10.6.2 Fabulous
John
John
> Just outstanding.
And yes on two different computers.
Snit
5:34 PM:
> Just outstanding.
I am very happy with it... expected to be and am.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
PuKdncUpR4KZKGXX...@giganews.com, "John" <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:
> Just outstanding.
In what way do you find it "outstanding" John?
Did you find 10.6.1 troublesome?
Snit
I did. Stock 10.6.1 did not work well on my machine - I have discussed the
crashes. And 10.6.2 fixes it. It also fixes the well-publicized problems
with Flash on some models and a host of other things. You can check out
Apple's site for a list of major changes - though they do not list all
changes <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3874>. All Apple says about the fix
for the problem I talked about:
-----
general reliability and performance improvements when using
some applications
-----
Adobe is more specific:
<http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/11/snow_leopard_1062_fixes_problems_with_
ps.html>
-----
When opening and saving, applications--including Adobe applications--
may sporadically crash
-----
Good update... frankly taking too long to get to.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C71F6598.19C1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/10/09 3:46 AM:
>
>> On 10/11/09 8:34 AM, in article
>> PuKdncUpR4KZKGXX...@giganews.com, "John" <nos...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just outstanding.
>>
>> In what way do you find it "outstanding" John?
>>
>> Did you find 10.6.1 troublesome?
>>
>
> I did.
But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?
Doubtful as you have in fact described problems on your machine with 10.6.2!
(But I am open to you claiming that you simply made a mistake as you so
often do Snit)
In any event I am not interested in *your* opinion on this matter Snit Hence
my question to John!
Snit
> On 11/11/09 2:53 AM, in article C71F04CB.53384%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C71F6598.19C1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/10/09 3:46 AM:
>>
>>> On 10/11/09 8:34 AM, in article
>>> PuKdncUpR4KZKGXX...@giganews.com, "John" <nos...@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just outstanding.
>>>
>>> In what way do you find it "outstanding" John?
>>>
>>> Did you find 10.6.1 troublesome?
>>>
>>
>> I did.
>
> But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?
It is outstanding... but I have not used that term. Are you working on a
new semantic debate? Going to insist it is "outstanding" like a check? :)
> Doubtful as you have in fact described problems on your machine with 10.6.2!
> (But I am open to you claiming that you simply made a mistake as you so
> often do Snit)
What mistake do you mean?
> In any event I am not interested in *your* opinion on this matter Snit Hence
> my question to John!
Ah, you do not care about the OS, just looking to troll John. Got it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lloyd Parsons
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I've been reading this, and 10.6.2 is just like every other Mac OS
upgrade, damned good to excellent!!
My iMac is faster and the footprint is again smaller. No bugs that have
shown up, overall an even better upgrade than some.
John
Wally is such a flake. LOL!
Snit
lloydparsons-9F49...@port80.individual.net on 11/11/09 11:17
AM:
For me, it was one of the most important "minor" version updates in a long,
long time. I was quite open with my being hit with a bug that caused a
number of apps to crash in stock 10.6.1... *very* happy that is now fixed in
10.6.2.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11/11/09 11:18 AM:
...
>>> But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?
>>
>> It is outstanding... but I have not used that term. Are you working on a
>> new semantic debate? Going to insist it is "outstanding" like a check? :)
>>
>>> Doubtful as you have in fact described problems on your machine with 10.6.2!
>>> (But I am open to you claiming that you simply made a mistake as you so
>>> often do Snit)
>>
>> What mistake do you mean?
>>
>>> In any event I am not interested in *your* opinion on this matter Snit Hence
>>> my question to John!
>>
>> Ah, you do not care about the OS, just looking to troll John. Got it.
>
> Wally is such a flake. LOL!
He does not want to talk to me until he decides if he still thinks it is
"fair" to make up stories about people and then give the "disclaimer" that
it is only "very likely" true. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C720D3CC.1AD1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 5:49 AM:
>
>> On 11/11/09 2:53 AM, in article C71F04CB.53384%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C71F6598.19C1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/10/09 3:46 AM:
>>>
>>>> On 10/11/09 8:34 AM, in article
>>>> PuKdncUpR4KZKGXX...@giganews.com, "John" <nos...@nospam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just outstanding.
>>>>
>>>> In what way do you find it "outstanding" John?
>>>>
>>>> Did you find 10.6.1 troublesome?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did.
>>
>> But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?
>
> It is outstanding... but I have not used that term. Are you working on a
> new semantic debate? Going to insist it is "outstanding" like a check? :)
Then the answer to my question was a simple 'NO' Snit, why you couldn't
simply say that is astounding!
>> Doubtful as you have in fact described problems on your machine with 10.6.2!
>> (But I am open to you claiming that you simply made a mistake as you so
>> often do Snit)
>
> What mistake do you mean?
Analyze the situation Snit ...
You have claimed *not* to have seen problems with 10.6.2, and you have also
'described' problems that you have with 10.6.2 on *your* machine!
Do both positions really sit well with you Snit? If not then clearly you
have made yet another mistake!
Please don't tell me that I am going to have to walk you through your own
posts word by word yet again Snit, that would be very tedious especially as
all you have to do is learn to understand what it is that you write Snit!
>> In any event I am not interested in *your* opinion on this matter Snit Hence
>> my question to John!
>
> Ah, you do not care about the OS,
Again you have it backwards Snit I don't care one jot about *SO* .. (Snit's
Opinion)!
> just looking to troll John. Got it.
John not I described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit, I simply would like to
know given that he never reported any problems with any previous version
what it is that to him makes this version "outstanding"!
> Got it.
On the contrary you have proven that as is usual for you Snit you are as far
away from "Got it." as one can be!
Wally
lpmdnfij6JppYmfX...@giganews.com, "John" <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:
So you choose not to support your opinion regarding 10.6.2 John?
OK, that was expected!
Wally
lloydparsons-9F49...@port80.individual.net, "Lloyd Parsons"
<lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
That is my experience also!
> My iMac is faster and the footprint is again smaller. No bugs that have
> shown up, overall an even better upgrade than some.
Amazingly had you simply said that 10.6.2 was .... "damned good to
excellent!" and I had asked you the reasons for that opinion there is at
least one person that would accuse me of trolling you!
As it is you had the foresight to give good reasons for your opinion thereby
saving me the indignity of being called a troll .. Thank you!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
It is very difficult to hold a rational conversation with someone such as
you Snit who can claim not to have seen any problems with a certain update
then goes on to describe problems that they have with that very update!
And then goes on to state that others have difficulty making up their minds!
ROTFLMAO!
Snit
> On 12/11/09 2:05 AM, in article C7204AE9.536A3%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C720D3CC.1AD1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 5:49 AM:
>>
>>> On 11/11/09 2:53 AM, in article C71F04CB.53384%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wally stated in post C71F6598.19C1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/10/09 3:46
>>>> AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/09 8:34 AM, in article
>>>>> PuKdncUpR4KZKGXX...@giganews.com, "John" <nos...@nospam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just outstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way do you find it "outstanding" John?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you find 10.6.1 troublesome?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did.
>>>
>>> But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?
>>
>> It is outstanding... but I have not used that term. Are you working on a
>> new semantic debate? Going to insist it is "outstanding" like a check? :)
>
> Then the answer to my question was a simple 'NO' Snit, why you couldn't
> simply say that is astounding!
Read my reply... I have now called it outstanding. Had I used that exact
term before... not that I know of. Not interested in your mindless semantic
games. Not like you even play them well, you know. You always just dig big
holes for yourself and wait for your buddies in your clique to back you.
The game is boring.
>>> Doubtful as you have in fact described problems on your machine with 10.6.2!
>>> (But I am open to you claiming that you simply made a mistake as you so
>>> often do Snit)
>>
>> What mistake do you mean?
>
> Analyze the situation Snit ...
>
> You have claimed *not* to have seen problems with 10.6.2, and you have also
> 'described' problems that you have with 10.6.2 on *your* machine!
Ah, looking back at my posts I see where I wrote 10.6.2 when I clearly meant
10.6.1. The context made that clear:
Snit:
Fixed the crashes I was seeing when running OS X 10.6.1. �I
have worked to replicate them and I cannot. �Yeah!
Tommy Troll:
WHAT - there were crashes, and it sounds like there were
repeatable and frequent. SOSDD.
Alan Baker:
In what way does it sound like they were frequent?
Snit:
With some systems they were - fairly reproducible, too. For
example, Save for Web and Devices would crash Photoshop about
1/3 of the time in 10.6.2 *ON SOME MACHINES*, including mine.
Had to do with the graphic card and, I think, having 4GB of
memory or more.
My goodness! You found that error once but then could not quote it... and
it got you all confused. Yup! I meant 10.6.1 there. Wow... such a clever
boy you are to catch that... and then *not* be able to quote it or link to
it. LOL!
> Do both positions really sit well with you Snit? If not then clearly you
> have made yet another mistake!
>
> Please don't tell me that I am going to have to walk you through your own
> posts word by word yet again Snit, that would be very tedious especially as
> all you have to do is learn to understand what it is that you write Snit!
Face it - you got confused by an error I made and then could not find it
again. You commented on my error as though I was aware of it. Got me... I
was not. Man, how clever you are.
Shall we be hearing about this error of mine for the next decade? Will
Steve Carroll back you by quoting it *thousands* of times? Oh, the
anticipation!
>>> In any event I am not interested in *your* opinion on this matter Snit Hence
>>> my question to John!
>>
>> Ah, you do not care about the OS,
>
> Again you have it backwards Snit I don't care one jot about *SO* .. (Snit's
> Opinion)!
I was talking about OS X. You asked about OS X. If you want a private
conversation use email. Do you know how?
>> just looking to troll John. Got it.
>
> John not I described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit, I simply would like to
> know given that he never reported any problems with any previous version
> what it is that to him makes this version "outstanding"!
Even if he has not experienced any, he sure heard of some... from me if
nobody else!
>> Got it.
>
> On the contrary you have proven that as is usual for you Snit you are as far
> away from "Got it." as one can be!
Oh, I get that you are just trolling. Completely. It is the very reason
you harped on an error of mine you could neither quote nor link to!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wally is such a flake. LOL!
>
> So you choose not to support your opinion regarding 10.6.2 John?
>
> OK, that was expected!
You sure are trying to get a lot of mileage out of him noting OS X 10.6.2
has been fabulous for him.
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
See: I told you that you would try to get a *lot* of mileage out of my typo.
Here it is:
Snit:
Fixed the crashes I was seeing when running OS X 10.6.1. �I
have worked to replicate them and I cannot. �Yeah!
Tommy Troll:
WHAT - there were crashes, and it sounds like there were
repeatable and frequent. SOSDD.
Alan Baker:
In what way does it sound like they were frequent?
Snit:
With some systems they were - fairly reproducible, too. For
example, Save for Web and Devices would crash Photoshop about
1/3 of the time in 10.6.2 *ON SOME MACHINES*, including mine.
Had to do with the graphic card and, I think, having 4GB of
memory or more.
Man... better harass me over that for *months*. Don't want to let your
clique down, now do you? Never mind that the context made it clear I merely
made a mistake in writing 10.6.2 when I clearly meant 10.6.1. Then again...
to see why that is clear you have to be able to follow a thread for a few
posts... and you clearly were not able to.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> I've been reading this, and 10.6.2 is just like every other Mac OS
>> upgrade, damned good to excellent!!
>
> That is my experience also!
>
>> My iMac is faster and the footprint is again smaller. No bugs that have
>> shown up, overall an even better upgrade than some.
>
> Amazingly had you simply said that 10.6.2 was .... "damned good to
> excellent!" and I had asked you the reasons for that opinion there is at
> least one person that would accuse me of trolling you!
Who?
> As it is you had the foresight to give good reasons for your opinion thereby
> saving me the indignity of being called a troll .. Thank you!
Who said you were not trolling?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C72164AE.1B5B%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 4:07 PM:
>
>> On 12/11/09 2:05 AM, in article C7204AE9.536A3%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C720D3CC.1AD1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 5:49 AM:
>>>
>>>> On 11/11/09 2:53 AM, in article
>>>> C71F04CB.53384%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wally stated in post C71F6598.19C1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/10/09 3:46
>>>>> AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/11/09 8:34 AM, in article
>>>>>> PuKdncUpR4KZKGXX...@giganews.com, "John" <nos...@nospam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just outstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In what way do you find it "outstanding" John?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you find 10.6.1 troublesome?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did.
>>>>
>>>> But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?
>>>
>>> It is outstanding... but I have not used that term. Are you working on a
>>> new semantic debate? Going to insist it is "outstanding" like a check? :)
>>
>> Then the answer to my question was a simple 'NO' Snit, why you couldn't
>> simply say that is astounding!
>
> Read my reply... I have now called it outstanding.
Immaterial wrt the time that the question was originally asked Snit!
"But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?"-Wally
Then the answer to my question is *still* a simple 'NO' Snit, why you
Wally
I did not comment on what you "meant" Snit, I have commented on what you
have said ..... And I was correct!
"You have claimed *not* to have seen problems with 10.6.2, and you have also
'described' problems that you have with 10.6.2 on *your* machine!"-Wally
But at least you have somehow managed to answer your own question...
"What mistake do you mean?"-Snit
Well done!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I noted ... "fabulous" did I Snit? LOL
Snit
>>> Then the answer to my question was a simple 'NO' Snit, why you couldn't
>>> simply say that is astounding!
>>
>> Read my reply... I have now called it outstanding.
>
> Immaterial wrt the time that the question was originally asked Snit!
>
> "But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?"-Wally
>
> Then the answer to my question is *still* a simple 'NO' Snit, why you
> couldn't simply say that is astounding!
OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
I am not interested in your side-issue games.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
I am not interested in your semantic games. OS X 10.6.2 has been wonderful.
Very happy to see the update.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I noted that you made a mistake, *you* queried what mistake you had made,
therefore any "mileage" is as a result of you not simply accepting that I
was correct in my original post ... And moving on Snit!
You only have to look at your reply to see that Snit.
<snipped for brevity>
Snit
>> See: I told you that you would try to get a *lot* of mileage out of my typo.
>> Here it is:
>
> I noted that you made a mistake, *you* queried what mistake you had made,
> therefore any "mileage" is as a result of you not simply accepting that I
> was correct in my original post ... And moving on Snit!
>
> You only have to look at your reply to see that Snit.
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
You noted I made a mistake... one you showed no sign of being able to quote
or link to.
I called you on your trolling.
Now let it go. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Still trying to get
revenge for your humiliating calling of utter gibberish "coherent and well
ordered" - and insisting it was not a mistake for you to say so? Or are you
just being absurd for no reason?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
Looks like it is now time for me to buy the upgrade. Good to know.
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C7216BF3.1B74%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 4:38 PM:
>
>>>> Then the answer to my question was a simple 'NO' Snit, why you couldn't
>>>> simply say that is astounding!
>>>
>>> Read my reply... I have now called it outstanding.
>>
>> Immaterial wrt the time that the question was originally asked Snit!
>>
>> "But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?"-Wally
>>
>> Then the answer to my question is *still* a simple 'NO' Snit, why you
>> couldn't simply say that is astounding!
>
> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
Thank you for making my point Snit! (even though the fact that you have will
no doubt have to be explained to you very, very slowly indeed!)
>
> I am not interested in your side-issue games.
>
Yet you bothered to answer a question that I asked of John so that you could
talk to me! LOL!
You know full well that when you beg *that* hard I *will* toss you a crumb
Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C721767A.1B83%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 5:23 PM:
>
>>> See: I told you that you would try to get a *lot* of mileage out of my typo.
>>> Here it is:
>>
>> I noted that you made a mistake, *you* queried what mistake you had made,
>> therefore any "mileage" is as a result of you not simply accepting that I
>> was correct in my original post ... And moving on Snit!
>>
>> You only have to look at your reply to see that Snit.
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>
>>
> You noted I made a mistake... one you showed no sign of being able to quote
> or link to.
Yet reality shows that I was absolutely correct! ... Go figure! LOL
Snit
You think it is "correct" to show no sign of being able to quote or link to
support for your claims.
Amazing. Just amazing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>
> Thank you for making my point Snit!
If you and I agree and it is your point as well, then fine.
I have no problem with agreeing that OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C72164AE.1B5B%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 4:07 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/11/09 2:05 AM, in article C7204AE9.536A3%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> > "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wally stated in post C720D3CC.1AD1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 5:49 AM:
>
> >>> On 11/11/09 2:53 AM, in article C71F04CB.53384%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> >>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Wally stated in post C71F6598.19C1%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/10/09 3:46
> >>>> AM:
>
> >>>>> On 10/11/09 8:34 AM, in article
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Just outstanding.
>
> >>>>> In what way do you find it "outstanding" John?
>
> >>>>> Did you find 10.6.1 troublesome?
>
> >>>> I did.
>
> >>> But have you described 10.6.2 as "outstanding" Snit?
>
> >> It is outstanding... but I have not used that term. Are you working on a
> >> new semantic debate? Going to insist it is "outstanding" like a check? :)
>
> > Then the answer to my question was a simple 'NO' Snit, why you couldn't
> > simply say that is astounding!
>
> Read my reply... I have now called it outstanding. Had I used that exact
> term before... not that I know of. Not interested in your mindless semantic
> games. Not like you even play them well, you know. You always just dig big
> holes for yourself and wait for your buddies in your clique to back you.
>
> The game is boring.
>
> >>> Doubtful as you have in fact described problems on your machine with 10.6.2!
> >>> (But I am open to you claiming that you simply made a mistake as you so
> >>> often do Snit)
>
> >> What mistake do you mean?
>
> > Analyze the situation Snit ...
>
> > You have claimed *not* to have seen problems with 10.6.2, and you have also
> > 'described' problems that you have with 10.6.2 on *your* machine!
>
> Ah, looking back at my posts I see where I wrote 10.6.2 when I clearly meant
> 10.6.1.
Yeah... drugs were probably involved... again;)
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C721767A.1B83%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 5:23 PM:
>
> >> See: I told you that you would try to get a *lot* of mileage out of my typo.
> >> Here it is:
>
> > I noted that you made a mistake, *you* queried what mistake you had made,
> > therefore any "mileage" is as a result of you not simply accepting that I
> > was correct in my original post ... And moving on Snit!
>
> > You only have to look at your reply to see that Snit.
>
> > <snipped for brevity>
>
> You noted I made a mistake...
And now you're doing your usual whining for 98 posts about it.
Steve Carroll
LOL!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C7224258.1BFC%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 7:53 AM:
>
>> On 12/11/09 8:47 AM, in article C720A932.53891%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C721767A.1B83%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/11/09 5:23 PM:
>>>
>>>>> See: I told you that you would try to get a *lot* of mileage out of my
>>>>> typo.
>>>>> Here it is:
>>>>
>>>> I noted that you made a mistake, *you* queried what mistake you had made,
>>>> therefore any "mileage" is as a result of you not simply accepting that I
>>>> was correct in my original post ... And moving on Snit!
>>>>
>>>> You only have to look at your reply to see that Snit.
>>>>
>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>
>>> You noted I made a mistake... one you showed no sign of being able to quote
>>> or link to.
>>
>> Yet reality shows that I was absolutely correct! ... Go figure! LOL
>>
> You think it is "correct" to show no sign of being able to quote or link to
> support for your claims.
It is absolutely correct to point out your mistakes Snit .. Even if, as is
the case they appear to be escalating with the passing of each new day!
As for not walking you through these mistakes at the time of noting them ...
What would be the value in that?
Take this case for instance by withholding certain relevant facts I was
instrumental in having you learn to find them for yourself Snit! *That*
considering your past dismal performance is *value*!
> Amazing. Just amazing.
Amazing would be if you are able to retain the lessons that you have learnt
Snit, time will tell!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
"Thank you for making my point Snit! (even though the fact that you have
will no doubt have to be explained to you very, very slowly indeed!)"-Wally
I simply cannot help but be right about you Snit! LOL
Snit
>>> Yet reality shows that I was absolutely correct! ... Go figure! LOL
>>>
>> You think it is "correct" to show no sign of being able to quote or link to
>> support for your claims.
>
> It is absolutely correct to point out your mistakes Snit
What do you think that has to do with you saying it is "absolutely correct"
to be able to show no sign of being able to quote or link to support for
your claims?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
We both are making the same point: OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
Why do you need to jump up and down so happy to be in agreement with me...
to be making the same point? Is it just to hide the fact you said it was
"absolutely correct" to not completely fail to support your claims.
You really are just lost, aren't you? You have no idea what the
conversation is even about at this point.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Unfortunately for you reality will show that I did not say what your obvious
comprehension disability is convincing you that you have read Snit!
I said...
"It is absolutely correct to point out your mistakes Snit"-Wally
You read...
"it is "absolutely correct" to be able to show no sign of being able to
quote or link"-Snit
A right minded person would be quite concerned over that discrepancy Snit,
does that explain why you are perfectly comfortable with it? I do believe
that it does!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C722C6C0.1C74%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:18 PM:
>
>> On 13/11/09 4:30 AM, in article C721BE72.53AD0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C72218C8.1BFA%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 4:55 AM:
>>>
>>>>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for making my point Snit!
>>>
>>> If you and I agree and it is your point as well, then fine.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with agreeing that OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "Thank you for making my point Snit! (even though the fact that you have
>> will no doubt have to be explained to you very, very slowly indeed!)"-Wally
>>
>> I simply cannot help but be right about you Snit! LOL
>>
>
> We both are making the same point: OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
You will show where I have indicated 10.6.2 to be "outstanding" in
1...2...3... No of course you wont, as you cant!
> Why do you need to jump up and down so happy to be in agreement with me...
> to be making the same point?
If by "the same point" you mean that your ability to comprehend what you
read is shot to hell Snit .... Say so!
> Is it just to hide the fact you said it was
> "absolutely correct" to not completely fail to support your claims.
That was in the same fictional post where I described 10.6.2 as
"outstanding" was it Snit?
Do post an extract of that post any time you feel well enough. ROTFL
> You really are just lost, aren't you? You have no idea what the
> conversation is even about at this point.
Hahahhaahhahahahaha!
Snit
> On 13/11/09 8:20 AM, in article C721F455.53B4A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C722C641.1C73%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:16 PM:
>>
>>>>> Yet reality shows that I was absolutely correct! ... Go figure! LOL
>>>>>
>>>> You think it is "correct" to show no sign of being able to quote or link to
>>>> support for your claims.
>>>
>>> It is absolutely correct to point out your mistakes Snit
>>
>> What do you think that has to do with you saying it is "absolutely correct"
>> to be able to show no sign of being able to quote or link to support for
>> your claims?
>
> Unfortunately for you reality will show that I did not say what your obvious
> comprehension disability is convincing you that you have read Snit!
You claimed I made a mistake. You were correct... for a change. You
*still* utterly failed to be able to support your claim, failing to be able
to produce a link or quote.
You claimed you were "absolutely correct" to do so. I disagree - it is wrong
to make claims and then utterly fail to be able to support them.
The only question now is how far are you and your clique buddies going to
push this circus of yours. I did look and see Carroll has already jumped in
to try to rescue you... and he showed how gone his brain is:
Steve Carroll - November 12, 2009:
Steve - 1:47 PM
> Ah, looking back at my posts I see where I wrote 10.6.2
> when I clearly meant 10.6.1.
Yeah... drugs were probably involved... again;)
Steve - 1:48 PM
> You noted I made a mistake...
And now you're doing your usual whining for 98 posts about
it.
Steve - 2:02 PM:
So you're still having problems... even using 10.6.2.
Interesting. I predict you'll use words like "clear" and
"context" any minute now;)
That is right: Steve responded directly to my noting my error, whined about
my commenting on it in "98 posts", and then in 15 minutes he has forgotten!
It completely slipped his mind that he has *just* been whining about my
error and my acknowledging my error. His comments about drugs are *clearly*
projection on his part.
Why is everyone in your clique so amazingly absurd?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C722CAA7.1C7A%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:34 PM:
>
>> On 13/11/09 8:20 AM, in article C721F455.53B4A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C722C641.1C73%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:16 PM:
>>>
>>>>>> Yet reality shows that I was absolutely correct! ... Go figure! LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>> You think it is "correct" to show no sign of being able to quote or link
>>>>> to
>>>>> support for your claims.
>>>>
>>>> It is absolutely correct to point out your mistakes Snit
>>>
>>> What do you think that has to do with you saying it is "absolutely correct"
>>> to be able to show no sign of being able to quote or link to support for
>>> your claims?
>>
>> Unfortunately for you reality will show that I did not say what your obvious
>> comprehension disability is convincing you that you have read Snit!
>
> You claimed I made a mistake. You were correct... for a change. You
> *still* utterly failed to be able to support your claim, failing to be able
> to produce a link or quote.
Snit to Wally..
"You were correct"-Snit
My noting that you made a mistake was clearly so obvious that even *you*
was able to find it Snit!
Perhaps it was the clue that I gave you where I stated that you had both
claimed to have seen *no* problems with 10.6.2 and also described a problem
you had with 10.6.2 on *your* computer? ROTFLMAO
Hells Bells ... How much more support regarding *your* mistake did you
expect Snit? LOL
Snit
>>>>>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for making my point Snit!
...
>> We both are making the same point: OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>
> You will show where I have indicated 10.6.2 to be "outstanding" in
> 1...2...3... No of course you wont, as you cant!
Snit:
OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
Wally:
Thank you for making my point Snit!
Just so you know, that was still quoted in the very post you asked me to
show you where you said what you did.
You are completely lost... you have no idea what the conversation is even
about. Your clique buddy is just as bad:
Steve - 1:47 PM
> Ah, looking back at my posts I see where I wrote 10.6.2
> when I clearly meant 10.6.1.
Yeah... drugs were probably involved... again;)
Steve - 1:48 PM
> You noted I made a mistake...
And now you're doing your usual whining for 98 posts about
it.
Steve - 2:02 PM:
So you're still having problems... even using 10.6.2.
Interesting. I predict you'll use words like "clear" and
"context" any minute now;)
That is right: Steve responded directly to my noting my error, whined about
my commenting on it in "98 posts", and then in 15 minutes he has forgotten!
It completely slipped his mind that he has *just* been whining about my
error and my acknowledging my error. His comments about drugs are *clearly*
projection on his part.
Snit
> "You were correct"-Snit
>
> My noting that you made a mistake was clearly so obvious that even *you*
> was able to find it Snit!
You completely and utterly failed to be able to show support for your claim.
I, later, noted my typo.
And you are still just pushing an absurd circus over the fact that I, gasp!,
made a typo.
You are desperate.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> Hells Bells ... How much more support regarding *your* mistake did you
> expect Snit? LOL
A link or quote would have been lovely. You failed on both accounts.
As you do so often. The sad thing is I really did make a typo... and you
clearly had found it... and you *still* could neither quote it nor link to
it (nor state what message ID it occurred in).
Note how I owned up to my mistake but you refuse to even acknowledge yours.
Once again: as you push your absurd circus you prove how lost you are...
both intellectually and morally.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C722CC56.1C7C%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:41 PM:
>
>>>>>>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for making my point Snit!
>
> ...
>
>>> We both are making the same point: OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>
>> You will show where I have indicated 10.6.2 to be "outstanding" in
>> 1...2...3... No of course you wont, as you cant!
>
> Snit:
> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>
> Wally:
> Thank you for making my point Snit!
And I do thank you for making my point Snit .. I truly do!
However it is unfortunate that you do not have a clue how you have been so
helpful ... That is a shame as it proves that you have done it the same way
that you manage to make any sort of point Snit ... By accident!
But if it will assist you Snit to gain some sort of understanding as to what
has been going on I will offer a crumb or two.
Consider this...
Can you really not see any difference between someone who has never reported
a problem wrt 10.6.1 but who then claims that 10.6.2 is "outstanding", and
someone who *has* reported problems with 10.6.1 who having those alleged
problems fixed in 10.6.2 also describes 10.6.2 as "outstanding"?
If you are so inept as not to be able to discern the difference between the
two situations Snit then you are way beyond help IMO!
If you do somehow manage to figure out the difference Snit then you should
with a bit of work be able to reason why I would ask John why he thought
10.6.2 was "outstanding" yet not give a rat's arse why you think it is!
Good luck with that!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C722CEC6.1C82%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:52 PM:
>
>> "You were correct"-Snit
>>
>> My noting that you made a mistake was clearly so obvious that even *you*
>> was able to find it Snit!
>
> You completely and utterly failed to be able to show support for your claim.
The claim that you said was correct?
> I, later, noted my typo.
The "typo" that you looked for and found following my posting certain facts
Snit?
But I do sympathize with you Snit because the problem that you are having
right now is a direct result of me achieving something that you can only
ever dream of doing ... I allowed the *facts* to support my argument!
"You have claimed *not* to have seen problems with 10.6.2, and you have also
'described' problems that you have with 10.6.2 on *your* machine!"-Wally
The above contain facts! .. You made *both* claims Snit!
Following my posting those *facts* even you were able to find where you did
indeed claim exactly what I said that you said and you stated that I was
correct!
The facts were my support and they lead you to do the only thing left open
to you Snit... You had to admit that I was correct!
You don't like that? .... Get over it!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C722CEC6.1C82%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:52 PM:
>
>> Hells Bells ... How much more support regarding *your* mistake did you
>> expect Snit? LOL
>
> A link or quote would have been lovely.
I gave you *facts* Snit ... It's true that being as unfamiliar with that
particular concept as you are it would take a bit more work on your behalf
... But hey! You came through it ... You found where you had stated exactly
what I said you had ... And you had to admit that I was correct in my claims
as to what you had said!
I know that must have hurt you like hell Snit ...but it really was a win/win
situation!
You got to work with something that you very rarely do .... Facts!
I was proven correct again and had a good laugh at your expense!
Frankly as far as I can see alls well with the world! :-)
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C722CAA7.1C7A%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:34 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13/11/09 8:20 AM, in article C721F455.53B4A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> > "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wally stated in post C722C641.1C73%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:16 PM:
>
> >>>>> Yet reality shows that I was absolutely correct! ... Go figure! LOL
>
> >>>> You think it is "correct" to show no sign of being able to quote or link to
> >>>> support for your claims.
>
> >>> It is absolutely correct to point out your mistakes Snit
>
> >> What do you think that has to do with you saying it is "absolutely correct"
> >> to be able to show no sign of being able to quote or link to support for
> >> your claims?
>
> > Unfortunately for you reality will show that I did not say what your obvious
> > comprehension disability is convincing you that you have read Snit!
>
> You claimed I made a mistake. You were correct... for a change. You
> *still* utterly failed to be able to support your claim, failing to be able
> to produce a link or quote.
>
> You claimed you were "absolutely correct" to do so. I disagree - it is wrong
> to make claims and then utterly fail to be able to support them.
>
> The only question now is how far are you and your clique buddies going to
> push this circus of yours. I did look and see Carroll has already jumped in
> to try to rescue you...
And, as expected, you're *still* whining about your mistake.
(snip more of Snit's delusions)
Steve Carroll
OK... great... so you admit that drugs were involved when you made
your mistake and that you're whining with your usual million post
march. It's not like we didn't know... so STFU already.
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C722CEC6.1C82%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:52 PM:
>
> > Hells Bells ... How much more support regarding *your* mistake did you
> > expect Snit? LOL
>
> A link or quote would have been lovely. You failed on both accounts.
>
> As you do so often. The sad thing is I really did make a typo... and you
> clearly had found it... and you *still* could neither quote it nor link to
> it (nor state what message ID it occurred in).
The fact that he did find it, coupled with the fact that you even
admit he found it, underscore just how big your delusions are getting.
Feel free to prove your delusion that he "could not" quote it any time
you'd like to, "Snit". LOL!
Snit
...
>>>> We both are making the same point: OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>
>>> You will show where I have indicated 10.6.2 to be "outstanding" in
>>> 1...2...3... No of course you wont, as you cant!
>>
>> Snit:
>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>
>> Wally:
>> Thank you for making my point Snit!
>
> And I do thank you for making my point Snit .. I truly do!
LOL! But it is a point you never made... right. Too damned funny. You
really have no idea what you are even talking about.
...
> If you do somehow manage to figure out the difference Snit then you should
> with a bit of work be able to reason why I would ask John why he thought
> 10.6.2 was "outstanding" yet not give a rat's arse why you think it is!
Why would John *not* think OS X 10.6.2 was outstanding? You and I have
agreed it is.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
...
>>>> We both are making the same point: OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>
>>> You will show where I have indicated 10.6.2 to be "outstanding" in
>>> 1...2...3... No of course you wont, as you cant!
>>
>> Snit:
>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>
>> Wally:
>> Thank you for making my point Snit!
>
> And I do thank you for making my point Snit .. I truly do!
Your memory of your comments is no better than Carroll's!
Steve - 1:47 PM
> Ah, looking back at my posts I see where I wrote 10.6.2
> when I clearly meant 10.6.1.
Yeah... drugs were probably involved... again;)
Steve - 1:48 PM
> You noted I made a mistake...
And now you're doing your usual whining for 98 posts about
it.
Steve - 2:02 PM:
So you're still having problems... even using 10.6.2.
Interesting. I predict you'll use words like "clear" and
"context" any minute now;)
That is right: You could not remember saying that it was *your* point that
OS X 10.6.2 was outstanding any more tan Steve Carroll could recall he had
*just* been whining about my error and my acknowledging my error.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 13/11/09 9:07 AM, in article C721FF61.53B5D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C722CEC6.1C82%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:52 PM:
>>
>>> "You were correct"-Snit
>>>
>>> My noting that you made a mistake was clearly so obvious that even *you*
>>> was able to find it Snit!
>>
>> You completely and utterly failed to be able to show support for your claim.
>
> The claim that you said was correct?
>
>> I, later, noted my typo.
>
> The "typo" that you looked for and found following my posting certain facts
> Snit?
Yes... you completely and utterly failed to support your claim. You somehow
think that because I was able to find it then it somehow makes your failure
any less of a failure.
It does not.
Now can you stop whining.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 13/11/09 9:09 AM, in article C721FFEC.53B63%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C722CEC6.1C82%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:52 PM:
>>
>>> Hells Bells ... How much more support regarding *your* mistake did you
>>> expect Snit? LOL
>>
>> A link or quote would have been lovely.
>
> I gave you *facts* Snit
But you could not show an ounce of *support*. You could not link to the
post... nor quote it... nor offer the message ID.
You simply failed to show any support at all.
And you have no problem with your failure. Of course not - you are used to
it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Would you care to put that to the test Snit?
Show an example where I have said, or agreed that 10.6.2 is "outstanding"
Snit.
Of course as there is no such example to show Snit you will do what you
always do ... Run like hell!
Here once again is a classic example of the difference between us Snit..
whilst I can rely on the facts to support my argument you are left with
nothing but your oh so obvious lies!
And I guarantee if you respond to my challenge above I will be seen to be
right yet again about you Snit! It *really* is that easy!
Steve Carroll
I had *just* replied (on the latter post) for the sole purpose of
rubbing it in your face by showing that your quoted mistake *was*
easily spotted (contrary to your delusion about Wally being unable to
post it) and to make fun of words you like to use that you've
repeatedly proven you don't understand the meaning of . You probably
know all this... which is why you're trying to pretend that something
else happened. Then again, you really may be too drugged up and got
yourself all confused... again ;)
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C72380CD.1CE4%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/13/09 6:31 AM:
>
> > On 13/11/09 9:09 AM, in article C721FFEC.53B63%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> > "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wally stated in post C722CEC6.1C82%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:52 PM:
>
> >>> Hells Bells ... How much more support regarding *your* mistake did you
> >>> expect Snit? LOL
>
> >> A link or quote would have been lovely.
>
> > I gave you *facts* Snit
>
> But you could not show an ounce of *support*. You could not link to the
> post... nor quote it... nor offer the message ID.
>
> You simply failed to show any support at all.
Other than the fact that you admitted to, you know... that he was the
one who pointed your mistake out to you. LOL!
Only an idiot would pretend that his not quoting it for you (after he
already called your attention to it) is some sort of an issue to argue
on behalf of. People just aren't as stupid as you need them to be.
(poor Snit... reality say on his head... again;)
Steve Carroll
Challenge? Snit is far too busy trying to pretend your unwillingness
to quote his mistake (that you already pointed out and he agreed with)
is some sort of shortcoming on your behalf. LOL1
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C7237E72.1CE2%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/13/09 6:21 AM:
>
>> On 13/11/09 9:07 AM, in article C721FF61.53B5D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C722CEC6.1C82%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:52 PM:
>>>
>>>> "You were correct"-Snit
>>>>
>>>> My noting that you made a mistake was clearly so obvious that even *you*
>>>> was able to find it Snit!
>>>
>>> You completely and utterly failed to be able to show support for your claim.
>>
>> The claim that you said was correct?
>>
>>> I, later, noted my typo.
>>
>> The "typo" that you looked for and found following my posting certain facts
>> Snit?
>
> Yes... you completely and utterly failed to support your claim.
I made no "claim" Snit! I stated undeniable facts!
You said that you have not seen any problems on 10.6.2 ... And you also said
that you had a problem with 10.6.2 on your computer Snit!
Those two facts ... The same two facts that you have agreed *are* correct
are all the support needed to show that you either lied or were mistaken!
Whether you lied or were mistaken I really don't give a toss about Snit, all
that matters is that you did contradict yourself!
And you have further humiliated yourself by whining about me not walking you
through your own posts ever since! LOL
"Analyze the situation Snit ...
You have claimed *not* to have seen problems with 10.6.2, and you have also
'described' problems that you have with 10.6.2 on *your* machine!
Do both positions really sit well with you Snit? If not then clearly you
have made yet another mistake!
Please don't tell me that I am going to have to walk you through your own
posts word by word yet again Snit, that would be very tedious especially as
all you have to do is learn to understand what it is that you write
Snit!"-Wally
It's quite amazing that my making you examine *your own* posts in the hope
that you would discover the ability to identify *your own* mistakes is all
you can find to whine about Snit! Too funny!
Snit
How many posts are you going to dance around the issue that you completely
and utterly failed to provide any link, quote, or message ID to support what
you said.
The fact I made a typo is not in debate. Not sure why it is such a big deal
to you - other than your whacked out need to get "revenge" for my pointing
out your completely humiliating errors in the recent past, such as your
calling total gibberish "coherent and well ordered" and insisting, even
after you were shown how the gibberish was made, that you were correct. You
deal with your mistakes very poorly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 14/11/09 1:23 AM, in article C722E407.53CEE%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C7237857.1CE0%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/13/09 5:55 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>>> We both are making the same point: OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will show where I have indicated 10.6.2 to be "outstanding" in
>>>>> 1...2...3... No of course you wont, as you cant!
>>>>
>>>> Snit:
>>>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>>
>>>> Wally:
>>>> Thank you for making my point Snit!
>>>
>>> And I do thank you for making my point Snit .. I truly do!
>>
>> LOL! But it is a point you never made... right. Too damned funny. You
>> really have no idea what you are even talking about.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> If you do somehow manage to figure out the difference Snit then you should
>>> with a bit of work be able to reason why I would ask John why he thought
>>> 10.6.2 was "outstanding" yet not give a rat's arse why you think it is!
>>
>> Why would John *not* think OS X 10.6.2 was outstanding? You and I have
>> agreed it is.
>
> Would you care to put that to the test Snit?
>
> Show an example where I have said, or agreed that 10.6.2 is "outstanding"
> Snit.
Look up. Seriously. Try to keep in mind what you read for more than one
tenth of a second. You claimed that it was your point that "OS X 10.6.2 is
outstanding".
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C7237857.1CE0%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/13/09 5:55 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >>>> We both are making the same point: OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>
> >>> You will show where I have indicated 10.6.2 to be "outstanding" in
> >>> 1...2...3... No of course you wont, as you cant!
>
> >> Snit:
> >> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>
> >> Wally:
> >> Thank you for making my point Snit!
>
> > And I do thank you for making my point Snit .. I truly do!
>
> LOL! But it is a point you never made... right. Too damned funny.
No sane, honest and honorable person is convinced of your newest lie
here.
> You really have no idea what you are even talking about.
Of course he does... it's this:
On Tuesday (Nov. 10 2009) in a discussion about OSX and crashing, you
used the word "they" to refer to what you called "fairly reproducible"
crashes, as shown here:
"With some systems they were - fairly reproducible, too. For example,
Save
for Web and Devices would crash Photoshop about 1/3 of the time in
10.6.2
*ON SOME MACHINES*, including mine. Had to do with the graphic card
and, I
think, having 4GB of memory or more."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/56f6d39f6d4cbfa3?hl=en&dmode=source
In spite of this "fairly reproducible" crashing "in 10.6.2 " as noted
by you on Tuesday, the following day... Wednesday (Nov. 11 2009)
regarding your opinion of OSX being "outstanding", you wrote:
"OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding." - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1ae639f6f5b56a21?hl=en&dmode=source
Since then Wally rightfully asked you about "both positions" (that any
sane, honest and honorable person would find contradictory) you had
taken:
"Do both positions really sit well with you Snit? If not then clearly
you
have made yet another mistake!
Please don't tell me that I am going to have to walk you through your
own
posts word by word yet again Snit, that would be very tedious
especially as
all you have to do is learn to understand what it is that you write
Snit!" - Wally
Obviously, being that you are claiming (projecting) that *he* is the
one who doesn't know what he's talking about... you need to have Wally
walk you through your own posts word by word... again.
ROFLMAO!
(cue up another bogus argument by Snit where he tries to pretend
Wally's unwillingness to quote Snit's mistake is some sort of failing
in Wally's argument that Snit made the mistake in the first place... a
thing Wally pointed out and Snit has finally admitted to... a thing
that Google provides proof for).
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C72380CD.1CE4%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/13/09 6:31 AM:
>
>> On 13/11/09 9:09 AM, in article C721FFEC.53B63%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C722CEC6.1C82%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/12/09 5:52 PM:
>>>
>>>> Hells Bells ... How much more support regarding *your* mistake did you
>>>> expect Snit? LOL
>>>
>>> A link or quote would have been lovely.
>>
>> I gave you *facts* Snit
>
> But you could not show an ounce of *support*.
If it were not from you Snit I would consider it stupid in the extreme for
it to be stated that "facts" are not *support*, But as it's you Snit I do
realize that you simply know no better!
> You could not link to the
> post... nor quote it... nor offer the message ID.
As I was never asked to ... You base this supposed lack of ability on what
Snit?
All you asked was .....
"What mistake do you mean?"-Snit
Note you did not ask 'which post' nor did you ask for a quote, nor did you
ask for a msg ID! ..*all* you asked was ....
"What mistake do you mean?"-Snit
And I explained exactly what mistake you had made Snit!
I posted...
"Analyze the situation Snit ...
You have claimed *not* to have seen problems with 10.6.2, and you have also
'described' problems that you have with 10.6.2 on *your* machine!
Do both positions really sit well with you Snit? If not then clearly you
have made yet another mistake!
Please don't tell me that I am going to have to walk you through your own
posts word by word yet again Snit, that would be very tedious especially as
all you have to do is learn to understand what it is that you write
Snit!"-Wally
> You simply failed to show any support at all.
"You have claimed *not* to have seen problems with 10.6.2, and you have also
'described' problems that you have with 10.6.2 on *your* machine!"-Wally
Those are facts Snit and they support what I said about you perfectly!
> And you have no problem with your failure. Of course not - you are used to
> it.
>
LOL!
Snit
The fact I made a typo is not in debate. The fact you failed to offer any
quote, link, or message ID to support your claim is also not in debate. You
simply failed to offer support. Why are you whining about this still?
Accept it and move on. Heck, deny it to yourself and move on... just stop
pushing your absurd circus onto CSMA.
It is simply amazing how you and your clique show no understanding of why it
is important to show support for your claims about other people. You just
do not get it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
C72414ED.5401F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The fact that you made a mistake I gave you willingly Snit!
From then on I supplied *exactly* what you asked for!
"What mistake do you mean?"-Snit
I explained your mistake to you!
You agreed that you had indeed made a mistake, and that I was correct!
Since then you have whined because I did not supply you information that
would have you find the mistake that you had *already* claimed to have found
and agreed that you made!
LOL! you're priceless Snit! ROTFLMAO!
Snit
>> How many posts are you going to dance around the issue that you completely
>> and utterly failed to provide any link, quote, or message ID to support what
>> you said.
>
> The fact that you made a mistake I gave you willingly Snit!
You gave me a mistake? Huh? You claimed that I had made one. But you
failed to support your claim: no link, no message ID, no quote.
Your defense for your complete and utter lack of support for your claim is
that you were correct. Do you have any idea how absurd that is? Just
curious.
You failed to support your claim. Get over it. Seriously... why is this
even a debate? You are not even denying your failure, you are just trying
to obfuscate it. Just let it go.
Here: get the last word. Repeat your nonsense side-issue babbling. Then
let it go. You screwed up. Oh well... you should be used to it by now -
you do it so often.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
C724152E.54020%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snit's version...
Snit:
OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
Wally:
Thank you for making my point Snit!
The *actual* post...
Snit:
OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
Wally:
Thank you for making my point Snit! (even though the fact that you have
will no doubt have to be explained to you very, very slowly indeed!)
Any guesses why Snit snipped the part that he did? LOL
MuahMan
argument when you're 80? I wonder how many years you will have wasted
on this and i also wonder if you'll regret the years wasted while you
are on your death bed.
Wally
16ff61ee-6e22-4fee...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "MuahMan"
<mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus! Do you think you fucking morons will still be having this
> argument when you're 80?
I wonder if you will still be reading threads that you have no interest in
when you're 80?
> I wonder how many years you will have wasted on this and i also wonder if
> you'll regret the years wasted while you are on your death bed.
Posting to a thread that I *am* interested in is IMO less of a waste of time
than reading threads that I have absolutely *no* interest in!
Your mileage clearly does vary!
Snit
OK, as slow as you want, explain why "OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding" is your
point.
Take your time!
Just try not to run away in humiliation this time. You have been doing that
a lot recently (your whole running from your failure to support your claims,
for example).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
It's also irrelevant, which is why you are bringing it up. Yes...
people *do* notice when you pull this kind of BS. He pointed out the
mistake, you admitted you made the mistake. There was no need for him
to quote it. There was no need to offer any further "support". All
that was needed was for you to let it go... but you couldn't do that.
> You simply failed to offer support.
So... you're saying that you are *still* so drugged up that your
admission you made a mistake is not "support" that you made a
mistake? LOL! "Actually"... given that it's *you* who we're talking
about here, you might have a point;)
> Why are you whining about this still?
Asked the guy who is still whining about this after umpteen posts.
> Accept it and move on.
Said the guy who won't accept it and won't move on.
> Heck, deny it to yourself and move on... just stop
> pushing your absurd circus onto CSMA.
>
> It is simply amazing how you and your clique show no understanding of why it
> is important to show support for your claims about other people.
Said the guy who offered the best "support" Wally could offer when he
*admitted* making the mistake he made. Obviously, you're suggesting
that your own admission you made a mistake is not "support" that you
made the mistake. Only *you* are that ridiculous.
> You just do not get it.
Everyone gets that you're a full blown loon;)
Wally
C724202F.54052%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!
(Snits next claimed typo goes here ........)
>
> Take your time!
>
> Just try not to run away in humiliation this time.
From a point that I have never made? How is that humiliating to me Snit?
> You have been doing that
> a lot recently (your whole running from your failure to support your claims,
> for example).
As I told you Snit...
"And I do thank you for making my point Snit .. I truly do!
However it is unfortunate that you do not have a clue how you have been so
helpful ... That is a shame as it proves that you have done it the same way
that you manage to make any sort of point Snit ... By accident!
But if it will assist you Snit to gain some sort of understanding as to what
has been going on I will offer a crumb or two.
Consider this...
Can you really not see any difference between someone who has never reported
a problem wrt 10.6.1 but who then claims that 10.6.2 is "outstanding", and
someone who *has* reported problems with 10.6.1 who having those alleged
problems fixed in 10.6.2 also describes 10.6.2 as "outstanding"?
If you are so inept as not to be able to discern the difference between the
two situations Snit then you are way beyond help IMO!
If you do somehow manage to figure out the difference Snit then you should
with a bit of work be able to reason why I would ask John why he thought
10.6.2 was "outstanding" yet not give a rat's arse why you think it is!
Good luck with that!"-Wally
Luck does not seem to be treating you very kindly Snit! :-)
Steve Carroll
I'm tellin ya... the guy is on HEAVY DUTY drugs, no question;)
Snit
...
>>> Snit:
>>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>
>>> Wally:
>>> Thank you for making my point Snit! (even though the fact that you have
>>> will no doubt have to be explained to you very, very slowly indeed!)
>>>
>>> Any guesses why Snit snipped the part that he did? LOL
>>>
>> OK, as slow as you want, explain why "OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding" is your
>> point.
>
> It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!
Ok, so you were wrong before. No big deal.
Curious: Do you agree with my view that OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
16ff61ee-6e22-4fee...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on
11/14/09 8:37 AM:
> Jesus! Do you think you fucking morons will still be having this
Sad thing is there is no real debate... I admitted I made a mistake, Wally
has not even tried to claim he supported his claim with link, quote, or
message ID. Wally has even rescinded his claims about OS X 10.6.2.
Not sure why this thread is even still alive.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C724ED3E.1DCA%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/14/09 8:26 AM:
>
> >> How many posts are you going to dance around the issue that you completely
> >> and utterly failed to provide any link, quote, or message ID to support what
> >> you said.
>
> > The fact that you made a mistake I gave you willingly Snit!
>
> You gave me a mistake? Huh?
Simple language still eludes you.
> You claimed that I had made one.
You admitted you made one.
> But you failed to support your claim: no link, no message ID, no quote.
Why would he need to, you know... being that you addressed it early
on in the thread and quoted it yourself? Shown here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d97cee5f6be6b2b1?dmode=source
You will now show where Wally *claimed* you made this particular
mistake *prior* to you admitting (and quoting) it. Oh, wait... you
can't do that because it didn't happen... which means your bogus rant
about him not providing a quote (that you had *already* provided) is
exposed for the red herring that it is.
> Your defense
... is based on a figment of your imagination. Reality shows that he
doesn't need to defend against your delusion about this... the google
record clearly shows you had, early in the thread, already admitted to
and quoted your mistake. Let it go... grow up, be a man and just let
it go.
Wally
C72422D0.54060%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C724F4B2.1DDE%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/14/09 8:58 AM:
>
> ...
>
>>>> Snit:
>>>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>>
>>>> Wally:
>>>> Thank you for making my point Snit! (even though the fact that you have
>>>> will no doubt have to be explained to you very, very slowly indeed!)
>>>>
>>>> Any guesses why Snit snipped the part that he did? LOL
>>>>
>>> OK, as slow as you want, explain why "OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding" is your
>>> point.
>>
>> It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!
>
> Ok, so you were wrong before. No big deal.
Just curious Snit but ... How exactly do your mental processes arrive at the
point where they can have you state that someone is wrong about something
that they have never stated?
> Curious: Do you agree with my view that OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding?
What exactly is it about ... "It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!"
that is way too difficult for you to understand Snit?
Perhaps your confusion is brought about by the fact that you are seen asking
a question that you have already claimed I have answered and was wrong about
Snit? ROTFL.
What is it that continually prevents you from being able to put forward an
argument in a normal rational manner Snit without continually showing
yourself to be such a low achiever? It can't *all* be Pharmaceuticals!
And no don't try and blame your Mothers drinking problem again Snit ... Not
buying that excuse!
Wally
C72423DD.54063%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> MuahMan stated in post
> 16ff61ee-6e22-4fee...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on
> 11/14/09 8:37 AM:
>
>> Jesus! Do you think you fucking morons will still be having this
>> argument when you're 80? I wonder how many years you will have wasted
>> on this and i also wonder if you'll regret the years wasted while you
>> are on your death bed.
>
> Sad thing is there is no real debate...
In fact until Snit decided to answer a question that I asked John there was
no real reason for Snit to get involved in this thread at all!
Clearly Snit knew as I did that John was incapable of answering the question
and not wishing to be outdone Snit chose to show that he was just as
incapable!
Snit
> On 15/11/09 12:03 AM, in article
> C72422D0.54060%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C724F4B2.1DDE%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/14/09 8:58 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> Snit:
>>>>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wally:
>>>>> Thank you for making my point Snit! (even though the fact that you
>>>>> have
>>>>> will no doubt have to be explained to you very, very slowly indeed!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Any guesses why Snit snipped the part that he did? LOL
>>>>>
>>>> OK, as slow as you want, explain why "OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding" is your
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!
>>
>> Ok, so you were wrong before. No big deal.
>
> Just curious Snit but ... How exactly do your mental processes arrive at the
> point where they can have you state that someone is wrong about something
> that they have never stated?
Please make up your mind! You should decide if it was your point or it was
not! Right now you are waffling back and forth. You do that a lot.
>> Curious: Do you agree with my view that OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding?
>
> What exactly is it about ... "It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!"
> that is way too difficult for you to understand Snit?
Why is it that just because it is now not your point (although before you
claimed it was) that you think this implies you do not agree with it.
Why not just state your view without contradicting yourself or going against
basic logic?
And below you just babble... and spew nonsense insults. How repulsive of
you.
> Perhaps your confusion is brought about by the fact that you are seen asking
> a question that you have already claimed I have answered and was wrong about
> Snit? ROTFL.
>
> What is it that continually prevents you from being able to put forward an
> argument in a normal rational manner Snit without continually showing
> yourself to be such a low achiever? It can't *all* be Pharmaceuticals!
>
> And no don't try and blame your Mothers drinking problem again Snit ... Not
> buying that excuse!
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
You are the one who claimed that something, at first, was your point... then
later insisted it was not... then even later said that because it was not
your point you did not agree with it.
In other words: you are a completely lost troll... just waiting for your
clique to come in and try to rescue you. Unfortunately, your clique is as
lost as you are... Carroll's comments were hillarious!
Steve - 1:47 PM
> Ah, looking back at my posts I see where I wrote 10.6.2
> when I clearly meant 10.6.1.
Yeah... drugs were probably involved... again;)
Steve - 1:48 PM
> You noted I made a mistake...
And now you're doing your usual whining for 98 posts about
it.
Steve - 2:02 PM:
So you're still having problems... even using 10.6.2.
Interesting. I predict you'll use words like "clear" and
"context" any minute now;)
That is right: Steve Carroll could recall he had *just* been whining about
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C726B056.1E76%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/15/09 4:31 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15/11/09 12:07 AM, in article
> > C72423DD.54063%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
> > <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> MuahMan stated in post
Well of course I could recall that I had *just* noted further proof of
your drug use. I'm not stoned like you obviously are... you know,
where you make one goofy mistake after another while trying to blame
others for them. By the way... you made yet another goofy mistake here
(yes, Snit... and we all know why), see if you can get someone who
isn't as stoned as you are to point it out to you. LOL!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C726AF0E.1E74%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/15/09 4:26 PM:
>
>> On 15/11/09 12:03 AM, in article
>> C72422D0.54060%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C724F4B2.1DDE%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/14/09 8:58 AM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> Snit:
>>>>>> OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wally:
>>>>>> Thank you for making my point Snit! (even though the fact that you
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> will no doubt have to be explained to you very, very slowly indeed!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any guesses why Snit snipped the part that he did? LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK, as slow as you want, explain why "OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding" is your
>>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!
>>>
>>> Ok, so you were wrong before. No big deal.
>>
>> Just curious Snit but ... How exactly do your mental processes arrive at the
>> point where they can have you state that someone is wrong about something
>> that they have never stated?
>
> Please make up your mind! You should decide if it was your point or it was
> not! Right now you are waffling back and forth. You do that a lot.
Is "never stated?" simply not clear enough for you Snit?
>>> Curious: Do you agree with my view that OS X 10.6.2 is outstanding?
>>
>> What exactly is it about ... "It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!"
>> that is way too difficult for you to understand Snit?
>
> Why is it that just because it is now not your point (although before you
> claimed it was) that you think this implies you do not agree with it.
"It isn't! It wasn't, and it never will be!"
>
> Why not just state your view without contradicting yourself or going against
> basic logic?
Your brand of basic logic Snit? LOL
You claim not to have seen problems on 10.6.2, then you describe the problem
that you had on your computer using ....... 10.6.2!
You claim that my view is that 10.6.2 is outstanding, then you ask me if I
agree with *you* that 10.6.2 is ....... outstanding?
You claim that my stating the *fact* that you made a mistake is not support
of you making a mistake even though you admit that you did make *that*
mistake and that my stating so was totally correct?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C726B056.1E76%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/15/09 4:31 PM:
>
>> On 15/11/09 12:07 AM, in article
>> C72423DD.54063%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> MuahMan stated in post
>>> 16ff61ee-6e22-4fee...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on
>>> 11/14/09 8:37 AM:
>>>
>>>> Jesus! Do you think you fucking morons will still be having this
>>>> argument when you're 80? I wonder how many years you will have wasted
>>>> on this and i also wonder if you'll regret the years wasted while you
>>>> are on your death bed.
>>>
>>> Sad thing is there is no real debate...
>>
>> In fact until Snit decided to answer a question that I asked John there was
>> no real reason for Snit to get involved in this thread at all!
>>
>> Clearly Snit knew as I did that John was incapable of answering the question
>> and not wishing to be outdone Snit chose to show that he was just as
>> incapable!
>>
> You are the one who claimed that something, at first, was your point...
Your well documented illiteracy is something that eventually you *will* have
to confront Snit!
Come on Snit if not for your own self esteem do it for your children's sake!
Don't leave them with the belief that being like you is *all* they have to
look forward to!
Snit
You really need to try to be consistent with your claims. Just a tip! Your
current contradictions just make you laughable.
By the way, what is your opinion this second on if OS X 10.6.2?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On 16/11/09 7:53 AM, in article C725E28F.5446B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C726B056.1E76%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/15/09 4:31 PM:
>>
>>> On 15/11/09 12:07 AM, in article
>>> C72423DD.54063%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
>>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> MuahMan stated in post
>>>> 16ff61ee-6e22-4fee...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on
>>>> 11/14/09 8:37 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Jesus! Do you think you fucking morons will still be having this
>>>>> argument when you're 80? I wonder how many years you will have wasted
>>>>> on this and i also wonder if you'll regret the years wasted while you
>>>>> are on your death bed.
>>>>
>>>> Sad thing is there is no real debate...
>>>
>>> In fact until Snit decided to answer a question that I asked John there was
>>> no real reason for Snit to get involved in this thread at all!
>>>
>>> Clearly Snit knew as I did that John was incapable of answering the question
>>> and not wishing to be outdone Snit chose to show that he was just as
>>> incapable!
>>>
>> You are the one who claimed that something, at first, was your point...
>
> Your well documented illiteracy is something that eventually you *will* have
> to confront Snit!
Oh! Show the "documentation". Hey, here is an example - clear
documentation on your illiteracy:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
LOL!
> Come on Snit if not for your own self esteem do it for your children's sake!
>
> Don't leave them with the belief that being like you is *all* they have to
> look forward to!
Curious: what is your view this second on OS X 10.6.2.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Geez, Snit... you really need to lock that medicine cabinet;)
Wally
C726D030.5462F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Interesting method you've got going there Snit...
As you intend making up what I think anyway you ask half a question now so
that you can make the rest of *that* up later also!
Now all you need to do is apply the above to one of your many sock puppets
and you will be fully self contained and may actually come away with a win
although with you *that* can never be assumed!
Wally
C726D0D5.54631%use...@gallopinginsanity.com, "Snit"
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The same as it has always been, which has never included the view that it is
"outstanding"!
Snit
>> You really need to try to be consistent with your claims. Just a tip! Your
>> current contradictions just make you laughable.
>>
>> By the way, what is your opinion this second on if OS X 10.6.2?
>>
>
> Interesting method you've got going there Snit...
>
> As you intend making up what I think anyway you ask half a question now so
> that you can make the rest of *that* up later also!
>
> Now all you need to do is apply the above to one of your many sock puppets
> and you will be fully self contained and may actually come away with a win
> although with you *that* can never be assumed!
What is your opinion this second on OS X 10.6.2?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> Curious: what is your view this second on OS X 10.6.2.
>
> The same as it has always been, which has never included the view that it is
> "outstanding"!
>
Steve de Mena
right-click a file or group of files is still there in 10.6.2. I
thought it had been fixed.
Bummer.
Steve
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The same as it has always been Snit!
Now if you can actually get passed your delusion that I have ever described
it as "outstanding" you should be able to find where I did actually state
what I thought of 10.6.2.
But then knowing just how strong your delusions are to you Snit I doubt you
are capable of letting one go quite so easily!
Snit
>> What is your opinion this second on OS X 10.6.2?
>>
>
> The same as it has always been Snit!
Which is what? You keep saying that, and sometimes even saying who has or
has not made your points for you, but what is your actual view? Why are you
so afraid to state it?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 11/17/09 2:40 AM:
Just tested... "Move to Trash" is there when I select a group of files or a
single one. Can you give more details of this "bug"?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Weird. Can you drag files to the trash?
Steve de Mena
You have to do something that created sub-folders in that list of
files to disturb the order of files. I think it gets "confused" by this.
Say you have five RAR files , MyArchive.r01 through r05. And if you
unRAR it puts the contents into a folder "MyArchive2009". That would
push the file list down. If you then highlighted the r01 throgh r05
the "Send to Trash" wouldn't be there (but you could drag them to the
trashcan). [The problem might be only if the new file or folder is
created above or below the selected files]
I also see Safari lose it's right scrollbar. this ha[[ened with 4.0
and just came back with latest version. You can scroll down on a page
with more than one page to display.
Steve
Snit
on 11/17/09 11:47 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> Steve de Mena stated in post 8N-dnbTr6uc08p_W...@giganews.com
>> on 11/17/09 2:40 AM:
>>
>>> That Finder bug where "Send to Trash" would disappear when I
>>> right-click a file or group of files is still there in 10.6.2. I
>>> thought it had been fixed.
>>>
>>> Bummer.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>> Just tested... "Move to Trash" is there when I select a group of files or a
>> single one. Can you give more details of this "bug"?
>
> You have to do something that created sub-folders in that list of
> files to disturb the order of files. I think it gets "confused" by this.
>
> Say you have five RAR files , MyArchive.r01 through r05. And if you
> unRAR it puts the contents into a folder "MyArchive2009". That would
> push the file list down. If you then highlighted the r01 throgh r05
> the "Send to Trash" wouldn't be there (but you could drag them to the
> trashcan). [The problem might be only if the new file or folder is
> created above or below the selected files]
Just briefly tried to replicate and could not... but will try again later.
> I also see Safari lose it's right scrollbar. this ha[[ened with 4.0
> and just came back with latest version. You can scroll down on a page
> with more than one page to display.
I have seen this with pages such as on Hulu when you pop out a page and then
try to use it for general surfing. It can be annoying.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C7289774.1F4D%Wa...@wallyworld.net on 11/17/09 3:09 AM:
>
>>> What is your opinion this second on OS X 10.6.2?
>>>
>>
>> The same as it has always been Snit!
>
> Which is what?
As I have stated ... what else?
> You keep saying that, and sometimes even saying who has or
> has not made your points for you,
Can you supply an example of that?
> but what is your actual view? Why are you
> so afraid to state it?
As I have stated it, your point is as ever ... No point at all Snit!
Why are you unable to find my comment regarding my thoughts on 10.6.2?
Snit
So, what are your current views on OS X 10.6.2?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]