"-t" versus "-ed"

[Guy Barry]

Is there any distinction between the use of these two suffixes for
forming past tenses and past participles? From a previous thread it
seems as though "learnt" and "learned" are used pretty much
indiscriminately for both, but what about other such pairs? My
feeling is that usually either form can be used with either
grammatical function, but sometimes there's a bias towards the use of
"-t" for the participle, especially when it's used adjectivally. E.g.

"a burnt offering", not "a burned offering"
"a spoilt child", not "a spoiled child"
"spilt milk", not "spilled milk"

In other cases the distinction is less clear, e.g. "leant"/"leaned",
"leapt"/"leaped", "spelt"/"spelled". Your judgements?

--
Guy Barry

[Ian Jackson]

In message
<d47af577-31b7-4843...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, Guy
Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes

I think that the 't' form is more likely to be used where the word is
effectively an adjective (especially in set phrases - like you
illustrate above), and the 'ed' form when it is more a past participle.
--
Ian

[Donna Richoux]

You don't mention the issue of pondiation.

[Adam Funk]

The opinions of pondits?


--
The kid's a hot prospect. He's got a good head for merchandising, an
agent who can take you downtown and one of the best urine samples I've
seen in a long time. [Dead Kennedys t-shirt]

[Peter Moylan]

Or even idiolect. There seems to be a lot of individual variation in
which of these are used by people.

When I have both forms in my active vocabulary, which probably isn't
often, then the "-ed" form is the active participle and the "-t" form is
the passive participle.

More commonly I have only the "-t" form and don't use the "-d" one.

The other day I started reading the King James bible, intending to read
it from cover to cover. My progress thus far has been slowed by the fact
that there are just so many begats I can handle per day, but I have at
least reached the point of being surprised at how often the authors used
"digged" where I would have had "dug".

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Cheryl]

I knew someone once whose favourite parts were the begats, and who could
discuss how so-and-so in one list was the same person, or maybe the son
or father of the someone in another list.

Personally, I skip the begats, and am lucky if I can keep the
relationships among the more prominent of the Old Testament people straight.

--
Cheryl

[Peter Moylan]

It's not just the begats. Large chunks of Genesis look as if they have
been written by the Department of Redundancy Department.

I mean this sort of thing:

"Bill said to himself that he would go to the house and knock on the
door and ask if they could give him some food. And if they said they
would, he would eat it, and thank them for it. So we went to the house,
and knocked on the door, and asked if they could give him some food. And
the people in the house gave him some food, and he ate it, and then he
thanked them for it. And the people in the house said, lo, here is a
traveller who knocked on our door, and asked if we could give him some
food. And we gave him some ..." ENOUGH, ENOUGH.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <Z-ednY5jKJUwkJXN...@westnet.com.au>, Peter
Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes

The King James's Bible writers/translators/compilers were probably paid
by the word.
--
Ian

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:

> "a burnt offering", not "a burned offering"

I agree.

> "a spoilt child", not "a spoiled child"
> "spilt milk", not "spilled milk"

I disagree.
--
Mark Brader | "If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent...
Toronto | the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly
m...@vex.net | the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."
--David Dunning

[Mike L]

I found, when I set myself the task of reading the whole thing (partly
KJV and partly New English Bible), that surprisingly little of it was
memorable, and how very much of it was repellent. I did admire the
nerve of the OT's editors for apparently including everything they
could find, however discreditable.

--
Mike.

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:22:15 -0230, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2012-07-19 10:14 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> > [quoted text muted]

> > that there are just so many begats I can handle per day, but I have at
> > least reached the point of being surprised at how often the authors used
> > "digged" where I would have had "dug".
> >
>
> I knew someone once whose favourite parts were the begats, and who could
>

Both in Peter's article and in yours, my brain registers it as
"bagels", and only on re-reading do I see it as "begats".

The mind is a terrible thing.

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:21:30 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> Guy Barry:
> > "a burnt offering", not "a burned offering"
>
> I agree.
>
> > "a spoilt child", not "a spoiled child"
> > "spilt milk", not "spilled milk"
>
> I disagree.

Do you would say "Don't cry over spilled milk"? I thought "spilt
milk" was the invariable form in that proverb.

Oddly, Gravity's spell checker thinks "spilt" is an error.

[Robert Bannister]

I normally use the -t version with vowel change where available. I take
the -ed form to be more "verbal" - sort of stretching out the "doing" of
the action.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

A very important point. Some, perhaps many of these verb forms in -t are
never used by Americans.

--
Robert Bannister

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <MPG.2a7257afa...@news.individual.net>,

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:21:30 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
>>
>> Guy Barry:

>> > "spilt milk", not "spilled milk"
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>Do you would say "Don't cry over spilled milk"?

Yes. (Not presuming to speak for Mark, but "spilt" is not in my
idiolect any more than "spoilt" or "spelt"[1] are.)

-GAWollman

[1] Not talking about the cereal, OK?
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Peter Moylan]

On 20/07/12 08:43, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:21:30 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
>>
>> Guy Barry:
>>> "a burnt offering", not "a burned offering"
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>> "a spoilt child", not "a spoiled child"
>>> "spilt milk", not "spilled milk"
>>
>> I disagree.
>
> Do you would say "Don't cry over spilled milk"? I thought "spilt
> milk" was the invariable form in that proverb.
>
> Oddly, Gravity's spell checker thinks "spilt" is an error.
>

Well, we don't usually /intentionally/ spill it.

[R H Draney]

Lewis filted:
>
>In message <a6qe7v...@mid.individual.net>

> Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>> I knew someone once whose favourite parts were the begats, and who could

>> discuss how so-and-so in one list was the same person, or maybe the son
>> or father of the someone in another list.
>
>> Personally, I skip the begats, and am lucky if I can keep the
>> relationships among the more prominent of the Old Testament people straight.
>

>I can't keep the relationships in my own family straight. No way am I
>expending effort remembering the supposed family trees of people
>supposedly living thousands of years ago.

I know...as closely as I followed "Dallas" in its original run, I'm having all
sorts of trouble reminding myself of all the family connections of the
characters who've been carried over into the new series after a 21-year
hiatus....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Rich Ulrich]

Most of the -t forms are not what my American education
gave me, but I might use and expect the spelling "lept".
Google shows me twice as many with "leapt over" than
"lept over".

I think I would use "spilt milk" as proverbial.
I know that I have occasionally written -t forms, but the
closest think I imagine for a rule is that I hear myself
speaking the word that way, perhaps for euphony.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Mark Brader]

Peter Moylan:

> It's not just the begats. Large chunks of Genesis look as if they have
> been written by the Department of Redundancy Department.
>
> I mean this sort of thing:
>
> "Bill said to himself that he would go to the house and knock on the
> door and ask if they could give him some food. And if they said they
> would, he would eat it, and thank them for it. So we went to the house,
> and knocked on the door, and asked if they could give him some food. And
> the people in the house gave him some food, and he ate it, and then he
> thanked them for it. And the people in the house said, lo, here is a
> traveller who knocked on our door, and asked if we could give him some
> food. And we gave him some ..."

# King Arthur: Consult the Book of Armaments.
#
# Brother Maynard: Armaments, chapter 2, verses 9 through 21.
#
# Cleric [reading]: And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on
# high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with
# it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."
# And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs
# and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast
# cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu...
#
# Brother Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother...
#
# Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out
# the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.
# Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of
# the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither
# count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three.
# Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third
# number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade
# of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight,
# shall snuff it.
#
# Brother Maynard: Amen.
#
# All: Amen.
#
# King Arthur: Right. One... two... five.
#
# Galahad: Three, sir.
#
# King Arthur: Three.
--
Mark Brader "I can say nothing at this point."
Toronto "Well, you were wrong."
m...@vex.net -- Monty Python's Flying Circus

My text in this article is null.

[bert]

"dreamt"/"dreamed" doesn't fit with that. I think they are
more often a distinction between transitive and intransitive.
--

[Guy Barry]

My first reaction was to say that "dream" can't be transitive, but
clearly it can: "I dreamed a dream", "I must have dreamt it". It's
true that I wouldn't say "dreamt" in the first case, but that may be a
set phrase. I'd probably use "dreamt" in all other contexts: "I
dreamt of gold", "I dreamt that I was on a desert island", "I dreamt
it up".

--
Guy Barry

[CDB]

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 4:12:07 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:

[dream dream dream]

> My first reaction was to say that "dream" can't be transitive, but
> clearly it can: "I dreamed a dream", "I must have dreamt it". It's
> true that I wouldn't say "dreamt" in the first case, but that may be a
> set phrase. I'd probably use "dreamt" in all other contexts: "I
> dreamt of gold", "I dreamt that I was on a desert island", "I dreamt

> it".
>
But I dreamed I smuggled secrets in my Maidenform Bra (TM).

http://b.tinyurl.com/3n5hvlt

[Stan Brown]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:42:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> In message <9NadnfZ0WP3H55XN...@vex.net>

> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> > Guy Barry:
> >> "a burnt offering", not "a burned offering"
>
> > I agree.
>

> They are completely different meanings, I think. Burnt means it was
> intentionally burnt as part of a ritual offering. Burned means something
> being offered fell into a fire and was charred (or burned completely
> away).

I think "burned" is invariable for the participle used as a
participle, but "burned" "burnt" for the participle used as an
adjective. "Burnt offering" is a set phrase, so I don't think we can
judge from that.

In her "Analysis of the Ring", Anna Russel talks about the final
scene as " ... Then Wotan and all the gods burn up. (pause) It's all
burnt." I could be mishearing her, but the -t sounds pretty distinct
to my ears.

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 21, 1:38 pm, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:42:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> > They are completely different meanings, I think. Burnt means it was
> > intentionally burnt as part of a ritual offering. Burned means something
> > being offered fell into a fire and was charred (or burned completely
> > away).
>
> I think "burned" is invariable for the participle used as a
> participle, but "burned" "burnt" for the participle used as an
> adjective.

Possibly in AmE, where the "-t" ending appears to be far less common.
In BrE it would be perfectly normal to say "I have burnt the
toast" (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

--
Guy Barry

[R H Draney]

CDB filted:

Last night I dreamed I went to Manderley again....r

[Robert Bannister]

On 21/07/12 8:38 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:42:54 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>> In message <9NadnfZ0WP3H55XN...@vex.net>
>> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>>> Guy Barry:
>>>> "a burnt offering", not "a burned offering"
>>
>>> I agree.
>>
>> They are completely different meanings, I think. Burnt means it was
>> intentionally burnt as part of a ritual offering. Burned means something
>> being offered fell into a fire and was charred (or burned completely
>> away).
>
> I think "burned" is invariable for the participle used as a
> participle,

Where "invariable" refers to your own idiolect and not the entire
English language.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

We could only dream of maidens' forms, let alone of their bras, but were
I to have dreamt such a thing, I would be quite happy to use "dreamt" in
your sentence.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Every time I read that sentence, my first thought was "Why Burma?". What
a difference an "e" can make.


--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Moylan]

That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
page.

I see that there's a "sign in" button on the page, but I refuse to
create an account with an organisation that has shown such a scant
regard for privacy.

[R H Draney]

Robert Bannister filted:

Where the dawn comes up like thunder?...r

[Stan Brown]

Two e's and an r, I think, if we're talking about the song.

[Peter Moylan]

I've often been burnt by this.

[CDB]

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:23:54 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/07/12 21:29, CDB wrote:

>> [link to image-search results]

> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
> page.
>

My bad. The cure would be to limit posted links to those giving single results, and I undertake to do this from now on, or else to post a warning with the link.

[CDB]

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:43:42 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:

> Every time I read that sentence, my first thought was "Why Burma"? What a difference an "e" can make.
>

You'll drop the razor,
Get the shakes,
When Becca traps you
In the jakes ...

Bummer Shave

[Mike L]

On 21 Jul 2012 19:41:54 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:

>Robert Bannister filted:
>>
>>On 22/07/12 2:24 AM, R H Draney wrote:
>>>
>>> Last night I dreamed I went to Manderley again...
>>
>>Every time I read that sentence, my first thought was "Why Burma?". What
>>a difference an "e" can make.
>
>Where the dawn comes up like thunder?...r

One of the poet's stoned efforts, I feel: the geography seems to be
happening in spaced space - unless it's just meant to be Tommy rot of
the period. Makes me thristy.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

On 22/07/12 10:23 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/07/12 21:29, CDB wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 4:12:07 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> [dream dream dream]
>>
>>> My first reaction was to say that "dream" can't be transitive, but
>>> clearly it can: "I dreamed a dream", "I must have dreamt it". It's
>>> true that I wouldn't say "dreamt" in the first case, but that may be a
>>> set phrase. I'd probably use "dreamt" in all other contexts: "I
>>> dreamt of gold", "I dreamt that I was on a desert island", "I dreamt
>>> it".
>>>
>> But I dreamed I smuggled secrets in my Maidenform Bra (TM).
>>
>> http://b.tinyurl.com/3n5hvlt
>>
> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
> page.
>
> I see that there's a "sign in" button on the page, but I refuse to
> create an account with an organisation that has shown such a scant
> regard for privacy.

I have just noticed that I am automatically signed in.
All the same, I don't understand the disk thrashing. Surely that's
something you've told your computer to do because I don't notice any
disc activity and nothing is left on my "copy/paste" file.
--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Moylan]

On 23/07/12 13:56, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 22/07/12 10:23 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 21/07/12 21:29, CDB wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 4:12:07 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>
>>> [dream dream dream]
>>>
>>>> My first reaction was to say that "dream" can't be transitive, but
>>>> clearly it can: "I dreamed a dream", "I must have dreamt it". It's
>>>> true that I wouldn't say "dreamt" in the first case, but that may be a
>>>> set phrase. I'd probably use "dreamt" in all other contexts: "I
>>>> dreamt of gold", "I dreamt that I was on a desert island", "I dreamt
>>>> it".
>>>>
>>> But I dreamed I smuggled secrets in my Maidenform Bra (TM).
>>>
>>> http://b.tinyurl.com/3n5hvlt
>>>
>> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
>> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
>> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
>> page.
>>
>> I see that there's a "sign in" button on the page, but I refuse to
>> create an account with an organisation that has shown such a scant
>> regard for privacy.
>
> I have just noticed that I am automatically signed in.

And I've just noticed that I have a Google account. I haven't yet tried
to log into it.

> All the same, I don't understand the disk thrashing. Surely that's
> something you've told your computer to do because I don't notice any
> disc activity and nothing is left on my "copy/paste" file.

The problem, I suspect, is my huge 256 MB main memory. It's perfectly
satisfactory for most purposes, but the Firefox programmers will insist
on assuming that everyone has a computer big enough to run Windows.

[Mike Barnes]

Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>:

My (Windows) version of Firefox allows me to specify whether images are
loaded automatically, and to specify the addresses of sites that I'd
like to be the exception to the rule. So I can say "load all images
except these sites" or "block all images except these sites". That seems
quite thoughtful, and you should be able to find some relief from the
problem there.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Robert Bannister]

That would explain a lot. I remember when my 64k PC was one of the most
advanced in Australia when all the others were 16-48k. Come to think of,
when my b-i-l worked for ICL in England, they had a whole floor for a
16k computer.

--
Robert Bannister

[Mark Brader]

Last month, C.D. Bellemar wrote:
>> But I dreamed I smuggled secrets in my Maidenform Bra (TM).
>> http://b.tinyurl.com/3n5hvlt

This was a Google Images search URL.

And Peter Moylan complained:

> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
> page.

Yes -- just disable JavaScript and you get the traditional Google Images
results page.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | The real trouble with this world of ours is... that
m...@vex.net | it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. --Chesterton

[Peter Moylan]

On 17/08/12 09:23, Mark Brader wrote:
> Last month, C.D. Bellemar wrote:
>>> But I dreamed I smuggled secrets in my Maidenform Bra (TM).
>>> http://b.tinyurl.com/3n5hvlt
>
> This was a Google Images search URL.
>
> And Peter Moylan complained:
>> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
>> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
>> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
>> page.
>
> Yes -- just disable JavaScript and you get the traditional Google Images
> results page.

I've resisted doing that until now because a huge number of web sites
fail if you have JavaScript disabled. By now, though, I've reached the
conclusion that increasing numbers of web sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube) are Windows-only, so I might end up conceding that there's a
large part of the web that I don't really need to see.

[James Hogg]

Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 17/08/12 09:23, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Last month, C.D. Bellemar wrote:
>>>> But I dreamed I smuggled secrets in my Maidenform Bra (TM).
>>>> http://b.tinyurl.com/3n5hvlt
>> This was a Google Images search URL.
>>
>> And Peter Moylan complained:
>>> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
>>> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
>>> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
>>> page.
>> Yes -- just disable JavaScript and you get the traditional Google Images
>> results page.
>
> I've resisted doing that until now because a huge number of web sites
> fail if you have JavaScript disabled. By now, though, I've reached the
> conclusion that increasing numbers of web sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter,
> YouTube) are Windows-only

How can websites be Windows-only?

>, so I might end up conceding that there's a
> large part of the web that I don't really need to see.

--

James

[Jerry Friedman]

On Aug 21, 2:19 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:

> On 17/08/12 09:23, Mark Brader wrote:
> > Last month, C.D. Bellemar wrote:

...

> > And Peter Moylan complained:
> >> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
> >> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
> >> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
> >> page.
>
> > Yes -- just disable JavaScript and you get the traditional Google Images
> > results page.
>
> I've resisted doing that until now because a huge number of web sites
> fail if you have JavaScript disabled. By now, though, I've reached the
> conclusion that increasing numbers of web sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter,
> YouTube) are Windows-only, so I might end up conceding that there's a
> large part of the web that I don't really need to see.

Facebook and YouTube work the same on my Mac as on my Windows computer
at work.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Whiskers]

On 2012-08-21, Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/08/12 09:23, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Last month, C.D. Bellemar wrote:
>>>> But I dreamed I smuggled secrets in my Maidenform Bra (TM).
>>>> http://b.tinyurl.com/3n5hvlt
>>
>> This was a Google Images search URL.
>>
>> And Peter Moylan complained:
>>> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
>>> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
>>> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
>>> page.
>>
>> Yes -- just disable JavaScript and you get the traditional Google Images
>> results page.
>
> I've resisted doing that until now because a huge number of web sites
> fail if you have JavaScript disabled. By now, though, I've reached the
> conclusion that increasing numbers of web sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter,
> YouTube) are Windows-only, so I might end up conceding that there's a
> large part of the web that I don't really need to see.

I can remember when 'Ajax' was only for cleaning 'toilets'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)>. We can't really
hold Microsoft wholly responsible for this particular crime, although
it did originate as a complication intended to overcome a fundamental
design defect in their horrible web browser (which couldn't cache
individual elements of a web page, so had to reload the whole thing
over the internet every time any tiny part changed).

Web designers now feel free to make their visitors' computers work very
hard to render the 'special effects' and other 'features' that conceal
the relative lack of actual usefulness. Presentation is overwhelming
content. But Lynx can still handle a suprising number of pages, and
many web sites have 'mobile' (for smartphones) or 'text only' (for
'accessibility') versions which are a lot more efficient.

Gopherspace is still there. Quiet, but not quite gone.

Thirty years ago, I was of the opinion that adding graphics cards to
desktop computers was a bad move. I'm still not entirely convinced
that it wasn't.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <FYudnWKutZgT2a7N...@westnet.com.au>,

Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>fail if you have JavaScript disabled. By now, though, I've reached the
>conclusion that increasing numbers of web sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter,
>YouTube) are Windows-only,

I'm not sure why you would think that. I can read (if not always
interact with) all three of those sites. For Twitter, there's a nice
Perl client called "ttytter" which is purely text-based (although
since most of the content on Twitter is obfuscated URLs to longer
documents somewhere else, that may be little consolation), but you do
need to use the Web site once to authorize it to access your acount.
I really have no use for Facebook, but since Google got religion about
Free Software video codecs, most of the stuff on YouTube is accessible
to anyone whose machine has enough computrons to decode it.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Whiskers]

On 2012-08-21, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 17/08/12 09:23, Mark Brader wrote:

[...]

> How can websites be Windows-only?

By being designed to depend on features that only exist on Windows
systems, or only within Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser
(which is designed to work only on Windows systems).

Pages designed with the help of Microsoft software are particularly
prone to disregarding 'web standards', even if Microsoft have now
ceased deliberately creating web pages that fail to work properly, or
at all, with any browser but theirs.

The Browser Wars aren't over yet.
<http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/04/23/current-status-of-the-browser-wars/>

[Bart Dinnissen]

Same here in Firefox / Ubuntu. As far as I can tell everything works.

--
Bart Dinnissen

"Ik heb geen moreel kompas."
- Maarten van Rossem

[James Hogg]

Whiskers wrote:
> On 2012-08-21, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 17/08/12 09:23, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> How can websites be Windows-only?
>
> By being designed to depend on features that only exist on Windows
> systems, or only within Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser
> (which is designed to work only on Windows systems).

But the ones that Peter mentioned work just as well on Apple products.

--
James

[Mark Brader]

Peter Moylan:
>>> Is there any way to tell Google [Images] to limit the number of
>>> results per page.

Mark Brader:

>> Yes -- just disable JavaScript and you get the traditional Google Images
>> results page.

Peter Moylan:

> I've resisted doing that until now because a huge number of web sites
> fail if you have JavaScript disabled.

It's not as if you have to stay with one setting for all sites and all time.
--
Mark Brader | "Don't you ever want to change your life?
Toronto | "You talk about life as if it was something you buy
m...@vex.net | in the shops: 'I'm sorry, but when I got it home,
| it didn't suit me.'" -- Butterflies

[Whiskers]

He does apparently use an operating system that's even more of a
minority interest than GNU/Linux; that may be something to do with his
difficulties on some web sites. I've never visited Facebook, but
YouTube works well for me (Opera browser, running in Arch Linux on an
elderly HP Pavilion laptop). But I do sometimes come across web pages
that don't work well for me, and a few sites present me with messages
such as 'your browser is not supported' or 'some features of this site
may not work on your system' - even though they work OK as far as I can
tell.

[Robert Bannister]

On 21/08/12 4:37 PM, James Hogg wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 17/08/12 09:23, Mark Brader wrote:
>>> Last month, C.D. Bellemar wrote:
>>>>> But I dreamed I smuggled secrets in my Maidenform Bra (TM).
>>>>> http://b.tinyurl.com/3n5hvlt
>>> This was a Google Images search URL.
>>>
>>> And Peter Moylan complained:
>>>> That sort of search causes my browser to go into disk-thrashing mode.
>>>> Worse, closing the tab still leaves me with an obscenely large swap
>>>> file. Is there any way to tell Google to limit the number of results per
>>>> page.
>>> Yes -- just disable JavaScript and you get the traditional Google Images
>>> results page.
>>
>> I've resisted doing that until now because a huge number of web sites
>> fail if you have JavaScript disabled. By now, though, I've reached the
>> conclusion that increasing numbers of web sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter,
>> YouTube) are Windows-only
>
> How can websites be Windows-only?

There used to be sites that said "best viewed with Internet Explorer"
and there were a few that wouldn't work if you used a different browser.
Back then, Macs always came with IE bundled, but I always deleted it.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

It's very hard to use an iPad without using Safari. I have a Firefox
app, but really it just takes me to Safari.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

I think you mean "badly".

--
Robert Bannister