----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 3@dont-email.me> 2fd4e054
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> 67baa989
@REPLYADDR Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Adam H. Kerman
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 3@dont-email.me>
@RFC-References: 1@paganini.bofh.team>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
@TZUTC: -0000
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
Newyana2 <
Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>. . .
> I`m guessing he understood that. There`s still a potential
>question (at least for worrywarts) whether Google`s
>javascript razzmatazz UI with all the extra functions might
>make Firefox choke.
Nonsense. If he had that concern as opposed to shilling an article he
refused to read himself and lying that Google is turning off all HTML,
he`d have simply tested the standard interface with Firefox set to allow
lots of javascript to run.
I`ve been using the standard interface for a while. My adblocker add ons
are doing a nice job blocking ads.
> Google could very well force people to
>use Chrome in most scenarios. Chrome is already a monopoly
>browser. When I tried to help a friend set up POP email
>in TBird last year, for a college where she was working, the
>young college tech support actually had no idea what TBird
>or email protocol were. He couldn`t tell me what the POP,
>IMAC, SMTP specs were for the server. He just told me
>to use Chrome!
Thanks for spreading hysteria yourself. There`s nothing new here that
someone on a help desk cannot answer basic questions. That`s a method of
spreading ignorance, not forcing a user to use Chrome in lieu of his
prefered browser.
--- trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441