New Zoom method in 10.4.8
Snit
Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
cool.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
C Lund
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> Just found this:
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> cool.
I could do that before I applied the 10.4.8 patch. B)
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Peter Hayes
> Just found this:
>
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
Nice one, thanks.
--
Peter
Snit
clund-11FF7F....@news.chello.no on 10/3/06 2:31 AM:
Hmmm, when was that added? I never noticed it before?
Snit
20061003142...@news.individual.net on 10/3/06 6:27 AM:
C Lund had said it was there before, but I just checked a 10.4.7 system and
it was not there. Anyone know if it was there on *some* 10.4.7 systems?
Seems odd. C Lund - did are you sure?
Either way, it is cool.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Mojo
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> Just found this:
>
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>
> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> cool.
Cool!
Snit
windoze_sucks-C26...@news.isp.giganews.com on 10/3/06 10:28
AM:
I wish XP had this! In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close
up views of things ... there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the
magnification tools, but it was just as easy to get a screen shot, paste it
into Paint and zoom there. For such things this is a big advantage of OS
X.
Wayne Stuart
Ditto!
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wssenterprises/whynotmacfaq/>
Edwin
> "Mojo" <windoz...@microshaft.com> stated in post
> windoze_sucks-C26...@news.isp.giganews.com on 10/3/06
> 10:28 AM:
>
>> In article <C14732DE.61387%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>, Snit
>> <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>> Just found this:
>>>
>>> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool,
>>> eh?
>>>
>>> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
>>> Very cool.
>>
>> Cool!
>
> I wish XP had this!
It does. It's had it for years.
> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of
> things ... there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the
> magnification tools, but it was just as easy to get a screen shot,
> paste it into Paint and zoom there. For such things this is a big
> advantage of OS X.
Control + scroll wheel works as zoom in every Windows XP application I
tried it in... Adobe, IE, PowerPoint, Word... the only program it
doesn't work in is Paint, which is an old bit map program.
--
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
-- Alan "Wrong Again" Baker
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>Snit wrote:
>> "Mojo" <windoz...@microshaft.com> stated in post
>> windoze_sucks-C26...@news.isp.giganews.com on 10/3/06
>> 10:28 AM:
>>
>>> In article <C14732DE.61387%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>, Snit
>>> <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Just found this:
>>>>
>>>> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool,
>>>> eh?
>>>>
>>>> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
>>>> Very cool.
>>>
>>> Cool!
>>
>> I wish XP had this!
>
>It does. It's had it for years.
>
>> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of
>> things ... there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the
>> magnification tools, but it was just as easy to get a screen shot,
>> paste it into Paint and zoom there. For such things this is a big
>> advantage of OS X.
>
>Control + scroll wheel works as zoom in every Windows XP application I
>tried it in... Adobe, IE, PowerPoint, Word... the only program it
>doesn't work in is Paint, which is an old bit map program.
But Apple has it first because Steve Jobs saw a magnifying glass in
1967, long before Windows was made!
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
Snit
2eDUg.1421$NE6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com on 10/3/06 5:27 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Mojo" <windoz...@microshaft.com> stated in post
>> windoze_sucks-C26...@news.isp.giganews.com on 10/3/06
>> 10:28 AM:
>>
>>> In article <C14732DE.61387%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>, Snit
>>> <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Just found this:
>>>>
>>>> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool,
>>>> eh?
>>>>
>>>> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
>>>> Very cool.
>>>
>>> Cool!
>>
>> I wish XP had this!
>
> It does. It's had it for years.
It does not.
>> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of
>> things ... there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the
>> magnification tools, but it was just as easy to get a screen shot,
>> paste it into Paint and zoom there. For such things this is a big
>> advantage of OS X.
>
> Control + scroll wheel works as zoom in every Windows XP application I
> tried it in... Adobe, IE, PowerPoint, Word... the only program it
> doesn't work in is Paint, which is an old bit map program.
Irrelevant.
What would be relevant is if XP had a feature like the one in OS X.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Snit
ae86i2tj60ar8tqjq...@4ax.com on 10/3/06 7:52 PM:
You are, of course, a moron.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
C Lund
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> stated in post
> 20061003142...@news.individual.net on 10/3/06 6:27 AM:
> > Nice one, thanks.
> C Lund had said it was there before, but I just checked a 10.4.7 system and
> it was not there. Anyone know if it was there on *some* 10.4.7 systems?
> Seems odd. C Lund - did are you sure?
As sure as I can be without re-installing 10.4.7.
However, this page indicates that it's not a new feature:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/universalaccess/
And this article is about the update:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/macosx1048updateintel.html
I don't see anything about scroll-zooming here, so...
> Either way, it is cool.
Indeed. Even though I don't need it. B)
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Peter Hayes
> Mojo <windoz...@microshaft.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <C14732DE.61387%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>> > Just found this:
>> >
>> > Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>> >
>> > If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
>> > Very cool.
>>
>> Cool!
>
> Ditto!
Press the middle mouse button. Then you can scroll just by moving the
mouse a little bit. Personally, I find it awkward but it's probably
great for the handicapped.
Peter
Snit
The feature has been there - to zoom. What is new, though, is the ease of
use... just press a modifier key and scroll. Very cool. For those of us
who teach how to use computers, it is an excellent way to focus in on a
section... and it is a lot easier to remember than Command+Option+8 and then
Command+Option+= to zoom in and Command+Option+- to zoom out. That is how I
used to do it...
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
Does not work for me... but I have a third party mouse with a third party
mouse driver. I shall try it later on other computers.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> 2eDUg.1421$NE6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com on 10/3/06 5:27 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Mojo" <windoz...@microshaft.com> stated in post
>>> windoze_sucks-C26...@news.isp.giganews.com on 10/3/06
>>> 10:28 AM:
>>>
>>>> In article <C14732DE.61387%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>, Snit
>>>> <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>>>> Just found this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool,
>>>>> eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
>>>>> Very cool.
>>>> Cool!
>>> I wish XP had this!
>> It does. It's had it for years.
>
> It does not.
Yes it does, and any Windows XP user can easily confirm it.
>>> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of
>>> things ... there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the
>>> magnification tools, but it was just as easy to get a screen shot,
>>> paste it into Paint and zoom there. For such things this is a big
>>> advantage of OS X.
>> Control + scroll wheel works as zoom in every Windows XP application I
>> tried it in... Adobe, IE, PowerPoint, Word... the only program it
>> doesn't work in is Paint, which is an old bit map program.
>
> Irrelevant.
Not irrelevant.
> What would be relevant is if XP had a feature like the one in OS X.
It does. Press the control key while you use the scroll wheel in
Windows XP to see the same feature.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
>> 2eDUg.1421$NE6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com on 10/3/06 5:27 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Mojo" <windoz...@microshaft.com> stated in post
>>>> windoze_sucks-C26...@news.isp.giganews.com on 10/3/06
>>>> 10:28 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <C14732DE.61387%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>, Snit
>>>>> <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>>>>> Just found this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool,
>>>>>> eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
>>>>>> Very cool.
>>>>> Cool!
>>>> I wish XP had this!
>>> It does. It's had it for years.
>>
>> It does not.
>
> Yes it does, and any Windows XP user can easily confirm it.
Incorrect.
>
>>>> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of
>>>> things ... there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the
>>>> magnification tools, but it was just as easy to get a screen shot,
>>>> paste it into Paint and zoom there. For such things this is a big
>>>> advantage of OS X.
>>> Control + scroll wheel works as zoom in every Windows XP application I
>>> tried it in... Adobe, IE, PowerPoint, Word... the only program it
>>> doesn't work in is Paint, which is an old bit map program.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Not irrelevant.
>
>> What would be relevant is if XP had a feature like the one in OS X.
>
> It does. Press the control key while you use the scroll wheel in
> Windows XP to see the same feature.
Oh, this is fun! Say it again, Edwin! I love watching you spew incorrect
information as though it were fact. Well, OK, I would prefer if you would
act like an adult and stop lying, but, hey, since that will not happen I can
enjoy your humiliation of yourself. Tee hee.
Come on, Edwin, tell me how the Control+Scroll wheel works the same on XP as
it does on OS X! Rub it in!
Hey, if you are running out of steam and need more ways to humiliate
yourself on your ignorance on this issue, you can explain why the following
page fails to mention this feature on XP (a feature you even admit does not
work everywhere):
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/accessibility/magnifiermagnificatio
n.mspx
And then explain why the Jaws Magnification Only software is still sold...
LOL!
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
If being mistaken about something is necessarily the source of
humiliation in your mind, you must be the most humiliated person on
planet earth.
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself - Snit
I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
Snit
noone-A483D8....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/4/06 9:10 PM:
>> Oh, this is fun! Say it again, Edwin! I love watching you spew incorrect
>> information as though it were fact. Well, OK, I would prefer if you would
>> act like an adult and stop lying, but, hey, since that will not happen I can
>> enjoy your humiliation of yourself.
>
>
> If being mistaken about something is necessarily the source of
> humiliation in your mind, you must be the most humiliated person on
> planet earth.
>
> --
> Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
> Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
> like myself - Snit
> I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
Oh, the irony. LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-A483D8....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/4/06 9:10 PM:
>
> >> Oh, this is fun! Say it again, Edwin! I love watching you spew incorrect
> >> information as though it were fact. Well, OK, I would prefer if you would
> >> act like an adult and stop lying, but, hey, since that will not happen I
> >> can
> >> enjoy your humiliation of yourself.
> >
> >
> > If being mistaken about something is necessarily the source of
> > humiliation in your mind, you must be the most humiliated person on
> > planet earth.
>
>
> Oh, the irony. LOL!
Says the guy who has logged more "mistakes" than any 20 posters combined
in his relatively short stint in csma.
Stay away from open flames tonight, Snit;)
Edwin
All anybody has to do to see what a crazy and stupid arsehole you are is
to hold their control button while they move their scroll wheel and
watch their Windows XP application zoom in and out.
If your talking about whole screen zooming, there are tons of freeware,
shareware, and commercial programs to add that functionality to Windows.
Snit
If? If! You don't know *yet*! Holy cow, Edwin, how lost can you get?
That was the whole point - OS X has this zoom feature... actually had it for
a while... but now they have added an easier way to access it. And it is
cool. And XP does not have it.
You claimed it did. Which means
Edwin is wrong!
AGAIN!
LOL!
Edwin
>
> If? If! You don't know *yet*! Holy cow, Edwin, how lost can you get?
You didn't specify.
> That was the whole point - OS X has this zoom feature...
Windows XP has has "this zoom feature." You didn't specify when and
where it was to be used.
> actually had it for
> a while... but now they have added an easier way to access it. And it is
> cool. And XP does not have it.
XP does have it.
> You claimed it did. Which means
>
> Edwin is wrong!
>
> AGAIN!
>
> LOL!
You misspelled "right" as "wrong."
You chose to make dishonest unacknowledged snipping of what I wrote:
If you're talking about whole screen zooming, there are tons of
Steve Carroll
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Of course he didn't, it's Snit... and none of this will stop him from
creating a 10,000 post campaign where he will, against the reality of
the google record, try to sell the idea of a timeline of events that
never occurred. C'mon, you know how it works by now.
> > That was the whole point - OS X has this zoom feature...
>
> Windows XP has has "this zoom feature." You didn't specify when and
> where it was to be used.
"this zoom feature" - LOL! He must be a helluva 'teacher';)
> > actually had it for
> > a while... but now they have added an easier way to access it. And it is
> > cool. And XP does not have it.
>
> XP does have it.
>
> > You claimed it did. Which means
> >
> > Edwin is wrong!
> >
> > AGAIN!
> >
> > LOL!
>
> You misspelled "right" as "wrong."
>
> You chose to make dishonest unacknowledged snipping of what I wrote:
>
> If you're talking about whole screen zooming, there are tons of
> freeware, shareware, and commercial programs to add that functionality
> to Windows.
--
Snit
>>> All anybody has to do to see what a crazy and stupid arsehole you are is
>>> to hold their control button while they move their scroll wheel and
>>> watch their Windows XP application zoom in and out.
>>>
>>> If you're talking about whole screen zooming
>>
>> If? If! You don't know *yet*! Holy cow, Edwin, how lost can you get?
>
> You didn't specify.
From the first post in the thread:
-----
Just found this:
Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
Very cool.
-----
I did not describe it well, but I was very, very specific as to what feature
I meant. Being that you were ignorant of the feature you could have tried
it on your own OS X machine, if you have one, or asked. You did neither.
Instead, Edwin, you entered the thread and ignorantly claimed:
-----
>> I wish XP had this!
>
> It does. It's had it for years.
-----
But XP does not have the feature, never has. It does have other
magnification tools, but they are not what I am looking for and certainly
not what I was commenting on. There are, of course, third party tools to
give similar functionality, but that is irrelevant to the topic.
If you did not know the specific tool I was talking about - which it is
clear you did not - then you should have asked and not spouted off ignorant
claims... and then, when you were called on your ignorant claims, you
started re-naming the thread to be derogatory, spewing insults, etc. In
other words, Edwin, you were wrong - which happens to us all - but you dealt
with being wrong in a very immature and silly way. That says a lot about
you.
In other words:
Edwin is wrong...
... AGAIN.
LOL!
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> dbbVg.13591$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net on 10/5/06 10:22 AM:
>
>>>> All anybody has to do to see what a crazy and stupid arsehole you are is
>>>> to hold their control button while they move their scroll wheel and
>>>> watch their Windows XP application zoom in and out.
>>>>
>>>> If you're talking about whole screen zooming
>>> If? If! You don't know *yet*! Holy cow, Edwin, how lost can you get?
>> You didn't specify.
>
> From the first post in the thread:
> -----
> Just found this:
>
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>
> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
> Very cool.
> -----
>
> I did not describe it well,
Then you lied by pretending that you had "described it well."
> but I was very, very specific as to what feature
> I meant.
And that specific feature, holding the control key to make the scroll
wheel do a zoom function, is present in Windows XP.
> Being that you were ignorant of the feature
You're the one who's ignorant of it, as you denied it exists in Windows XP.
> you could have tried
> it on your own OS X machine, if you have one, or asked. You did neither.
I matched the feature as you described it.
> Instead, Edwin, you entered the thread and ignorantly claimed:
>
> -----
> >> I wish XP had this!
> >
> > It does. It's had it for years.
> -----
>
> But XP does not have the feature, never has.
Yes it does, liar.
> It does have other
> magnification tools, but they are not what I am looking for and certainly
> not what I was commenting on.
Windows XP has Control Key + Mouse scroll for zoom, and that's what you
were commenting on.
> There are, of course, third party tools to
> give similar functionality, but that is irrelevant to the topic.
No it's not. Those third party tools make Windows match anything in
the Mac, and you don't get to disregard them because they're
inconvenient to your argument.
> If you did not know the specific tool I was talking about -
I knew what you stated.
> which it is
> clear you did not -
No it's not.
> then you should have asked and not spouted off ignorant
> claims...
The only ignorant claims in this thread are yours.
> and then, when you were called on your ignorant claims,
And then when you begin lying and throwing out empty insults...
>you
> started re-naming the thread to be derogatory, spewing insults, etc.
I retaliated in a manner that befits what you had done.
> In
> other words, Edwin, you were wrong
You're lying again.
> - which happens to us all -
You more than anyone else.
> but you dealt with being wrong in a very immature and silly way.
Yet more lies from you.
> That says a lot about
> you.
Your lies say nothing about me.
> In other words:
>
> I am wrong...
>
> ... AGAIN.
>
> LOL!
>
--
Snit
>> From the first post in the thread:
>> -----
>> Just found this:
>>
>> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>>
>> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
>> Very cool.
>> -----
>>
>> I did not describe it well, but I was very, very specific as to what feature
>> I meant. Being that you were ignorant of the feature you could have tried it
>> on your own OS X machine, if you have one, or asked. You did neither.
>> Instead, Edwin, you entered the thread and ignorantly claimed:
>
> Then you lied by pretending that you had "described it well." And that
> specific feature, holding the control key to make the scroll wheel do a zoom
> function, is present in Windows XP. You're the one who's ignorant of it, as
> you denied it exists in Windows XP. I matched the feature as you described it.
>
If I said I described the feature in detail, I stand corrected - though I do
not believe I said so. I did say I was specific in my references to it -
and I was.
OS X still has a zoom feature that XP does not. OS X has had the feature
for a long time, but in this thread I commented about how it has a new, and
better, way to activate it. And it does.
Others thanked me for this info. It was good, on topic, and useful info.
You got confused, incorrectly claimed XP had the same feature, and then went
spouting off lying and whining and crying and altering subject lines and
snipping and altering text and, frankly, making an ass out of yourself
In other words:
Edwin is wrong...
... AGAIN!
Oh, and new favorite quote from you:
"I am wrong...
... AGAIN." - Edwin
Yes, Edwin, you are.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> VLdVg.19778$Ij.1...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 10/5/06 1:17 PM:
>
want to rehash again]
>
> In other words:
>
> I am wrong...
>
> ... AGAIN!
>
>
>
>
> Oh, and new favorite quote from you:
>
> "I am wrong...
> ... AGAIN." - Edwin
How did that become a quote from me?
>
> Yes, Edwin, I am wrong. AGAIN.
Snit
>> Edwin is wrong...
>>
>> ... AGAIN!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, and new favorite quote from you:
>>
>> "I am wrong...
>> ... AGAIN." - Edwin
> How did that become a quote from me?
By you writing it, you silly troll. Do you now deny you wrote the above and
tried to attribute it to me? If you do, the Google record of course will
show:
Edwin is wrong...
... AGAIN!
LOL!
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> ZQeVg.19800$Ij....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 10/5/06 2:31 PM:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and new favorite quote from you:
>>>
>>> "I am wrong...
>>> ... AGAIN." - Edwin
>
>> How did that become a quote from me?
>
> By you writing it, you silly troll. Do you now deny you wrote the above and
> tried to attribute it to me? If you do, the Google record of course will
> show:
If that is a quote from me, because I wrote it, but attributed to you,
how then are not all the things, such as above, which you wrote, and
attributed to me, not quotes from yourself?
IOW, every time you've written "I eat dog shit to get attention," and
attributed it to me, is really another time of you saying it for
yourself, and it counts as another quote from you.
By your own rules of judgment, this is an honest quote:
"I eat dog shit to get attention." -- Snit
That's a stunning (and disgusting) admission on your part.
Snit
>> Oh, and new favorite quote from you:
>>
>> "I am wrong...
>> ... AGAIN." - Edwin
> How did that become a quote from me?
By you writing it, you silly troll. Do you now deny you wrote the above and
tried to attribute it to me? If you do, the Google record of course will
show:
Edwin is wrong...
... AGAIN!
LOL!
> If that is a quote from me, because I wrote it, but attributed to you, how
> then are not all the things, such as above, which you wrote, and attributed to
> me, not quotes from yourself?
What you author, Edwin, is correctly attributed to you. You authored the
comment... it is yours. Quoting someone is not the same thing as authoring
the statement... but look where this simple concept confuses you:
> IOW, every time you've written "I eat dog shit to get attention," and
> attributed it to me, is really another time of you saying it for yourself, and
> it counts as another quote from you.
Amazing, Edwin, I would not have thought even you were *that* ignorant.
> By your own rules of judgment, this is an honest quote:
>
> "I eat dog shit to get attention." -- Snit
>
> That's a stunning (and disgusting) admission on your part.
Not at all, Edwin, being that you authored the quote you just dishonestly
attributed to me. In other words:
Edwin is wrong...
... AGAIN!
LOL!
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> VLdVg.19778$Ij.1...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 10/5/06 1:17 PM:
>
> >> From the first post in the thread:
> >> -----
> >> Just found this:
> >>
> >> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
> >>
> >> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it.
> >> Very cool.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> I did not describe it well, but I was very, very specific as to what
> >> feature
> >> I meant. Being that you were ignorant of the feature you could have tried
> >> it
> >> on your own OS X machine, if you have one, or asked. You did neither.
> >> Instead, Edwin, you entered the thread and ignorantly claimed:
> >
> > Then you lied by pretending that you had "described it well." And that
> > specific feature, holding the control key to make the scroll wheel do a
> > zoom
> > function, is present in Windows XP. You're the one who's ignorant of it, as
> > you denied it exists in Windows XP. I matched the feature as you described
> > it.
> >
> If I said I described the feature in detail, I stand corrected
Then you now owe him a big apology for all the other crap you based off
your erroneous assumption. We he ever see it? Hell no... what he'll see
is you trying to rewrite history.
Snit
>> If I said I described the feature in detail, I stand corrected - though I do
>> not believe I said so. I did say I was specific in my references to it - and
>> I was.
>>
>> OS X still has a zoom feature that XP does not. OS X has had the feature for
>> a long time, but in this thread I commented about how it has a new, and
>> better, way to activate it. And it does.
>>
>> Others thanked me for this info. It was good, on topic, and useful info.
>>
>> You got confused, incorrectly claimed XP had the same feature, and then went
>> spouting off lying and whining and crying and altering subject lines and
>> snipping and altering text and, frankly, making an ass out of yourself
>>
> Then you now owe him a big apology for all the other crap you based off your
> erroneous assumption. We he ever see it? Hell no... what he'll see is you
> trying to rewrite history.
Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
Here, let me spell it out for you:
* I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
and the scroll wheel.
* Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
accessed in the same way.
* I called Edwin on his error
* Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
* I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
ask more details about it.
Edwin did not understand how a feature of the newest version of Mac OS
works, so he spewed off and claimed that his beloved XP had the feature. He
was wrong.
You, Steve, not being able to understand simple concepts and being filled
with hatred and the deep unhealthy need to get revenge, have opted to
co-troll with Edwin, hoping beyond hope that somehow you will score some
trolling "point" or whatever.
Do you think your display of ignorance has achieved what you wanted it to?
Just curious, Steve. LOL!
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-3824C4....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 4:23 PM:
>
> >> If I said I described the feature in detail, I stand corrected - though I
> >> do
> >> not believe I said so. I did say I was specific in my references to it -
> >> and
> >> I was.
> >>
> >> OS X still has a zoom feature that XP does not. OS X has had the feature
> >> for
> >> a long time, but in this thread I commented about how it has a new, and
> >> better, way to activate it. And it does.
> >>
> >> Others thanked me for this info. It was good, on topic, and useful info.
> >>
> >> You got confused, incorrectly claimed XP had the same feature, and then
> >> went
> >> spouting off lying and whining and crying and altering subject lines and
> >> snipping and altering text and, frankly, making an ass out of yourself
> >>
> > Then you now owe him a big apology for all the other crap you based off
> > your
> > erroneous assumption. We he ever see it? Hell no... what he'll see is you
> > trying to rewrite history.
>
> Once again, Steve
LOL! Well THAT didn't take long;)
Snit
>> Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
>> Here, let me spell it out for you:
>>
>> * I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
>> OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
>> and the scroll wheel.
>>
>> * Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
>> accessed in the same way.
>>
>> * I called Edwin on his error
>>
>> * Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
>>
>> * I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
>> what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
>> ask more details about it.
>>
>> Edwin did not understand how a feature of the newest version of Mac OS works,
>> so he spewed off and claimed that his beloved XP had the feature. He was
>> wrong.
>>
>> You, Steve, not being able to understand simple concepts and being filled
>> with hatred and the deep unhealthy need to get revenge, have opted to
>> co-troll with Edwin, hoping beyond hope that somehow you will score some
>> trolling "point" or whatever.
>>
>> Do you think your display of ignorance has achieved what you wanted it to?
>> Just curious, Steve. LOL!
>
> LOL! Well THAT didn't take long;)
It rarely takes long for you to show off your inability to understand what
you read, Steve. Heck, you often get so confused you just snip and run...
as you did this time. Oh well.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
No kidding! You attempt to rewrite history faster than anyone I've ever
seen. Of course, you're sitting in front of your computer screen 24/7;)
Snit
>> If I said I described the feature in detail, I stand corrected - though I do
>> not believe I said so. I did say I was specific in my references to it - and
>> I was.
>>
>> OS X still has a zoom feature that XP does not. OS X has had the feature for
>> a long time, but in this thread I commented about how it has a new, and
>> better, way to activate it. And it does.
>>
>> Others thanked me for this info. It was good, on topic, and useful info.
>>
>> You got confused, incorrectly claimed XP had the same feature, and then went
>> spouting off lying and whining and crying and altering subject lines and
>> snipping and altering text and, frankly, making an ass out of yourself
>>
> Then you now owe him a big apology for all the other crap you based off your
> erroneous assumption. We he ever see it? Hell no... what he'll see is you
> trying to rewrite history.
Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
Here, let me spell it out for you:
* I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
and the scroll wheel.
* Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
accessed in the same way.
* I called Edwin on his error
* Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
* I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
ask more details about it.
Edwin did not understand how a feature of the newest version of Mac OS
works, so he spewed off and claimed that his beloved XP had the feature. He
was wrong.
You, Steve, not being able to understand simple concepts and being filled
with hatred and the deep unhealthy need to get revenge, have opted to
co-troll with Edwin, hoping beyond hope that somehow you will score some
trolling "point" or whatever.
Do you think your display of ignorance has achieved what you wanted it to?
Just curious, Steve. LOL!
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Again with a horseshit timeline. Will you never learn? Watch how easy
this is...
You initially spoke about pressing the control key and using the scroll
wheel:
Post 1-
"Just found this:
Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
cool."
Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
below).
Post 2 -
"I wish XP had this! In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people
close up views of things ... there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use
the magnification tools, but it was just as easy to get a screen shot,
paste it into Paint and zoom there. For such things this is a big
advantage of OSX."
Post 2 mentions XP's "magnification tools"... it fails, however, to
'specify' the "way" implemented by the "this" you were in reference to
that fundamentally differed from XP. The only indication that it was
different was your stated *opinion* that it was an OSX advantage and
easier than XP. No *specifications* were given as to WHY you held this
opinion. In other words... you still hadn't specified a thing as
compared to XP.
Post 3 -
"It does not."
"Irrelevant.
What would be relevant is if XP had a feature like the one in OS X."
Post 3 doesn't specify squat, either.
Post 4 - it wasn't until your 4th post that any non OSX user might gain
a clue wtf you were muttering about...
--
"Incorrect. "
"Oh, this is fun! Say it again, Edwin! I love watching you spew
incorrect information as though it were fact. Well, OK, I would prefer
if you would act like an adult and stop lying, but, hey, since that will
not happen I can enjoy your humiliation of yourself. Tee hee.
Come on, Edwin, tell me how the Control+Scroll wheel works the same on
XP as it does on OS X! Rub it in!
Hey, if you are running out of steam and need more ways to humiliate
yourself on your ignorance on this issue, you can explain why the
following page fails to mention this feature on XP (a feature you even
admit does not work everywhere):
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/accessibility/magnifiermagnifica
tion.mspx
And then explain why the Jaws Magnification Only software is still
sold... LOL! "
--
To which Edwin replied:
"If your talking about whole screen zooming..."
Post 5 - Which you then piped in with:
"If? If! You don't know *yet*! Holy cow, Edwin, how lost can you get?"
To which Edwin correctly pointed out:
"You didn't specify."
So, Snit... how could Edwin have known what you were referring to in the
first 3 posts where you clearly didn't 'specify' shit?
You then tried to pretend you explained adequately enough so that he
should have understood from your very first post:
"I did not describe it well, but I was very, very specific as to what
feature I meant."
Total horseshit. Initially, you specified it the way you specify
everything else... with a bare minimum of misleading language. This was
then followed by you looking down your nose at Edwin's ignorance' and
then rounded out with a bunch of circus crap. In other words, business
as usual for you. You're the worst kind of advocate there possibly can
be. You're not only a dimwit... your language skills are similar to
those of a failing first grader;)
(snip delusions by Snit)
Snit
>> Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
>> Here, let me spell it out for you:
>>
>> * I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
>> OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
>> and the scroll wheel.
>>
>> * Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
>> accessed in the same way.
>>
>> * I called Edwin on his error
>>
>> * Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
>>
>> * I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
>> what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
>> ask more details about it.
And, as noted, you simply cannot understand what you read. See below for
examples:
> Again with a horseshit timeline. Will you never learn? Watch how easy
> this is...
>
> You initially spoke about pressing the control key and using the scroll
> wheel:
>
> Post 1-
> "Just found this:
>
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>
> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> cool."
>
> Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
> below).
Let's see, even though I referred to:
*one* feature and
*one* way of using that feature and
*one* way of configuring that feature and
*one* thing the feature does (magnify)
you think I was not being specific. LOL!
Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
It is clear, Steve, that you and Edwin were not able to understand what
adults were able to; you each have reading comprehension problems that got
the better of you.
> Post 2 -
> "I wish XP had this!
Test of your reading comprehension skills, Steve. In that sentence what
does "this" refer to?
A: The one feature I specified (and the one way I specified of
accessing it)
B: How Bush is a war criminal
C: How sex and incest are not synonymous
D: How Steve Carroll cannot understand what he reads
E: Some other slightly similar though clearly different feature that
some XP programs have
Now Steve, you have one, and only one chance to answer correctly. Hint, it
is not B, C, D or E. Even with all that help, I fear, you will fail this
test, but that is all the help I will give you.
> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of things ...
> there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the magnification tools, but it
> was just as easy to get a screen shot, paste it into Paint and zoom there.
> For such things this is a big advantage of OSX."
>
> Post 2 mentions XP's "magnification tools"... it fails, however, to 'specify'
> the "way" implemented by the "this" you were in reference to that
> fundamentally differed from XP. The only indication that it was different was
> your stated *opinion* that it was an OSX advantage and easier than XP. No
> *specifications* were given as to WHY you held this opinion. In other words...
> you still hadn't specified a thing as compared to XP.
If:
* you were ignorant of the feature in question, and
* you refused to ask for clarification as an adult would, and
* you refused to press control and use a scroll wheel (or could not), and
* you instead made ignorant assumptions
Then
* you could end up spewing off the erroneous things Edwin *did* spew off.
OK. Sure, ignorant people who do not take opportunities to educate
themselves remain ignorant. That describes you and Edwin quite well.
> (snip delusions by Snit)
And of course you snip and run, Steve. It is what you do. You are that
predictable. No matter - you still have proved, *again* how poor your
reading comprehension is... and this time in comparison to people who do not
share your weakness. Thanks!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-03B1CC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/6/06 6:44 PM:
>
> >> Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
> >> Here, let me spell it out for you:
> >>
> >> * I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
> >> OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
> >> and the scroll wheel.
> >>
> >> * Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
> >> accessed in the same way.
> >>
> >> * I called Edwin on his error
> >>
> >> * Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
> >>
> >> * I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
> >> what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
> >> ask more details about it.
>
> And, as noted, you simply cannot understand what you read. See below for
> examples:
The idea that you are the judge of someone being able to comprehend what
they've read (or not) is beyond laughable. Better go lock the medicine
cabinet... it's time.
>
> > Again with a horseshit timeline. Will you never learn? Watch how easy
> > this is...
>
> >
> > You initially spoke about pressing the control key and using the scroll
> > wheel:
> >
> > Post 1-
> > "Just found this:
> >
> > Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
> >
> > If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> > cool."
> >
> > Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
> > below).
>
> Let's see, even though I referred to:
> *one* feature and
> *one* way of using that feature and
> *one* way of configuring that feature and
> *one* thing the feature does (magnify)
> you think I was not being specific. LOL!
Mentioning a new zoom method didn't specify anything with respect to it
being fundamentally different for the purpose of comparing it to XP. Or
did you forget that was why you were bashing Edwin? Lund also failed to
grasp what was so "new" about it from your initial post.
>
> Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
> about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
OSX users. Now explain why non OSX users should have known what you were
talking about. This'll be fun...
>
> It is clear, Steve, that you and Edwin were not able to understand what
> adults were able to; you each have reading comprehension problems that got
> the better of you.
>
> > Post 2 -
> > "I wish XP had this!
>
> Test of your reading comprehension skills, Steve. In that sentence what
> does "this" refer to?
At the time you wrote it, you mean? It could have meant almost anything
with respect to zooming on the screen. Even Lund thought it was there in
10.4.7. This bullshit that "others understood" and then listing Lund is
just that... bullshit:
"I could do that before I applied the 10.4.8 patch" - C Lund
You gonna tell Lund his reading comprehension skills are poor, too?
LOL!
Snit
>>>> Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
>>>> Here, let me spell it out for you:
>>>>
>>>> * I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
>>>> OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
>>>> and the scroll wheel.
>>>>
>>>> * Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
>>>> accessed in the same way.
>>>>
>>>> * I called Edwin on his error
>>>>
>>>> * Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
>>>>
>>>> * I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
>>>> what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
>>>> ask more details about it.
>>
>> And, as noted, you simply cannot understand what you read. See below for
>> examples:
Note: Steve continues throwing his temper tantrum:
> The idea that you are the judge of someone being able to comprehend what
> they've read (or not) is beyond laughable. Better go lock the medicine
> cabinet... it's time.
Whatever.
>>> Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
>>> below).
>>
>> Let's see, even though I referred to:
>> *one* feature and
>> *one* way of using that feature and
>> *one* way of configuring that feature and
>> *one* thing the feature does (magnify)
>> you think I was not being specific. LOL!
>
> Mentioning a new zoom method didn't specify anything with respect to it
> being fundamentally different for the purpose of comparing it to XP.
The first post did not even mention XP, Steve. I did, later, say I wish XP
had a feature similar to the one I specified in the newest version of OS X.
And guess what, Steve, I *do* wish XP had that feature. Nothing wrong with
saying it!
> Or did you forget that was why you were bashing Edwin?
I have commented that Edwin acted as you did - he showed he has poor
reasoning and reading skills.
> Lund also failed to grasp what was so "new" about it from your initial post.
And note how he did not act as you and Edwin... he spoke as an adult. You
two should try to learn from that experience.
>> Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
>> about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
>
> OSX users. Now explain why non OSX users should have known what you were
> talking about. This'll be fun...
Who said that non OS X users should have known what the details of this
feature based on my post, Steve? Not I... though you sure imply I did!
More of your amazing inability to *not* comprehend what you read.
Please note, Steve, you made this mistake in response to a post where I
stated:
-----
If:
* you were ignorant of the feature in question, and
* you refused to ask for clarification as an adult would, and
* you refused to press control and use a scroll wheel (or could not), and
* you instead made ignorant assumptions
Then
* you could end up spewing off the erroneous things Edwin *did* spew off.
OK. Sure, ignorant people who do not take opportunities to educate
themselves remain ignorant. That describes you and Edwin quite well.
-----
LOL! Gee, for some reason you snipped and ran from that! Too damned funny!
>> It is clear, Steve, that you and Edwin were not able to understand what
>> adults were able to; you each have reading comprehension problems that got
>> the better of you.
Note: no comment from Steve. He has no explanation for why he was not able
to understand what others clearly did.
>>
>>> Post 2 -
>>> "I wish XP had this!
>>
>> Test of your reading comprehension skills, Steve. In that sentence what
>> does "this" refer to?
>>
>> A: The one feature I specified (and the one way I specified of
>> accessing it)
>> B: How Bush is a war criminal
>> C: How sex and incest are not synonymous
>> D: How Steve Carroll cannot understand what he reads
>> E: Some other slightly similar though clearly different feature that
>> some XP programs have
>>
>> Now Steve, you have one, and only one chance to answer correctly. Hint, it
>> is not B, C, D or E. Even with all that help, I fear, you will fail this
>> test, but that is all the help I will give you.
Note: Steve failed the test. Steve could not figure out what the sentence
meant... even with my damned heavy hints. Look below for his whining about
how he could not figure it out:
> At the time you wrote it, you mean? It could have meant almost anything
> with respect to zooming on the screen.
To someone like you, Steve, who cannot understand what they read - sure,
anything can mean anything... you simply do not understand what you read.
> Even Lund thought it was there in 10.4.7.
Lund thought the feature existed in 10.4.7. He was wrong. Notice how he,
unlike you, did not feel the need to whine and cry and troll and follow me
around crying as you do so often. I hope you can learn from his example.
> This bullshit that "others understood" and then listing Lund is just that...
> bullshit
If you really think that understanding what others read is "bullshit",
Steve, then it explains why you never even try.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-7A6174....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/6/06 9:38 PM:
>
(snip)
> > The idea that you are the judge of someone being able to comprehend what
> > they've read (or not) is beyond laughable. Better go lock the medicine
> > cabinet... it's time.
>
> Whatever.
LOL!
>
> >>> Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
> >>> below).
> >>
> >> Let's see, even though I referred to:
> >> *one* feature and
> >> *one* way of using that feature and
> >> *one* way of configuring that feature and
> >> *one* thing the feature does (magnify)
> >> you think I was not being specific. LOL!
> >
> > Mentioning a new zoom method didn't specify anything with respect to it
> > being fundamentally different for the purpose of comparing it to XP.
>
> The first post did not even mention XP, Steve.
No shit, sherlock. Edwin mentioned it. Remember him?
> > Or did you forget that was why you were bashing Edwin?
>
> I have commented that Edwin acted as you did
No. He actually thought you were going to be honest and appeared to have
given you a chance to be... I knew better.
> > Lund also failed to grasp what was so "new" about it from your initial post.
>
> And note how he did not act as you and Edwin... he spoke as an adult.
As I read it, Edwin was adult and cordial to you... right up until you
wrote the post that prompted me to respond. So... are you going to try
and change the timeline of events again? Or will you be apologizing to
Eddie real soon now? Have you even looked at the "actual" timeline to
see who jumped into behaving like a dickehad first? Hint: It was you.
> >> Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
> >> about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
> >
> > OSX users. Now explain why non OSX users should have known what you were
> > talking about. This'll be fun...
>
> Who said that non OS X users should have known what the details of this
> feature based on my post, Steve?
You bashed Edwin for not knowing what you failed to adequately detail,
what do you think needed to be "said"? Reality shows you even confused
an OSX user (Lund)... Eddie does not use OSX.
> Not I... though you sure imply I did!
> More of your amazing inability to *not* comprehend what you read.
Well, let's see what we have here...
1. You renamed the thread using Edwin's name
2. You made fun of Edwin's ignorance
3. You accused Edwin of being a liar
4. You accused Edwin of not acting like an adult
5. You conveyed that you were enjoying his humiliation of his ignorance.
Did I leave anything out?
Oh yeah... you "actually" wrote the words "Tee Hee", a term in use by
characters (who are generally younger aged school girls) in novels
written in the early part of last century.
Were you, by any chance, high on medication when you wrote this reply?
> Note: no comment from Steve. He has no explanation for why he was not able
> to understand what others clearly did.
Bullshit, Lund required explanation... and you provided it. That Edwin
is not an OSX user is all the explanation needed.
> > Even Lund thought it was there in 10.4.7.
>
> Lund thought the feature existed in 10.4.7.
That's what I said, Snit. Need to see it again?
"Even Lund thought it was there in 10.4.7."
> He was wrong.
It wasn't implemented in 10.4.7 the way it was implemented later, the
way you failed to initially describe. It wasn't until Wed, Oct 4 2006
that you wrote to Lund:
"The feature has been there - to zoom. What is new, though, is the ease
of use... just press a modifier key and scroll."
> Notice how he,
> unlike you, did not feel the need to whine and cry and troll and follow me
> around crying as you do so often. I hope you can learn from his example.
I didn't get involved until after you hammered Eddie undeservedly. I
suggest you try practicing what you're preaching.
> > This bullshit that "others understood" and then listing Lund is just that...
> > bullshit
>
> If you really think that understanding what others read is "bullshit",
> Steve, then it explains why you never even try.
Says Snit as he proves it's he who has the reading comprehension problem
here;)
Snit
>> The first post did not even mention XP, Steve.
>
> Edwin mentioned it.
So we are in agreement. Yes, Steve, Edwin is the one who brought up XP and
claimed it had the same feature I specified in XP. It does not; certainly
not as Edwin described it. Edwin was *wrong*. See if you can keep that in
your mind, OK?
<snip />
> As I read it, Edwin was adult and cordial to you... right up until you
> wrote the post that prompted me to respond. So... are you going to try
> and change the timeline of events again? Or will you be apologizing to
> Eddie real soon now? Have you even looked at the "actual" timeline to
> see who jumped into behaving like a dickehad first? Hint: It was you.
The facts, Steve, in the order they happened:
* I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
and the scroll wheel.
* Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
accessed in the same way.
* I called Edwin on his error
* Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
* I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
ask more details about it.
Please note, Steve, how your comments prove you do not understand those
facts. Your misunderstanding is leading you to spew lies, accusations, and
insults. So be it - you are throwing a tantrum.
>>>> Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
>>>> about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
>>>
>>> OSX users. Now explain why non OSX users should have known what you were
>>> talking about. This'll be fun...
>>
>> Who said that non OS X users should have known what the details of this
>> feature based on my post, Steve?
>
> You bashed Edwin for not knowing what you failed to adequately detail,
Where do you think I did this, Steve? Please quote me.
I did note how Edwin was making incorrect claims. And he was.
> what do you think needed to be "said"? Reality shows you even confused
> an OSX user (Lund)... Eddie does not use OSX.
And you continue to throw your tantrum. OK.
>> Please note, Steve, you made this mistake in response to a post where I
>> stated:
>>
>> -----
>> If:
>> * you were ignorant of the feature in question, and
>> * you refused to ask for clarification as an adult would, and
>> * you refused to press control and use a scroll wheel (or could not), and
>> * you instead made ignorant assumptions
>>
>> Then
>> * you could end up spewing off the erroneous things Edwin *did* spew off.
>>
>> OK. Sure, ignorant people who do not take opportunities to educate
>> themselves remain ignorant. That describes you and Edwin quite well.
>> -----
Note: no comment from Steve. He simply cannot understand what he reads.
>
> Well, let's see what we have here...
>
> 1. You renamed the thread using Edwin's name
When the thread ceased to be on-topic I acknowledged that and made it clear
to others.
> 2. You made fun of Edwin's ignorance
At least you admit Edwin was ignorant. That is a step in the right
direction for you.
>
> 3. You accused Edwin of being a liar
After he lied, yes, I did.
>
> 4. You accused Edwin of not acting like an adult
As he acted like a child... I did. Yes.
> 5. You conveyed that you were enjoying his humiliation of his ignorance.
I do enjoy watching you and he and other trolls humiliate yourself. I know
that pisses you off. So be it... and now you are throwing a tantrum.
> Did I leave anything out?
>
> Oh yeah... you "actually" wrote the words "Tee Hee", a term in use by
> characters (who are generally younger aged school girls) in novels
> written in the early part of last century.
>
> Were you, by any chance, high on medication when you wrote this reply?
What an amazing tantrum you are throwing, Steve.
>> Note: no comment from Steve. He has no explanation for why he was not able
>> to understand what others clearly did.
>
> Bullshit, Lund required explanation... and you provided it. That Edwin
> is not an OSX user is all the explanation needed.
Note: *still* no explanation from Steve why he did not understand what
others clearly did.
>>> Post 2 -
>>> "I wish XP had this!
>>
>> Test of your reading comprehension skills, Steve. In that sentence what
>> does "this" refer to?
>>
>> A: The one feature I specified (and the one way I specified of
>> accessing it)
>> B: How Bush is a war criminal
>> C: How sex and incest are not synonymous
>> D: How Steve Carroll cannot understand what he reads
>> E: Some other slightly similar though clearly different feature that
>> some XP programs have
>>
>> Now Steve, you have one, and only one chance to answer correctly. Hint, it
>> is not B, C, D or E. Even with all that help, I fear, you will fail this
>> test, but that is all the help I will give you.
Note, Steve, you failed.
<snip />
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-6C599D....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/7/06 3:46 PM:
>
> >> The first post did not even mention XP, Steve.
> >
> > Edwin mentioned it.
>
> So we are in agreement.
I know that *I* wouldn't attempt to disagree with the google record. Of
course, I have no need to state this the way you did here... as if the
google record doesn't even exist... as if we could "agree" on something
that would make the record disappear altogether. I don't know what you
*think* you are agreeing to and I don't really care, the google record
shows what it shows... it shows what *I* said it shows.
> Yes, Steve, Edwin is the one who brought up XP and
> claimed it had the same feature I specified in XP.
Very good, Snit... now see if you can recall that it was Edwin you were
lambasting when I jumped in. Or have you glued together too many brain
cells for that?
> > As I read it, Edwin was adult and cordial to you... right up until you
> > wrote the post that prompted me to respond. So... are you going to try
> > and change the timeline of events again? Or will you be apologizing to
> > Eddie real soon now? Have you even looked at the "actual" timeline to
> > see who jumped into behaving like a dickehad first? Hint: It was you.
>
> The facts, Steve, in the order they happened:
I have no need of your version of fact order... google does a much
better job... I suggest you read it and get help if you have any trouble.
(snip Snit's feeble attempt at rewriting the order of events)
> >>>> Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was
> >>>> talking
> >>>> about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
> >>>
> >>> OSX users. Now explain why non OSX users should have known what you were
> >>> talking about. This'll be fun...
> >>
> >> Who said that non OS X users should have known what the details of this
> >> feature based on my post, Steve?
> >
> > You bashed Edwin for not knowing what you failed to adequately detail,
>
> Where do you think I did this, Steve? Please quote me.
"Oh, this is fun! Say it again, Edwin! I love watching you spew
incorrect information as though it were fact. Well, OK, I would prefer
if you would act like an adult and stop lying, but, hey, since that will
not happen I can enjoy your humiliation of yourself. Tee hee.
Come on, Edwin, tell me how the Control+Scroll wheel works the same on
XP as it does on OS X! Rub it in!
Hey, if you are running out of steam and need more ways to humiliate
yourself on your ignorance on this issue, you can explain why the
following page fails to mention this feature on XP (a feature you even
admit does not work everywhere):
<C1494B19.61541%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
Accusation of Edwin lying... while simultaneously admitting he only
spewed incorrect information (not *necessarily* the same thing as a
lie), an accusation of him not acting like an adult (yet, you offer no
example of this), an exclamation that you are enjoying his alleged
humiliation (a thing you can't even prove existed and claim only exists
due to his ignorance... as if ignorance should automatically be the
source of humiliation - a helluva 'teacher' you must be). I call this
kind of stuff bashing... and NO, I don't feel you 'adequately detailed'
things and I offer as proof Lund, who also required further explanation.
>
> I did note how Edwin was making incorrect claims. And he was.
>
> > what do you think needed to be "said"? Reality shows you even confused
> > an OSX user (Lund)... Eddie does not use OSX.
>
> And you continue to throw your tantrum. OK.
Pointing out how a Mac user needed clarification along with Edwin is
called a reality, Snit... not a tantrum... no matter how much glue
you've sniffed.
> > Well, let's see what we have here...
> >
> > 1. You renamed the thread using Edwin's name
>
> When the thread ceased to be on-topic I acknowledged that and made it clear
> to others.
Who took it off topic and when?
> > 2. You made fun of Edwin's ignorance
>
> At least you admit Edwin was ignorant. That is a step in the right
> direction for you.
And to you, a guy who claims to be a 'teacher', being ignorant of
something is a thing to feel humiliation over? Do you even realize that
is the message you have sent, you ignorant dipshit.
> >
> > 3. You accused Edwin of being a liar
>
> After he lied, yes, I did.
How you can claim that Edwin is "ignorant" of something and claim he
lied about it in the same post underscores *your* ignorance. According
to your standard, you should be feeling humiliated right now.
> >
> > 4. You accused Edwin of not acting like an adult
>
> As he acted like a child... I did. Yes.
You are the one I saw act like a child in the link I put up above.
>
> > 5. You conveyed that you were enjoying his humiliation of his ignorance.
>
> I do enjoy watching you and he and other trolls humiliate yourself.
Sorry, Mr. 'teacher', if being ignorant about something is necessarily
the source of humiliation in your mind, you must be the most humiliated
person on planet earth.
> I know
> that pisses you off. So be it... and now you are throwing a tantrum.
>
> > Did I leave anything out?
> >
> > Oh yeah... you "actually" wrote the words "Tee Hee", a term in use by
> > characters (who are generally younger aged school girls) in novels
> > written in the early part of last century.
> >
> > Were you, by any chance, high on medication when you wrote this reply?
>
> What an amazing tantrum you are throwing, Steve.
Given your initial reaction and subsequent responses I consider this to
be an extremely legitimate question... in fact, I consider legitimate
for about 50% of the stuff you post.
>
> >> Note: no comment from Steve. He has no explanation for why he was not
> >> able
> >> to understand what others clearly did.
> >
> > Bullshit, Lund required explanation... and you provided it. That Edwin
> > is not an OSX user is all the explanation needed.
>
> Note: *still* no explanation from
... Snit regarding Lund requiring an explanation. Sorry, your irrelevant
smokescreen was foiled again.
Snit
The facts:
* I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
and the scroll wheel.
* Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
accessed in the same way.
* I called Edwin on his error
* Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
* I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
ask more details about it.
Read below, Steve, for how confused you get over these facts:
For the record, Steve, you just proved again that you cannot understand what
you read. You can stew in your ignorance, though - there is no value to
explaining to you how many times I had told Edwin he was wrong before I
pointed out how much he was humiliating himself - you simply will not
understand anyway.
You will, however, defend Edwin because Edwin was openly and unambiguously
wrong. You love taking the side of those who are wrong. Oh well.
Your trolling, Steve, fails to change reality.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-61DE2D....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/8/06 3:28 PM:
>
> The facts
... show that you undeservedly bashed Edwin for your inadequate
description of a new OSX feature that had even an OSX user asking your
for clarification? Yes. I know. Anyone interested in seeing you do this
can look at the following link:
<C1494B19.61541%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
(snip Snit's pathetic attempt to rewrite the course of events as google
shows they occurred).
Snit
The facts:
* I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
and the scroll wheel.
* Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
accessed in the same way.
* I called Edwin on his error
* Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
* I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
ask more details about it.
Read below, Steve, for how confused you get over these facts:
>
> ... show that you undeservedly bashed Edwin for your inadequate
>
> description of a new OSX feature that had even an OSX user asking your
> for clarification? Yes. I know. Anyone interested in seeing you do this
> can look at the following link:
>
> <C1494B19.61541%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
>
>
> (snip Snit's pathetic attempt to rewrite the course of events as google
> shows they occurred).
As noted, Steve, you cannot understand what you read. Thanks for proving it
again!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-65E95D....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/8/06 5:16 PM:
>
> The facts
... ... show that you undeservedly bashed Edwin for your inadequate
description of a new OSX feature that had even an OSX user asking your
for clarification? Yes. I know. Anyone interested in seeing you do this
can look at the following link:
<C1494B19.61541%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
(snip Snit's pathetic attempt to rewrite the course of events as google
shows they occurred).
--
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
Would you two PLEASE give it up? You're wasting our bandwidth
downloading your headers.
Snit
6043j21o2f00o2lv0...@4ax.com on 10/14/06 6:35 PM:
I have not been responding to Carroll's blathering posts for the last 24
hours or so (and only even skimmed about 1 in 5). I agreed to not respond
to him for an set amount of time to someone in email and I shall keep to my
word.
My last few posts to Steve were simple requests that he stop lying about me.
I hope he spends some time thinking about those requests and realizes it is
in his best interest and the best interest of CSMA for him to do so. Note,
I said I *hope* he does that... frankly I doubt he will - not until or
unless people in CSMA make it very clear they will not tolerate his lies.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Why is it only a set amount of time? You've pulled this bullshit routine
a bunch of times... no one is buying it.
>
> My last few posts to Steve were simple requests that he stop lying about me.
Says the guy who has repeatedly lied to every poster in this newsgroup
that he will stop his bullshit.
Steve Carroll
Tim Murray
> Just found this:
>
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>
> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> cool.
>
You can also do this using the two-finger drag on a trackpad.
Tim Murray
> Does not work for me... but I have a third party mouse with a third party
> mouse driver. I shall try it later on other computers.
Hmm. Works with my Logitech mouse (no special driver) and BT Logic Bluetooth
mouse (no driver here either).
Snit
0001HW.C15B203E...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net on 10/17/06 9:05
PM:
> On Oct 4, 2006, Snit wrote:
>>> Press the middle mouse button. Then you can scroll just by moving the
>>> mouse a little bit. Personally, I find it awkward but it's probably
>>> great for the handicapped.
I have the middle button set to do different things depending on what
program I am in... likely that is overriding this feature.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
George Graves
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
Tres Cool! I like it!
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Just found this:
>
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>
> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> cool.
Oh fuck thats just wild!
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog
http://markedspartiet.dk, http://macplanet.dk
http://siad.dk
Snit
1hpff8b.137o0jf1kco92nN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk on 11/26/06 12:28 PM:
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> Just found this:
>>
>> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>>
>> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
>> cool.
>
> Oh fuck thats just wild!
It is very cool, especially when using an overhead to demo and instruct -
want to show people something up close - boom! It is done.
I wish XP had this feature.
Edwin claimed XP has had this feature for years. He was, of course, wrong,
but he never admitted to it.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Tim Smith
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> It is very cool, especially when using an overhead to demo and instruct -
> want to show people something up close - boom! It is done.
Another place it is useful is at YouTube. Instead of letting YouTube
scale a video, I've found it usually looks better to tell YouTube to
present at original size, and then control-scrollball to zoom it.
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
reply_in_group-D24...@news.supernews.com on 11/26/06 4:40 PM:
Videos and, in some cases, images that you want to look more closely at. No
doubt. And XP simply does not have a feature that works that way - not out
of the box, anyway.
Snit
>> Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
>> Here, let me spell it out for you:
>>
>> * I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
>> OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
>> and the scroll wheel.
>>
>> * Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
>> accessed in the same way.
>>
>> * I called Edwin on his error
>>
>> * Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
>>
>> * I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
>> what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
>> ask more details about it.
And, as noted, you simply cannot understand what you read. See below for
examples:
> Again with a horseshit timeline. Will you never learn? Watch how easy
> this is...
>
> You initially spoke about pressing the control key and using the scroll
> wheel:
>
> Post 1-
> "Just found this:
>
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>
> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> cool."
>
> Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
> below).
Let's see, even though I referred to:
*one* feature and
*one* way of using that feature and
*one* way of configuring that feature and
*one* thing the feature does (magnify)
you think I was not being specific. LOL!
Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
It is clear, Steve, that you and Edwin were not able to understand what
adults were able to; you each have reading comprehension problems that got
the better of you.
> Post 2 -
> "I wish XP had this!
Test of your reading comprehension skills, Steve. In that sentence what
does "this" refer to?
A: The one feature I specified (and the one way I specified of
accessing it)
B: How Bush is a war criminal
C: How sex and incest are not synonymous
D: How Steve Carroll cannot understand what he reads
E: Some other slightly similar though clearly different feature that
some XP programs have
Now Steve, you have one, and only one chance to answer correctly. Hint, it
is not B, C, D or E. Even with all that help, I fear, you will fail this
test, but that is all the help I will give you.
> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of things ...
> there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the magnification tools, but it
> was just as easy to get a screen shot, paste it into Paint and zoom there.
> For such things this is a big advantage of OSX."
>
> Post 2 mentions XP's "magnification tools"... it fails, however, to 'specify'
> the "way" implemented by the "this" you were in reference to that
> fundamentally differed from XP. The only indication that it was different was
> your stated *opinion* that it was an OSX advantage and easier than XP. No
> *specifications* were given as to WHY you held this opinion. In other words...
> you still hadn't specified a thing as compared to XP.
If:
* you were ignorant of the feature in question, and
* you refused to ask for clarification as an adult would, and
* you refused to press control and use a scroll wheel (or could not), and
* you instead made ignorant assumptions
Then
* you could end up spewing off the erroneous things Edwin *did* spew off.
OK. Sure, ignorant people who do not take opportunities to educate
themselves remain ignorant. That describes you and Edwin quite well.
> (snip delusions by Snit)
Snit
>> Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
>> Here, let me spell it out for you:
>>
>> * I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
>> OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
>> and the scroll wheel.
>>
>> * Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
>> accessed in the same way.
>>
>> * I called Edwin on his error
>>
>> * Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
>>
>> * I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
>> what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
>> ask more details about it.
And, as noted, you simply cannot understand what you read. See below for
examples:
> Again with a horseshit timeline. Will you never learn? Watch how easy
> this is...
>
> You initially spoke about pressing the control key and using the scroll
> wheel:
>
> Post 1-
> "Just found this:
>
> Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
>
> If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> cool."
>
> Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
> below).
Let's see, even though I referred to:
*one* feature and
*one* way of using that feature and
*one* way of configuring that feature and
*one* thing the feature does (magnify)
you think I was not being specific. LOL!
Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
It is clear, Steve, that you and Edwin were not able to understand what
adults were able to; you each have reading comprehension problems that got
the better of you.
> Post 2 -
> "I wish XP had this!
Test of your reading comprehension skills, Steve. In that sentence what
does "this" refer to?
A: The one feature I specified (and the one way I specified of
accessing it)
B: How Bush is a war criminal
C: How sex and incest are not synonymous
D: How Steve Carroll cannot understand what he reads
E: Some other slightly similar though clearly different feature that
some XP programs have
Now Steve, you have one, and only one chance to answer correctly. Hint, it
is not B, C, D or E. Even with all that help, I fear, you will fail this
test, but that is all the help I will give you.
> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of things ...
> there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the magnification tools, but it
> was just as easy to get a screen shot, paste it into Paint and zoom there.
> For such things this is a big advantage of OSX."
>
> Post 2 mentions XP's "magnification tools"... it fails, however, to 'specify'
> the "way" implemented by the "this" you were in reference to that
> fundamentally differed from XP. The only indication that it was different was
> your stated *opinion* that it was an OSX advantage and easier than XP. No
> *specifications* were given as to WHY you held this opinion. In other words...
> you still hadn't specified a thing as compared to XP.
If:
Snit
>> If I said I described the feature in detail, I stand corrected - though I do
>> not believe I said so. I did say I was specific in my references to it - and
>> I was.
>>
>> OS X still has a zoom feature that XP does not. OS X has had the feature for
>> a long time, but in this thread I commented about how it has a new, and
>> better, way to activate it. And it does.
>>
>> Others thanked me for this info. It was good, on topic, and useful info.
>>
>> You got confused, incorrectly claimed XP had the same feature, and then went
>> spouting off lying and whining and crying and altering subject lines and
>> snipping and altering text and, frankly, making an ass out of yourself
>>
> Then you now owe him a big apology for all the other crap you based off your
> erroneous assumption. We he ever see it? Hell no... what he'll see is you
> trying to rewrite history.
Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
Here, let me spell it out for you:
* I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
and the scroll wheel.
* Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
accessed in the same way.
* I called Edwin on his error
* Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
* I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
ask more details about it.
Edwin did not understand how a feature of the newest version of Mac OS
works, so he spewed off and claimed that his beloved XP had the feature. He
was wrong.
You, Steve, not being able to understand simple concepts and being filled
with hatred and the deep unhealthy need to get revenge, have opted to
co-troll with Edwin, hoping beyond hope that somehow you will score some
trolling "point" or whatever.
Do you think your display of ignorance has achieved what you wanted it to?
Just curious, Steve. LOL!
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of
> >>>>>>> things ... there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the
> >>>>>>> magnification tools, but it was just as easy to get a screen shot,
> >>>>>>> paste it into Paint and zoom there. For such things this is a big
> >>>>>>> advantage of OS X.
> >>>>>> Control + scroll wheel works as zoom in every Windows XP application I
> >>>>>> tried it in... Adobe, IE, PowerPoint, Word... the only program it
> >>>>>> doesn't work in is Paint, which is an old bit map program.
> >>>>> Irrelevant.
> >>>> Not irrelevant.
> >>>>
> >>>>> What would be relevant is if XP had a feature like the one in OS X.
> >>>> It does. Press the control key while you use the scroll wheel in
> >>>> Windows XP to see the same feature.
> >>> Oh, this is fun! Say it again, Edwin! I love watching you spew
> >>> incorrect
> >>> information as though it were fact. Well, OK, I would prefer if you
> >>> would
> >>> act like an adult and stop lying, but, hey, since that will not happen I
> >>> can
> >>> enjoy your humiliation of yourself. Tee hee.
> >>>
> >>> Come on, Edwin, tell me how the Control+Scroll wheel works the same on XP
> >>> as
> >>> it does on OS X! Rub it in!
> >>>
> >>> Hey, if you are running out of steam and need more ways to humiliate
> >>> yourself on your ignorance on this issue, you can explain why the
> >>> following
> >>> page fails to mention this feature on XP (a feature you even admit does
> >>> not
> >>> work everywhere):
> >>>
> >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/accessibility/magnifiermagnificat
> >>> io
> >>> n.mspx
> >>>
> >>> And then explain why the Jaws Magnification Only software is still
> >>> sold...
> >>> LOL!
> >> All anybody has to do to see what a crazy and stupid arsehole you are is
> >> to hold their control button while they move their scroll wheel and
> >> watch their Windows XP application zoom in and out.
> >>
> >> If you're talking about whole screen zooming
> >
> > If? If! You don't know *yet*! Holy cow, Edwin, how lost can you get?
>
> You didn't specify.
This is a perfect example of Michael refusing to acknowledge that he
made a mistake. His mistake, of course, was that he wasn't clear, and
his second mistake was that he wanted it to be your error. There is
nothing in his quoted material that says that the function in OSX
handles full-screen zoom. Only someone that actually tries it will see
what it does. Someone - like you - reading "ctrl-scroll wheel" and
"zoom" won't understand it unless they try it.
And his question/exclamation - "You don't know *yet*!" is just very
funny, as if anything he had said earlier should have made it clear to
someone that doesn't have access to a OSX machine.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-A5FFB7.23...@News.Individual.NET on 3/4/07 3:06 PM:
If Edwin did not understand the feature being referenced he could have
asked.
He did not.
His mistake... not mine.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Snit
>> Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
>> Here, let me spell it out for you:
>>
>> * I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
>> OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
>> and the scroll wheel.
>>
>> * Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
>> accessed in the same way.
>>
>> * I called Edwin on his error
>>
>> * Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
>>
>> * I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
>> what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
>> ask more details about it.
And, as noted, you simply cannot understand what you read. See below for
examples:
> In a class of mine I kept wanting to show people close up views of things ...
> there is no way as easy. Sure, I could use the magnification tools, but it
> was just as easy to get a screen shot, paste it into Paint and zoom there.
Snit
>> If I said I described the feature in detail, I stand corrected - though I do
>> not believe I said so. I did say I was specific in my references to it - and
>> I was.
>>
>> OS X still has a zoom feature that XP does not. OS X has had the feature for
>> a long time, but in this thread I commented about how it has a new, and
>> better, way to activate it. And it does.
>>
>> Others thanked me for this info. It was good, on topic, and useful info.
>>
>> You got confused, incorrectly claimed XP had the same feature, and then went
>> spouting off lying and whining and crying and altering subject lines and
>> snipping and altering text and, frankly, making an ass out of yourself
>>
> Then you now owe him a big apology for all the other crap you based off your
> erroneous assumption. We he ever see it? Hell no... what he'll see is you
> trying to rewrite history.
Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
Here, let me spell it out for you:
* I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
and the scroll wheel.
* Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
accessed in the same way.
* I called Edwin on his error
* Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
* I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
ask more details about it.
Edwin did not understand how a feature of the newest version of Mac OS
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-03B1CC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/6/06 6:44 PM:
>
> >> Once again, Steve, you show you have *no* understanding of what you read.
> >> Here, let me spell it out for you:
> >>
> >> * I spoke of a specific feature that was added to the newest version of
> >> OS X: 10.4.8. It allows you magnify the screen with a modifier key
> >> and the scroll wheel.
> >>
> >> * Edwin erroneously claimed that XP had the same feature and that it was
> >> accessed in the same way.
> >>
> >> * I called Edwin on his error
> >>
> >> * Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail
> >>
> >> * I pointed out that a mature person, in Edwin's shoes, would have done
> >> what others did - try the feature for themselves or, if they could not
> >> ask more details about it.
>
> And, as noted, you simply cannot understand what you read. See below for
> examples:
>
> > Again with a horseshit timeline. Will you never learn? Watch how easy
> > this is...
>
> >
> > You initially spoke about pressing the control key and using the scroll
> > wheel:
> >
> > Post 1-
-----Snit's initial text from his first post in the thread begins
here-----
> > "Just found this:
> >
> > Press the control key as you use your scroll wheel. Too cool, eh?
> >
> > If it does not work, go to the Mouse preference panel and set it. Very
> > cool."
-----Snit's initial text from his first post in the thread ends here-----
That was ALL of your initial text in the thread, to which Edwin's 1st
reply was:
"Control + scroll wheel works as zoom in every Windows XP application I
tried it in... Adobe, IE, PowerPoint, Word... the only program it
doesn't work in is Paint, which is an old bit map program."
Now explain how Edwin got enough info from you in the above text to have
avoided writing what he did. Oops! LOL!
> > Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
> > below).
And you didn't specify wrt what we were "actually" discussing when I
made this statement and used that word.
> Let's see, even though I referred to:
> *one* feature and
> *one* way of using that feature and
> *one* way of configuring that feature and
> *one* thing the feature does (magnify)
> you think I was not being specific. LOL!
Way to take this out of context, Snit... your reading lessons obviously
aren't going well;) Apparently you've forgotten about the line that your
obsessive list of bullshit contained:
"Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail "
You even showed more of your confusion with:
"I did not describe it well, but I was very, very specific as to what
feature I meant." - Snit
How can you be "very, very specific" in a description of a simple
feature like this, yet, still manage to, in your own words, "not
describe it well"? Oh... that's right, you're Snit... you can do stuff
like this;)
> Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
> about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
Mac uses understood a Mac feature that was admittedly 'not described
very well' ... a Windows user didn't pick up on the 'not very well
described' feature right away. News at 11.
> It is clear, Steve, that you and Edwin were not able to understand what
> adults were able to;
No, I understood the feature right away... but I use a Mac, too. It's
rather idiotic of you to bash any non-Mac user while having admitting
that you didn't describe the feature very well.. but that's you. LOL!
--
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Sandman is not a pro because "his site's didn't perfectly validate"-Snit
"Once we see or hear of couples - even a relatively small number - who
engage in legal, consensual,adult incestuous relationships, the whole
idea of incest with minors becomes thinkable." - Snit
Snit
As with Wally's posts, Steve, all the info needed to see through your lies
is in the post you respond to.
In summary: being specific and being detailed are *not* the same thing... I
can specify an object or a feature very specifically without describing the
feature...
I was very specific as to the feature in question but not very detailed.
Edwin did not understand the feature. OK. A reasonable person would have
asked questions, but not Edwin! He claimed XP had the same feature... and I
pointed out his claim was incorrect.
So again, Steve: I referred to:
*one* feature and
*one* way of using that feature and
*one* way of configuring that feature and
*one* thing the feature does (magnify)
and you think I was not being specific. LOL!
You are, as always, a liar and a moron. Please note that nothing I stated
in this post has not been stated before... it would have been easier just to
repost the same facts for you without re-writing them. Then again, neither
will get you to actually understand the simple concepts I write about and be
honest about them... you are simply dim and too much of a liar.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-3824C4....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 4:23 PM:
>
> >> If I said I described the feature in detail, I stand corrected - though I
> >> do
> >> not believe I said so. I did say I was specific in my references to it -
> >> and
> >> I was.
> >>
> >> OS X still has a zoom feature that XP does not. OS X has had the feature
> >> for
> >> a long time, but in this thread I commented about how it has a new, and
> >> better, way to activate it. And it does.
> >>
> >> Others thanked me for this info. It was good, on topic, and useful info.
> >>
> >> You got confused, incorrectly claimed XP had the same feature, and then
> >> went
> >> spouting off lying and whining and crying and altering subject lines and
> >> snipping and altering text and, frankly, making an ass out of yourself
> >>
> > Then you now owe him a big apology for all the other crap you based off
> > your
> > erroneous assumption. We he ever see it? Hell no... what he'll see is you
> > trying to rewrite history.
>
> Once again, Steve, you show you
... will confront every one of your lies that I am able to? Yes, I do
what I can...
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Note: No comment by you.
> >>> Post 1 doesn't 'specify' jackshit (contrary to your lies above and
> >>> below).
> >
> > And you didn't specify wrt what we were "actually" discussing when I
> > made this statement and used that word.
> >
> >> Let's see, even though I referred to:
> >> *one* feature and
> >> *one* way of using that feature and
> >> *one* way of configuring that feature and
> >> *one* thing the feature does (magnify)
> >> you think I was not being specific. LOL!
> >
> > Way to take this out of context, Snit... your reading lessons obviously
> > aren't going well;) Apparently you've forgotten about the line that your
> > obsessive list of bullshit contained:
> >
> > "Edwin blamed me for not describing the feature in detail "
> >
> > You even showed more of your confusion with:
> >
> > "I did not describe it well, but I was very, very specific as to what
> > feature I meant." - Snit
> >
> > How can you be "very, very specific" in a description of a simple
> > feature like this, yet, still manage to, in your own words, "not
> > describe it well"? Oh... that's right, you're Snit... you can do stuff
> > like this;)
Note: No comment by you.
> >> Please note, Steve, how others in the thread understood what I was talking
> >> about: C Lund, Peter Hayes, Mojo, and Wayne Stuart at the very least.
> >
> > Mac uses understood a Mac feature that was admittedly 'not described
> > very well' ... a Windows user didn't pick up on the 'not very well
> > described' feature right away. News at 11.
> >
> >> It is clear, Steve, that you and Edwin were not able to understand what
> >> adults were able to;
> >
> > No, I understood the feature right away... but I use a Mac, too. It's
> > rather idiotic of you to bash any non-Mac user while having admitting
> > that you didn't describe the feature very well.. but that's you. LOL!
>
> As with Wally's posts, Steve, all the info needed to see
... you run was provided by me? Yes, I know... and anyone else that can
comprehend what they read that may have looked at this also knows ...
and sees you run from the reality I tossed in the path of your delusion.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
Wally
noone-3D5E0F....@newsgroups.comcast.net, "Steve Carroll"
<no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Thatšs *one* of the problems Snit has....
"To be more specific would not be accurate". -- Snit
You can have specifics but not accuracy or accuracy but no .......well you
get the picture! ;-)