, and sometimes unwanted. Change will still come. You
>either stay on the wave and move with it, or stop and live in the past.

The changing of sunlight to moonlight
Reflections of my life
How they fill my eyes
My sorrows
Sad tomorrows
Take me back to my own home
My crying
Feel I'm dying
Take me back
To my own home
I'm changing
Arranging
I'm changing
Everything
Everything around me
The world is
A bad place
A bad place
A terrible place

[Bear]

Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
news:MPG.2a3117a...@news.eternal-september.org:

The rest of it would be don't use the Internet. So silly.

[Poutnik]

In article posted 31 May 2012 09:46:22 GMT,
Bear says..

>
> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
> news:MPG.2a3117a...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article posted 31 May 2012 01:49:40 GMT,
> > Bear says..
> >>
> >
> >> Control what you reveal...though it may already be too late for you.
> >
> > Part of that can be not using Chrome... ;-)
> >
>
> The rest of it would be don't use the Internet. So silly.

Or, decide to choose, what can be chosen.

--
Poutnik

[Duddits]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:48:06 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

sigh..... another endless Bear Bottoms thread...........

--
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they
have to say something - Plato

[Poutnik]

In article posted Thu, 31 May 2012 08:59:52 -0400, Duddits says..

>
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:48:06 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>

> >> The rest of it would be don't use the Internet. So silly.
> >

> > r, decide to choose, what can be chosen.
>
> sigh..... another endless Bear Bottoms thread...........

Who follows the thread, never take it as endless, otherwise he would have
it marked as ignored thread.

If not, than he should complain to himself not doing so yet. :-)

--
Poutnik

[Duddits]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:18:47 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

I just can't understand why folks take the bait and FEED the troll.
His controversial posts draw attention when they should be ignored. I
guess I need to filter the troll feeders, too.

regards

Dud

[p-0^0-h the cat]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:25:20 -0400, Duddits <Dud...@Dreamcatcher.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:18:47 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article posted Thu, 31 May 2012 08:59:52 -0400, Duddits says..
>>>
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:48:06 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >> The rest of it would be don't use the Internet. So silly.
>>> >
>>> > r, decide to choose, what can be chosen.
>>>
>>> sigh..... another endless Bear Bottoms thread...........
>>
>>Who follows the thread, never take it as endless, otherwise he would have
>>it marked as ignored thread.
>>
>>If not, than he should complain to himself not doing so yet. :-)
>
>I just can't understand why folks take the bait and FEED the troll.
>His controversial posts draw attention when they should be ignored. I
>guess I need to filter the troll feeders, too.

Get a life.

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:25:20 -0400, Duddits <Dud...@Dreamcatcher.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:18:47 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article posted Thu, 31 May 2012 08:59:52 -0400, Duddits says..
>>>
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:48:06 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >> The rest of it would be don't use the Internet. So silly.
>>> >
>>> > r, decide to choose, what can be chosen.
>>>
>>> sigh..... another endless Bear Bottoms thread...........
>>
>>Who follows the thread, never take it as endless, otherwise he would have
>>it marked as ignored thread.
>>
>>If not, than he should complain to himself not doing so yet. :-)
>
>I just can't understand why folks take the bait and FEED the troll.

As you are doing!

>His controversial posts draw attention when they should be ignored. I
>guess I need to filter the troll feeders, too.
>

Don't forget to include yourself.

[Bear]

Duddits <Dud...@Dreamcatcher.com> wrote in
news:j53fs7h7fj47pph81...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:18:47 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In article posted Thu, 31 May 2012 08:59:52 -0400, Duddits says..
>>>
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:48:06 +0200, Poutnik
<pou...@privacy.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >> The rest of it would be don't use the Internet. So silly.
>>> >
>>> > r, decide to choose, what can be chosen.
>>>
>>> sigh..... another endless Bear Bottoms thread...........
>>
>>Who follows the thread, never take it as endless, otherwise he would
have
>>it marked as ignored thread.
>>
>>If not, than he should complain to himself not doing so yet. :-)
>
> I just can't understand why folks take the bait and FEED the troll.
> His controversial posts draw attention when they should be ignored. I
> guess I need to filter the troll feeders, too.
>
> regards
>
> Dud

the only one trolling is you Dud.