system freeze as Youtube web page loads

thanatoid · Apr 30, 2008

Re: system freeze as Youtube web page loads - CORRECTION

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
news:OB7vtGzqIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> thanatoid wrote:
>| WAS:
>| That is nuts. And just goes to show how limited Usenet is,
>| as it is based on words ONLY. You know the VERY old thing
>| about 70-95% (depending on what "specialist" you talk to)
>| communication being verbal.
>|
>| SHOULD BE:
>| That is nuts. And just goes to show how limited Usenet is,
>| as it is based on words ONLY. You know the VERY old thing
>| about 70-95% (depending on what "specialist" you talk to)
>| communication being VISUAL.
>
> Sometimes oldies are goodies, thanatoid!

Huh??? Do you mean that talking in RL is better? Well, of
course, unless the person smells bad or is a moron you just
can't get away from (morons are REALLY good at not legging you
go), or when there is a good chance of getting punched in the
face

Or did you mean something else?

> About whether you are him, I see now you never would spell
> as badly as porvoon raganan.

Anal-retentive spelling obsession is one of the tell-tale marks
of a thanatoid post. And as I explained, I am not into
nymshifting and similar practices. I simply see no point. I did
it ONCE because I desperately needed to ask a question in a tech
group where EVERYONE with no exception hated my guts and I knew
I was either in all their KF's or that they would never answer a
thanatoid post. After a few days someone guessed anyway - I
guess it was my writing style - and also the question mentioned
my primary computer which as you (by now surely you *must* all
know -) is a 10½ 166MHz running 95B (very tweaked) and appears
to be somewhat of a rarity.

> But I think with a name like
> his-- you should be more forgiving!

I wasn't aware I was being critical or anything like that, /or/
that there was anything to forgive. SInce I have some/most (?)
participants KF'd and I entered into the thread late, I am
fairly in the dark and just said what I felt should be said, for
better or worse.

> Also, his sting is only
> a tenth of yours (or even Terhune's!)

I'll take that as a compliment, but frankly, this whole reply of
yours has me a little baffled. But that's OK. It's nothing new.
I can be quite dumb sometimes.

--
Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,
as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas
most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it
demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,
when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

thanatoid · May 1, 2008

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
news:ukZEegzqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

>|> | Good day to you sir. I believe the word you may have
>|> | been looking for is "philosophaster".
>|>
>|
>| Phi`los´o`phas`ter
>| n. 1. A pretender to philosophy.
>|
>
> I've looked again & cannot find it in my Webster's New
> World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition.
> However, this book is old, & the copyright page is missing.
> But I didn't see you were doing any philosophastering,
> anyhow-- even if there is such a word!

The above - rather limited - definition is from WordWeb.

Copied at great pains (small print, dark room, too lazy to
switch on a light) from The Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, Unabridged Edition, 1967 (wow, I didn't think
it was THAT old!):

Philosophaster: (I am NOT copying the pronunciations!)
n., one who has only a superficial knowledge of philosophy or
who feigns a knowledge he does not possess.

A rather good word to know since the 2nd meaning applies to many
if not most netizens.

Regards
t.

<SNIP>

--
Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,
as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas
most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it
demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,
when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

- Arthur Schopenhauer

DaffyD® · May 1, 2008

Haven't had the time to read all the posts, but from what I have read, this
string is really, really good. A lot fun to read too!
--
{ : [|]=( DaffyD®

If I knew where I was I'd be there now.

"legg" <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news

sfa141356g4lid5seerjdla8h6am9u997@4ax.com...
>
> Over the last three days, I've tried to access two separate youtube
> links on two separate occasions to find the W98 system freezes as the
> page is initially displayed. No keybd/mouse response. Required a
> hardware reboot to recover. I don't normally access youtube, but had
> done so in the previous week without problems.
>
> First link was:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM779jJJFo
>
> The first time the problem occurred, I did a quick disk check - lost
> clusters found (and repaired).
>
> I retried the same link with number crunching background activity
> disabled - with the same result. Repeated disk check and then
> attempted to run defrag - incomplete after hitting a bad sector. This
> was repaired by running a complete disk check, including the surface
> test, after which the defrag would complete.
>
> Retried the link a third time with number crunching disabled - with
> the same result. Disk checked again without errors.
>
> The failed attempt to reach a differing Youtube link today (same
> system freeze), suggests that the problem wasn't going away by itself.
>
> The browser used is still the older Mozilla 1.7.11 - no changes here
> in over a year, and none expected in the future (without migrating to
> firefox or seamonkey).
>
> Trying for the same link using IE6 (rarely used but as up to date as
> MS permits) I got a blue screen that would not recover but that
> allowed a keybd ctrl/alt/del to reboot.
>
> Repeating this (if only to note down the OE exception number) produced
> normal performance.....?
>
> Repeating the attempt using default Mozilla then also produced normal
> performance.
>
> What could be responsible for this strange behavior in this W98 2ed OS
> (-8th year without reinstall)?
>
> Of course the youtube link was a waste of time, as usual.
>
> RL

philo · May 1, 2008

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Ooohhhhh, I'm shivering in my sandals.
>

<G>

No I was not making a threat...
I have decided to take some advice given to me a friend of mine many
years ago.

He was a fairy tough ex-army sergeant and I had just been drafted into
the army. He was talking about the time he had a broken jaw.

"What?" I asked, "How the hell did *you* get a broken jaw?"

He replied thus: "Talking when I should have been listening."

That advice got me through the army alive..
but through the years I seem to have forgotten it.

Now that I have decided to shut up and listen...

My comment was directed toward that software you had written...IIRC...
time zone edit update.

Maybe the error was not as serious as I made it sound...but I was just
curious about the reason it seemed to work ok on a win9x system but not
on an NT4 system...

That's all my question for you was. Not that it's terribly critical or
anything...but it was more just a matter of curiosity.

I was also curious if you were working on any more projects.

I have been looking through the archives and see that you had been
very active and productive and feel rather foolish now for having
previously misjudged you.

thanks!

philo · May 1, 2008

PCR wrote:
> porvoon raganan wrote:
> | PCR wrote:
> |> porvoon raganan wrote:
> |> | Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> |> |> Oh, and GFY. I've already admitted my health problems in this
> |> |> group to great length, and yes there's lots of stress, but that
> |> |> DOESN'T mean that Philo isn't an idiot or that you aren't a moron
> |> |> for defending him. (Hey, how about you take off your mask.
> |> |> Ashamed of being such a shameless philaphilopod?)
> |> |>
> |> |
> |> | Mr. Terhune:
> |> |
> |> | Good day to you sir. I believe the word you may have been looking
> |> | for is "philosophaster".
> |>
> |
> | Phi`los´o`phas`ter
> | n. 1. A pretender to philosophy.
> |
>
> I've looked again & cannot find it in my Webster's New World Dictionary
> of the American Language, College Edition. However, this book is old, &
> the copyright page is missing. But I didn't see you were doing any
> philosophastering, anyhow-- even if there is such a word!
>
> |
> |> I can't find his word OR yours in my dictionary! But Terhune likely
> |> is intentionally making his up & possibly referencing...
> |>
> |> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049366/
> |> Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
> |>
> |> ..., thinking you are thanatoid, maybe!
> |>
> | I have not made up the word philosophaster...but Mr. Terhune has made
> | up his word. Creating new words is a sign of an excellent and clever
> | mind.
>
> That might depend upon just what word is invented, at least for the
> excellence of it. But Terhune's words often are excellent enough-- even
> as you never were thanatoid!
>

I did a quick run through the archives and see that Gary really did have
a lot to contribute...and as I just told him...I had misjudged him.

> |> | Rather than reply to each one of your excellent individual posts...
> |> | I choose to reply simply to this central one.
> |> |
> |> | As I may have mentioned here...I am a professional group
> |> | moderator... but one who has no moderation authority on this
> |> | group. I have been asked to read over the messages here by a third
> |> | party (which will go unnamed). It was suggested that I review the
> |> | posts and comment as necessary in an attempt to smooth over the
> |> | "bad vibes" which only would tend to embarrass the host
> |> | organization.
> |>
> |> You think we might believe you are...?...
> |> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041509/
> |> The Inspector General (1949)
> |>
> |> | I have read the majority of the posts from the last month or so
> |> | and can now see why I was called upon to step in and have a look.
> |>
> |> As Terhune said, that may not be enough. We have been floating here
> |> for years!
> |
> |
> | True. I have not posted on any Usenet group until recently...
> | As I have mentioned somewhere...I am employed as a moderator
> | elsewhere and I assure you...I am quite familiar with how Usenet is
> | structured.
>
> Very well.
>
> |> | As you know...this is a discussion group for Windows98. With a
> |> | quick "Google search" a great majority of the questions asked here
> |> | could be answered with no need for this group at all.
> |>
> |> Maybe. Well, yea, but lots of the stuff at Google pertaining to Win98
> |> started here, I'm sure! Also, there are living people here who will
> |> discuss it & talk it through!
> |
> |
> |
> | You are very astute and have picked up on my point exactly!
> | Though people are often chided for asking "such and such" a question
> | on a Usenet group...and are rightly told that they could have just
> | found the answer on Google. Were it not for the open discussions in
> | the first place...there would be no such information on Google!
>
> Absolutely!

Yes that is very true. I also think that continuing discussions are
important...even on old subjects. New knowledge is always turned up!
>
> |> | However...most of the
> |> | folks who post...come here in-fact for a discussion. (I would think
> |> | that should not surprise you.)
> |>
> |> Most come here to help in a technical problem or to be helped.
> |> Arguments & discussions can sometimes ensue, yea.
> |>
> |> | Unless some person who answers a question specifically passes
> |> | themselves off as an expert...all advice here is to be taken simply
> |> | as that...Viz: Advice.
> |>
> |> It is helpful to have the MVPs & rare MS personnel around to
> |> straighten things out! Novices may not know the difference between
> |> good & bad advice! (But I haven't seen MEB since that Scott Hammer
> |> MS personage got hold of him!)
> |>
> |> | You have mentioned this "Philo" person a number of times...and I
> |> | have read over his replies...and certainly must agree with
> |> | you...he does often reply without great insight...but I have found
> |> | no intentional deception nor advice that would do much more than
> |> | perhaps waste a little time. Some of the advice (possibly just by
> |> | random chance) is correct... but as far as I can see...the vast
> |> | majority of it is simply humor. (Or should I have said: quite
> |> | *simple* humor ?)
> |>
> |> Philo comes up with his share of good advice. It is good to have
> |> Terhune around to keep him & others on their toes, though!
> |
> |
> | I have searched a bit further at replies elsewhere and see you are
> | correct there. That Philo character actually has given a bit of decent
> | enough advice and in a number of very non-related topics. Mr. Terhune,
> | though his scope is considerably more narrow, is indeed an expert when
> | it comes to Win98. I may go so far as to say, in fact...that he is
> | *the* expert.
>
> He & other MVP's often will drop into a thread to correct flagrant
> errors. Sometimes they do get rough. So?

I have been on Usenet for quite a number of years and can honestly
say up until I had come across Terhune...I had never seen an MVP loose
it like that...but then again...I blew it too...So I can hardly be critical!

> | Of course that clarifies his anger...as Win98 is now essentially an
> | all but dead operating system. With the advent of the "new and
> | improved" operating system, Vista...it appears that all previous
> | versions are being killed off as rapidly as possible.
>
> I believe that view to be a symptom of 3 months exposure to XP/Vista
> irradiation. Is the middle toe of your left foot turning blue? Or did
> you just read that on the UseNet?
>
> | I certainly can
> | understand Mr. Terhune having quite a degree of frustration over that.
>
> No. He made the switch & only uses a Win98 simulator now-- on an XP
> machine! Everyone here is filled with tears-- even philo! It may be he
> still occasionally will get his hands on an actual Win98 machine,
> though. Also, his orneriness predates the advent of XP, I know.

I suppose he was just born that way...but I think that to be an
expert in a field...only to see it dwindle...may not have helped either

> |> | What you seem to have not noticed ...is that by discussion...
> |> | a problem is eventually solved. Even wrong answers are generally
> |> | part of a learning process and will eventually be sorted out. The
> |> | only thing I can find this "Philo" character
> |> | guilty of is "talking" just a bit too much.
> |>
> |> I must agree (not having credentials of my own & occasionally making
> |> a rare mistake), although I wouldn't say philo is the worst of
> |> talkers. And I'm not, either!
> |>
> |> | On the other hand, Mr. Terhune...you do pass yourself off as
> |> | someone with knowledge...A Microsoft Valuable Professional. You of
> |> | all people should conduct yourself in a professional manner. A
> |> | true professional should of course comment when he sees incorrect
> |> | information being posted...but you alone among all MVP's have
> |> | stooped to name calling, foul language and argumentative behavior.
> |> | None of that is suitable for a professional!
> |>
> |> It's a rite of passage to suffer through Terhune's orneriness! I had
> |> to do it myself! But we all love him here! Don't chase off one of
> |> few MVP's we've got left! He's always been full of valuable
> |> information!
> |>
> |> | Also...You have asked me to take off my mask. I am not wearing
> |> | one... but if you expect me to post my actual email address
> |> | here...then you have a more serious problem than I thought!
> |>
> |> He may think you are that rouge thanatiod. You do have an equivalent
> |> command of the American language-- & a bit of the sting as well!
> |>
> |> | In conclusion, I suspect that you are both a sensitive person
> |> | and a deep thinker...and I respect those qualities in you.
> |>
> |> I agree, but more thinker than sensitive.
> |>
> |> | My suggestion is that both you and "Philo" pretend that neither
> |> | one of you have ever posted here before...and to start over with a
> |> | clean slate. As a totally isolated third party who can look at the
> |> | situation with perhaps only minimal bias...The funny thing about
> |> | both you , Mr. Terhune and "Philo" is how very similar to each
> |> | other are. If I didn't know better, I'd almost think you two were
> |> | brothers who got into a fight over something quite inconsequential.
> |>
> |> Terhune has more technical knowledge than philo (or me).
> |>
> |> | I mean this: Best wishes to the both of you...
> |> | why not shake hands and move on? If you two fellows can resolve
> |> | your differences...then I see that there is still hope left in
> |> | this world.
> |>
> |> I don't see that you are any more authorized to mediate this thing
> |> than Jimmy Carter was in Palestine. Terhune starts off rough. It's
> |> up to philo to mellow him by sticking only to tried/true
> |> advice/suggestions.
> |>
> | You are correct again. I have no more authority here than Jimmy Carter
> | does in Palestine. Though I respect Carter for bring at least some
> | type of peace to Israel and Egypt...Carter has no business going to
> | Palestine.
>
> His legitimate peacemaking ended with his Presidency. Now, neither you
> nor he are or can produce a letter from Napoleon out of your shoe!
>

Yes I remember his presidency well. He was a well meaning president...
but of course, as the say...the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

> | Now...as to that Philo character...as far as I can see...he only
> | sometimes sticks to "tried/true" advice.(He has thousands of postings
> | on dozens of groups...so I only read a small portion of them. Many of
> | his replies are
> | considerably "off the wall" and often wrong. The odd thing is...
> | that once in a while he has picked up something all the other experts
> | have missed. It may simply be due to his ignorance. There are many
> | fools out there who do something impossible simply because they
> | didn't know better.
>
> I think philo is OK. He might be a bit more deferential, perhaps. That
> might be an improvement.
>

Glad you think Philo is OK...
Sometimes I wonder about myself <G>

philo · May 1, 2008

thanatoid wrote:
> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
> news:ukZEegzqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> |> | Good day to you sir. I believe the word you may have
>> |> | been looking for is "philosophaster".
>> |>
>> |
>> | Phi`los´o`phas`ter
>> | n. 1. A pretender to philosophy.
>> |
>>
>> I've looked again & cannot find it in my Webster's New
>> World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition.
>> However, this book is old, & the copyright page is missing.
>> But I didn't see you were doing any philosophastering,
>> anyhow-- even if there is such a word!
>
> The above - rather limited - definition is from WordWeb.
>
> Copied at great pains (small print, dark room, too lazy to
> switch on a light) from The Random House Dictionary of the
> English Language, Unabridged Edition, 1967 (wow, I didn't think
> it was THAT old!):
>
> Philosophaster: (I am NOT copying the pronunciations!)
> n., one who has only a superficial knowledge of philosophy or
> who feigns a knowledge he does not possess.
>
> A rather good word to know since the 2nd meaning applies to many
> if not most netizens.
>
> Regards
> t.
>
>
> <SNIP>
>

I think that's what they used to say was a good 50 cent word!

Jeff Richards · May 1, 2008

My guess is that you used to save _lost_ clusters - an entirely different
concept.

Scandisk for XP and Vista isn't significantly different than the W98
version. OTOH, if you were using Norton tools then you will want to change
anyway, regardless of whether or not they exist for those other OS.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"legg" <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news:tv4h141rg2efl8pd938k47jnb1uk5a1io2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:10:09 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
> snip <
>>
> I used to save bad clusters, and could often identify some of their
> origins as html, pdf or images, but have yet to recover a single
> usable file from them.
>
> It's gotten so that I'll just delete them or let NDD do it's own
> 'auto' function, which is deletion, to save time.
>
> I'm going to have to find some similar tools to work in the newer
> operating systems, when I eventually do get one up and running for
> more than six months. I recall that the norton tools were seriously
> crippled when used in W2K.
>
> RL

Gary S. Terhune · May 1, 2008

I went through a lot of testing, using new builds as often as not. I don't
know why the NT4 version did not work for you, and the proper thing for you
to have done was to alert me to the issue and maybe we could work together
on your NT setup, which would have especially please me, since I had no
well-worked versions of NT4 to work with. FYI, I would most likely have
referred you to an NT4 group, since I just provided MS files, no code of my
own. After some preliminary research, of course.

But now, you need to realize that while you were once just an irksome
nuisance, I meant what I said in my previous post. My only desire with
regards to you is that you go away, for good.

Furthermore, after reading your posts in this whole "idiot" affair, I have
come to realize that you are a flat-out liar, a poser of the worst kind. I
won't spell out the evidence, you know full well (though if you're a
pathological liar... I've had experience with those, and you guys don't even
know when you're lying. If that's the case, believe it or not, I feel sorry
for you. But I still want you to go away.)

I will not respond to your posts in the future except to correct your
frequent mistakes when any innocents are involved. (You non-innocents who
are forever creating miles of thread where philo participates, to talk about
irrelevancies galore... You're on your own, as usual.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uql4cV1qIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> Ooohhhhh, I'm shivering in my sandals.
>>
>
>
> <G>
>
> No I was not making a threat...
> I have decided to take some advice given to me a friend of mine many years
> ago.
>
> He was a fairy tough ex-army sergeant and I had just been drafted into the
> army. He was talking about the time he had a broken jaw.
>
> "What?" I asked, "How the hell did *you* get a broken jaw?"
>
> He replied thus: "Talking when I should have been listening."
>
> That advice got me through the army alive..
> but through the years I seem to have forgotten it.
>
> Now that I have decided to shut up and listen...
>
> My comment was directed toward that software you had written...IIRC...
> time zone edit update.
>
> Maybe the error was not as serious as I made it sound...but I was just
> curious about the reason it seemed to work ok on a win9x system but not
> on an NT4 system...
>
> That's all my question for you was. Not that it's terribly critical or
> anything...but it was more just a matter of curiosity.
>
> I was also curious if you were working on any more projects.
>
> I have been looking through the archives and see that you had been
> very active and productive and feel rather foolish now for having
> previously misjudged you.
>
> thanks!

Gary S. Terhune · May 1, 2008

I don't use Win98 on VPC, though I played with it for a few weeks last year.
I use an old Compaq (yuck!) to play with things 98. I have to rebuild my old
P200 after having to cannibalize it in an emergency. Slow but easy to work
on for my myriad testing purposes.

You do realize that you're talking to a total nutjob, right?

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ukZEegzqIHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> porvoon raganan wrote:
> | PCR wrote:
> |> porvoon raganan wrote:
> |> | Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> |> |> Oh, and GFY. I've already admitted my health problems in this
> |> |> group to great length, and yes there's lots of stress, but that
> |> |> DOESN'T mean that Philo isn't an idiot or that you aren't a moron
> |> |> for defending him. (Hey, how about you take off your mask.
> |> |> Ashamed of being such a shameless philaphilopod?)
> |> |>
> |> |
> |> | Mr. Terhune:
> |> |
> |> | Good day to you sir. I believe the word you may have been looking
> |> | for is "philosophaster".
> |>
> |
> | Phi`los´o`phas`ter
> | n. 1. A pretender to philosophy.
> |
>
> I've looked again & cannot find it in my Webster's New World Dictionary
> of the American Language, College Edition. However, this book is old, &
> the copyright page is missing. But I didn't see you were doing any
> philosophastering, anyhow-- even if there is such a word!
>
> |
> |> I can't find his word OR yours in my dictionary! But Terhune likely
> |> is intentionally making his up & possibly referencing...
> |>
> |> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049366/
> |> Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
> |>
> |> ..., thinking you are thanatoid, maybe!
> |>
> | I have not made up the word philosophaster...but Mr. Terhune has made
> | up his word. Creating new words is a sign of an excellent and clever
> | mind.
>
> That might depend upon just what word is invented, at least for the
> excellence of it. But Terhune's words often are excellent enough-- even
> as you never were thanatoid!
>
> |> | Rather than reply to each one of your excellent individual posts...
> |> | I choose to reply simply to this central one.
> |> |
> |> | As I may have mentioned here...I am a professional group
> |> | moderator... but one who has no moderation authority on this
> |> | group. I have been asked to read over the messages here by a third
> |> | party (which will go unnamed). It was suggested that I review the
> |> | posts and comment as necessary in an attempt to smooth over the
> |> | "bad vibes" which only would tend to embarrass the host
> |> | organization.
> |>
> |> You think we might believe you are...?...
> |> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041509/
> |> The Inspector General (1949)
> |>
> |> | I have read the majority of the posts from the last month or so
> |> | and can now see why I was called upon to step in and have a look.
> |>
> |> As Terhune said, that may not be enough. We have been floating here
> |> for years!
> |
> |
> | True. I have not posted on any Usenet group until recently...
> | As I have mentioned somewhere...I am employed as a moderator
> | elsewhere and I assure you...I am quite familiar with how Usenet is
> | structured.
>
> Very well.
>
> |> | As you know...this is a discussion group for Windows98. With a
> |> | quick "Google search" a great majority of the questions asked here
> |> | could be answered with no need for this group at all.
> |>
> |> Maybe. Well, yea, but lots of the stuff at Google pertaining to Win98
> |> started here, I'm sure! Also, there are living people here who will
> |> discuss it & talk it through!
> |
> |
> |
> | You are very astute and have picked up on my point exactly!
> | Though people are often chided for asking "such and such" a question
> | on a Usenet group...and are rightly told that they could have just
> | found the answer on Google. Were it not for the open discussions in
> | the first place...there would be no such information on Google!
>
> Absolutely!
>
> |> | However...most of the
> |> | folks who post...come here in-fact for a discussion. (I would think
> |> | that should not surprise you.)
> |>
> |> Most come here to help in a technical problem or to be helped.
> |> Arguments & discussions can sometimes ensue, yea.
> |>
> |> | Unless some person who answers a question specifically passes
> |> | themselves off as an expert...all advice here is to be taken simply
> |> | as that...Viz: Advice.
> |>
> |> It is helpful to have the MVPs & rare MS personnel around to
> |> straighten things out! Novices may not know the difference between
> |> good & bad advice! (But I haven't seen MEB since that Scott Hammer
> |> MS personage got hold of him!)
> |>
> |> | You have mentioned this "Philo" person a number of times...and I
> |> | have read over his replies...and certainly must agree with
> |> | you...he does often reply without great insight...but I have found
> |> | no intentional deception nor advice that would do much more than
> |> | perhaps waste a little time. Some of the advice (possibly just by
> |> | random chance) is correct... but as far as I can see...the vast
> |> | majority of it is simply humor. (Or should I have said: quite
> |> | *simple* humor ?)
> |>
> |> Philo comes up with his share of good advice. It is good to have
> |> Terhune around to keep him & others on their toes, though!
> |
> |
> | I have searched a bit further at replies elsewhere and see you are
> | correct there. That Philo character actually has given a bit of decent
> | enough advice and in a number of very non-related topics. Mr. Terhune,
> | though his scope is considerably more narrow, is indeed an expert when
> | it comes to Win98. I may go so far as to say, in fact...that he is
> | *the* expert.
>
> He & other MVP's often will drop into a thread to correct flagrant
> errors. Sometimes they do get rough. So?
>
> | Of course that clarifies his anger...as Win98 is now essentially an
> | all but dead operating system. With the advent of the "new and
> | improved" operating system, Vista...it appears that all previous
> | versions are being killed off as rapidly as possible.
>
> I believe that view to be a symptom of 3 months exposure to XP/Vista
> irradiation. Is the middle toe of your left foot turning blue? Or did
> you just read that on the UseNet?
>
> | I certainly can
> | understand Mr. Terhune having quite a degree of frustration over that.
>
> No. He made the switch & only uses a Win98 simulator now-- on an XP
> machine! Everyone here is filled with tears-- even philo! It may be he
> still occasionally will get his hands on an actual Win98 machine,
> though. Also, his orneriness predates the advent of XP, I know.
>
> |> | What you seem to have not noticed ...is that by discussion...
> |> | a problem is eventually solved. Even wrong answers are generally
> |> | part of a learning process and will eventually be sorted out. The
> |> | only thing I can find this "Philo" character
> |> | guilty of is "talking" just a bit too much.
> |>
> |> I must agree (not having credentials of my own & occasionally making
> |> a rare mistake), although I wouldn't say philo is the worst of
> |> talkers. And I'm not, either!
> |>
> |> | On the other hand, Mr. Terhune...you do pass yourself off as
> |> | someone with knowledge...A Microsoft Valuable Professional. You of
> |> | all people should conduct yourself in a professional manner. A
> |> | true professional should of course comment when he sees incorrect
> |> | information being posted...but you alone among all MVP's have
> |> | stooped to name calling, foul language and argumentative behavior.
> |> | None of that is suitable for a professional!
> |>
> |> It's a rite of passage to suffer through Terhune's orneriness! I had
> |> to do it myself! But we all love him here! Don't chase off one of
> |> few MVP's we've got left! He's always been full of valuable
> |> information!
> |>
> |> | Also...You have asked me to take off my mask. I am not wearing
> |> | one... but if you expect me to post my actual email address
> |> | here...then you have a more serious problem than I thought!
> |>
> |> He may think you are that rouge thanatiod. You do have an equivalent
> |> command of the American language-- & a bit of the sting as well!
> |>
> |> | In conclusion, I suspect that you are both a sensitive person
> |> | and a deep thinker...and I respect those qualities in you.
> |>
> |> I agree, but more thinker than sensitive.
> |>
> |> | My suggestion is that both you and "Philo" pretend that neither
> |> | one of you have ever posted here before...and to start over with a
> |> | clean slate. As a totally isolated third party who can look at the
> |> | situation with perhaps only minimal bias...The funny thing about
> |> | both you , Mr. Terhune and "Philo" is how very similar to each
> |> | other are. If I didn't know better, I'd almost think you two were
> |> | brothers who got into a fight over something quite inconsequential.
> |>
> |> Terhune has more technical knowledge than philo (or me).
> |>
> |> | I mean this: Best wishes to the both of you...
> |> | why not shake hands and move on? If you two fellows can resolve
> |> | your differences...then I see that there is still hope left in
> |> | this world.
> |>
> |> I don't see that you are any more authorized to mediate this thing
> |> than Jimmy Carter was in Palestine. Terhune starts off rough. It's
> |> up to philo to mellow him by sticking only to tried/true
> |> advice/suggestions.
> |>
> | You are correct again. I have no more authority here than Jimmy Carter
> | does in Palestine. Though I respect Carter for bring at least some
> | type of peace to Israel and Egypt...Carter has no business going to
> | Palestine.
>
> His legitimate peacemaking ended with his Presidency. Now, neither you
> nor he are or can produce a letter from Napoleon out of your shoe!
>
> | Now...as to that Philo character...as far as I can see...he only
> | sometimes sticks to "tried/true" advice.(He has thousands of postings
> | on dozens of groups...so I only read a small portion of them. Many of
> | his replies are
> | considerably "off the wall" and often wrong. The odd thing is...
> | that once in a while he has picked up something all the other experts
> | have missed. It may simply be due to his ignorance. There are many
> | fools out there who do something impossible simply because they
> | didn't know better.
>
> I think philo is OK. He might be a bit more deferential, perhaps. That
> might be an improvement.
>
> |> | If you two cannot resolve your differences...then I see the entire
> |> | world following this terrible path.
> |> |
> |> | I remain your obedient servant,
> |> |
> |> | P. R.
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> Should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>
>

Gary S. Terhune · May 1, 2008

My mistake, I confused your post with another that came in this morning.
Thought you were talking about the Updates, though of course, I never
provided Updates for NT4.

The almost certain solution to the problem is for you to update your WSH
support. If you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed a long thread
this week dealing with just this subject. You can get a copy of SCR56EN.EXE
here:
http://grystmill.com/shared/scr56en.exe

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:OsOwsu4qIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I went through a lot of testing, using new builds as often as not. I don't
>know why the NT4 version did not work for you, and the proper thing for you
>to have done was to alert me to the issue and maybe we could work together
>on your NT setup, which would have especially please me, since I had no
>well-worked versions of NT4 to work with. FYI, I would most likely have
>referred you to an NT4 group, since I just provided MS files, no code of my
>own. After some preliminary research, of course.
>
> But now, you need to realize that while you were once just an irksome
> nuisance, I meant what I said in my previous post. My only desire with
> regards to you is that you go away, for good.
>
> Furthermore, after reading your posts in this whole "idiot" affair, I have
> come to realize that you are a flat-out liar, a poser of the worst kind. I
> won't spell out the evidence, you know full well (though if you're a
> pathological liar... I've had experience with those, and you guys don't
> even know when you're lying. If that's the case, believe it or not, I feel
> sorry for you. But I still want you to go away.)
>
> I will not respond to your posts in the future except to correct your
> frequent mistakes when any innocents are involved. (You non-innocents who
> are forever creating miles of thread where philo participates, to talk
> about irrelevancies galore... You're on your own, as usual.)
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
>
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:uql4cV1qIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>> Ooohhhhh, I'm shivering in my sandals.
>>>
>>
>>
>> <G>
>>
>> No I was not making a threat...
>> I have decided to take some advice given to me a friend of mine many
>> years ago.
>>
>> He was a fairy tough ex-army sergeant and I had just been drafted into
>> the army. He was talking about the time he had a broken jaw.
>>
>> "What?" I asked, "How the hell did *you* get a broken jaw?"
>>
>> He replied thus: "Talking when I should have been listening."
>>
>> That advice got me through the army alive..
>> but through the years I seem to have forgotten it.
>>
>> Now that I have decided to shut up and listen...
>>
>> My comment was directed toward that software you had written...IIRC...
>> time zone edit update.
>>
>> Maybe the error was not as serious as I made it sound...but I was just
>> curious about the reason it seemed to work ok on a win9x system but not
>> on an NT4 system...
>>
>> That's all my question for you was. Not that it's terribly critical or
>> anything...but it was more just a matter of curiosity.
>>
>> I was also curious if you were working on any more projects.
>>
>> I have been looking through the archives and see that you had been
>> very active and productive and feel rather foolish now for having
>> previously misjudged you.
>>
>> thanks!
>

legg · May 1, 2008

On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:38:52 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
<JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

>My guess is that you used to save _lost_ clusters - an entirely different
>concept.
>
>Scandisk for XP and Vista isn't significantly different than the W98
>version. OTOH, if you were using Norton tools then you will want to change
>anyway, regardless of whether or not they exist for those other OS.

If I'd been using MS scandisk alone over the last 8 years I still
probably wouldn't know clusters from cupcakes, bad, lost or whatever.

The fact that original Norton tools didn't find later applications in
the windows operating system is nothing for either MS or Symantec to
crow about.

RL

Gary S. Terhune · May 1, 2008

Words are important, technical terms even more so. You claim lost clusters
and the tech is going to shrug his shoulders. You claim bad sectors you're
going to be buying a new hard drive ASAP. You claim bad clusters, the tech
is going to lean toward thinking bad sectors, since when you format a drive,
a thorough Scandisk is done to find bad sectors, and if they are found, the
cluster it is found in is called a bad cluster and marked for non-use.

It is typical to find a few bad sectors in a new drive, and I think they are
even marked before they leave the factory. You should never encounter them
again. But if bad sectors start showing up later on, that's when it's time
to get a new drive, since the one you have is on its way out.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"legg" <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote in message
news:7dhj14tlpdhp4c0iqrv6gqqf0h8l3r68nj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:38:52 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
> <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
>>My guess is that you used to save _lost_ clusters - an entirely different
>>concept.
>>
>>Scandisk for XP and Vista isn't significantly different than the W98
>>version. OTOH, if you were using Norton tools then you will want to
>>change
>>anyway, regardless of whether or not they exist for those other OS.
>
> If I'd been using MS scandisk alone over the last 8 years I still
> probably wouldn't know clusters from cupcakes, bad, lost or whatever.
>
> The fact that original Norton tools didn't find later applications in
> the windows operating system is nothing for either MS or Symantec to
> crow about.
>
> RL
>
>

philo · May 1, 2008

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> My mistake, I confused your post with another that came in this morning.
> Thought you were talking about the Updates, though of course, I never
> provided Updates for NT4.
>
> The almost certain solution to the problem is for you to update your WSH
> support. If you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed a long
> thread this week dealing with just this subject. You can get a copy of
> SCR56EN.EXE here:
> http://grystmill.com/shared/scr56en.exe
>

Your mistake was not as large as mine...
but at least you have finally admitted to being a human!

Ok...Yes I too will now admit the "mistake" I made and you might have
been the only one to catch. (I have a reason for my madness.)
Sorry that I had to put you through such a rigorous and absurd ordeal...
but I have a project too and I was looking for a bit of help.I needed to
test you to see what you are made of.

When I work on a problem...the first thing I usually try...
is to do exactly what I have always been told NOT to do.
I need to find out first hand why it should not be done...
and if I can get myself out of that situation.

Though you may not up to such a challenge...
you pretty much fit the bill for the type of person I was looking for:

1) Extremely intelligent.

2) Absolutely impossible to accept any type of B.S.

3) A little bit "meshug".

You mentioned that you wanted me to go away.
Wishing, in this world does not make things happen. I will go away when
I feel like going away...so the best way for you to keep me off Usenet...
would be to help me with my project. It does not involve operating
systems...but I think it would be an appropriate task for someone with
your mind. When I am working on one of my projects...I tend to stay off
Usenet. I am only here as a diversion.

BTW: As far as running Windows 98...I agree that running Win98 within a
virtual machine is only a partial solution...and there is no substitute
for running Win98 natively. There are a lot of folks who are only using
Win98 to run dos applications which require real mode access.

If you need any hardware, spare machines etc ...
just let me know. I'd be happy to send you anything you need ...
no charge of course.

philo · May 1, 2008

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:exMdIO5qIHA.1952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Words are important, technical terms even more so. You claim lost clusters
> and the tech is going to shrug his shoulders. You claim bad sectors you're
> going to be buying a new hard drive ASAP. You claim bad clusters, the tech
> is going to lean toward thinking bad sectors, since when you format a
drive,
> a thorough Scandisk is done to find bad sectors, and if they are found,
the
> cluster it is found in is called a bad cluster and marked for non-use.
>
> It is typical to find a few bad sectors in a new drive, and I think they
are
> even marked before they leave the factory. You should never encounter them
> again. But if bad sectors start showing up later on, that's when it's time
> to get a new drive, since the one you have is on its way out.
>
>

Any bad sectors *are* mapped out at the factory. They'd be invisible to any
operating system
formatting the drive. If bad sectors are seen during the formatting of a new
drive...
there is a problem. I've never yet seen a new drive with any bad sectors
recognized by the OS...
though I have seen at least one new drive fail within the first month of
use. It was of course
replaced under warrantee.

legg · May 1, 2008

On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:44:16 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
>news:exMdIO5qIHA.1952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Words are important, technical terms even more so. You claim lost clusters
>> and the tech is going to shrug his shoulders. You claim bad sectors you're
>> going to be buying a new hard drive ASAP. You claim bad clusters, the tech
>> is going to lean toward thinking bad sectors, since when you format a
>drive,
>> a thorough Scandisk is done to find bad sectors, and if they are found,
>the
>> cluster it is found in is called a bad cluster and marked for non-use.
>>
>> It is typical to find a few bad sectors in a new drive, and I think they
>are
>> even marked before they leave the factory. You should never encounter them
>> again. But if bad sectors start showing up later on, that's when it's time
>> to get a new drive, since the one you have is on its way out.
>>
>>
>
>Any bad sectors *are* mapped out at the factory. They'd be invisible to any
>operating system
>formatting the drive. If bad sectors are seen during the formatting of a new
>drive...
>there is a problem. I've never yet seen a new drive with any bad sectors
>recognized by the OS...
>though I have seen at least one new drive fail within the first month of
>use. It was of course
>replaced under warrantee.
>
I still don't know what the problem was. Defrag just didn't want to go
near one spot on the drive and spat out a reference number for the
sector. ( this reference since used as a bookmark and could be
anywhere in the public library system).

Running NDD (~scandisk) with a full surface scan, overnight, cleared
it up, at the beginning of this week. I was just looking for ideas on
what was going on - someone suggested flash as a potential irritant
and that rang a bell - mozilla+flash=flakey. Why running IE with the
same flash should 'un-flake' the current equation is the remaining
mystery.

I'm afraid I don't have access to outside tech support around here,
when anything goes wrong on a PC. The best can manage is to get an
outside opinion or two.

RL

philo · May 1, 2008

<snipped for brevity>
> >> It is typical to find a few bad sectors in a new drive, and I think
they
> >are
> >> even marked before they leave the factory. You should never encounter
them
> >> again. But if bad sectors start showing up later on, that's when it's
time
> >> to get a new drive, since the one you have is on its way out.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Any bad sectors *are* mapped out at the factory. They'd be invisible to
any
> >operating system
> >formatting the drive. If bad sectors are seen during the formatting of a
new
> >drive...
> >there is a problem. I've never yet seen a new drive with any bad sectors
> >recognized by the OS...
> >though I have seen at least one new drive fail within the first month of
> >use. It was of course
> >replaced under warrantee.
> >
> I still don't know what the problem was. Defrag just didn't want to go
> near one spot on the drive and spat out a reference number for the
> sector. ( this reference since used as a bookmark and could be
> anywhere in the public library system).
>
> Running NDD (~scandisk) with a full surface scan, overnight, cleared
> it up, at the beginning of this week. I was just looking for ideas on
> what was going on - someone suggested flash as a potential irritant
> and that rang a bell - mozilla+flash=flakey. Why running IE with the
> same flash should 'un-flake' the current equation is the remaining
> mystery.
>
> I'm afraid I don't have access to outside tech support around here,
> when anything goes wrong on a PC. The best can manage is to get an
> outside opinion or two.
>
>

If NDD was able to scan the drive and "fix" the errors...
that means the bad sector(s) have been mapped out.

The best thing to do is go the the website of the harddrive's manufacturer
and download their diagnostic
utility then run it. If it does not pass the diagnostic...you need to backup
your data at once and replace the drive.

If it passes the mfg's diagnostic the drive should be OK to use...
but you should run scan disk again from time to time. If more bad sectors
are found...the drive is going
and should not be used any longer.

As Mr. Terhune has mentioned somewhere...the question is whether or not data
that were in the bad sector(s)
had been recovered or had the data been lost. If you have lost or damaged
system files...your OS may be at least
partially corrupted.

There are a slew of other factors that could be involved and we are only
touching the surface of
all possibilites.

Additionally , how much RAM does the machine have?
How many applications are running at startup?

You may want to run msconfig and take unneeded apps from startup.
Though I of course recommend always keeping your virus checker there...
many apps that end up in startup are not need there at all...
especially if the machine does not have a lot of RAM.

philo · May 1, 2008

"DaffyD®" <daffyd@woohoo.com> wrote in message
news:uyKDnx0qIHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Haven't had the time to read all the posts, but from what I have read,
this
> string is really, really good. A lot fun to read too!
> --
> { : [|]=( DaffyD®
>
> If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>
>

Yep! It's full of weirdness...

Gary S. Terhune · May 1, 2008

Forget it! There was never any report of damage to the disk. It was ALL
software, file system errors. SpeedDisk reported a problem, nature unknown.
NDD discovered one or more problems that at least included the discovery of
lost clusters. Problems were fixed and SpeedDisk could then run just fine.
There is NO need to run any further disk diagnostics, there is REALLY no
need to run any RAM testing utilities. Waste of time and energy.

The movie problem was solved before the OP even posted, none of it having
anything to do with hardware. The problem may or may not have had anything
to do with the problems found in the file system. Could be total
coincidence. Stupid, complicated operation involving streaming a movie
fouled up, which is to be expected from time to time. Then, perhaps because
of some operator function or perhaps not, it quit malfunctioning and the
movie played again. Note that the problem was repeated using two different
browsers, which immediately eliminates any possibility that hardware was in
any way causal.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Q_2dnX7zSoVm94fVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@ntd.net...
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>> >> It is typical to find a few bad sectors in a new drive, and I think
> they
>> >are
>> >> even marked before they leave the factory. You should never encounter
> them
>> >> again. But if bad sectors start showing up later on, that's when it's
> time
>> >> to get a new drive, since the one you have is on its way out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Any bad sectors *are* mapped out at the factory. They'd be invisible to
> any
>> >operating system
>> >formatting the drive. If bad sectors are seen during the formatting of a
> new
>> >drive...
>> >there is a problem. I've never yet seen a new drive with any bad sectors
>> >recognized by the OS...
>> >though I have seen at least one new drive fail within the first month of
>> >use. It was of course
>> >replaced under warrantee.
>> >
>> I still don't know what the problem was. Defrag just didn't want to go
>> near one spot on the drive and spat out a reference number for the
>> sector. ( this reference since used as a bookmark and could be
>> anywhere in the public library system).
>>
>> Running NDD (~scandisk) with a full surface scan, overnight, cleared
>> it up, at the beginning of this week. I was just looking for ideas on
>> what was going on - someone suggested flash as a potential irritant
>> and that rang a bell - mozilla+flash=flakey. Why running IE with the
>> same flash should 'un-flake' the current equation is the remaining
>> mystery.
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't have access to outside tech support around here,
>> when anything goes wrong on a PC. The best can manage is to get an
>> outside opinion or two.
>>
>>
>
> If NDD was able to scan the drive and "fix" the errors...
> that means the bad sector(s) have been mapped out.
>
>
> The best thing to do is go the the website of the harddrive's manufacturer
> and download their diagnostic
> utility then run it. If it does not pass the diagnostic...you need to
> backup
> your data at once and replace the drive.
>
>
> If it passes the mfg's diagnostic the drive should be OK to use...
> but you should run scan disk again from time to time. If more bad sectors
> are found...the drive is going
> and should not be used any longer.
>
> As Mr. Terhune has mentioned somewhere...the question is whether or not
> data
> that were in the bad sector(s)
> had been recovered or had the data been lost. If you have lost or damaged
> system files...your OS may be at least
> partially corrupted.
>
>
> There are a slew of other factors that could be involved and we are only
> touching the surface of
> all possibilites.
>
>
> Additionally , how much RAM does the machine have?
> How many applications are running at startup?
>
> You may want to run msconfig and take unneeded apps from startup.
> Though I of course recommend always keeping your virus checker there...
> many apps that end up in startup are not need there at all...
> especially if the machine does not have a lot of RAM.
>
>

PCR · May 2, 2008

Re: system freeze as Youtube web page loads - CORRECTION

thanatoid wrote:
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
| news:OB7vtGzqIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
|
|> thanatoid wrote:
|>| WAS:
|>| That is nuts. And just goes to show how limited Usenet is,
|>| as it is based on words ONLY. You know the VERY old thing
|>| about 70-95% (depending on what "specialist" you talk to)
|>| communication being verbal.
|>|
|>| SHOULD BE:
|>| That is nuts. And just goes to show how limited Usenet is,
|>| as it is based on words ONLY. You know the VERY old thing
|>| about 70-95% (depending on what "specialist" you talk to)
|>| communication being VISUAL.
|>
|> Sometimes oldies are goodies, thanatoid!
|
| Huh??? Do you mean that talking in RL is better? Well, of
| course, unless the person smells bad or is a moron you just
| can't get away from (morons are REALLY good at not legging you
| go), or when there is a good chance of getting punched in the
| face

I usually do like the distance & anonymity provided by the NET. It was
only in real life that my octigenarian uncle punched me in the jaw after
waving his fist thrice! I was just standing there looking at it!

| Or did you mean something else?

The problem was I didn't understand what you meant or precisely what it
was you were responding to in my post. I tried, but then gave up & said
nonsense. Sorry. I hope you didn't spend too much time trying to figure
it.

What exactly is nuts? Wait a minute. By Usenet, you refer to Google--
where only "the VERY old thing (is known) about 70-95% (of the time)"?
So, you were agreeing with me that live NG's are better, then? Fine!
(Still, Google picks these things up fairly quickly.) Yea, & I see
things are visual on the NET, not verbal.

|> About whether you are him, I see now you never would spell
|> as badly as porvoon raganan.
|
| Anal-retentive spelling obsession is one of the tell-tale marks
| of a thanatoid post. And as I explained, I am not into
| nymshifting and similar practices. I simply see no point. I did
| it ONCE because I desperately needed to ask a question in a tech
| group where EVERYONE with no exception hated my guts and I knew
| I was either in all their KF's or that they would never answer a
| thanatoid post.

That's understandable, then, for you to do it once under that
understandable circumstance.

| After a few days someone guessed anyway - I
| guess it was my writing style - and also the question mentioned
| my primary computer which as you (by now surely you *must* all
| know -) is a 10½ 166MHz running 95B (very tweaked) and appears
| to be somewhat of a rarity.

That is rare & amazing, to be using a Win95B. I admire it. I wasn't with
MS machines back then. Win98SE was my first. I guess, if you can stick
with that-- I'll never need to upgrade, myself! And I admire your
writing ability as well, thanatoid. It is better than mine. (So is
Terhune's when he gets at it.) And both of you almost certainly are
smarter.

|> But I think with a name like
|> his-- you should be more forgiving!
|
| I wasn't aware I was being critical or anything like that, /or/
| that there was anything to forgive.

It can be interpreted that a correction in spelling is a criticism. But
I'm sure it depends on the circumstances. But I was really trying to be
funny.

| SInce I have some/most (?)
| participants KF'd and I entered into the thread late, I am
| fairly in the dark and just said what I felt should be said, for
| better or worse.

I'd have to go back & review it, myself.

|> Also, his sting is only
|> a tenth of yours (or even Terhune's!)
|
| I'll take that as a compliment,

Did you see this one...!!?!!...
news:OsOwsu4qIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
Terhune's post to philo of 5/1/08 09:05 AM.

Yikes! But he quickly apologized!

| but frankly, this whole reply of
| yours has me a little baffled. But that's OK. It's nothing new.
| I can be quite dumb sometimes.

I guess we all in the end are dumb, but it's relative among us.

|
| --
| Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,
| as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas
| most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it
| demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,
| when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.
|
| - Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

PCR · May 2, 2008

system freeze as Youtube web page loads

thanatoid

thanatoid

DaffyD®

philo

philo

philo

Jeff Richards

Gary S. Terhune

Gary S. Terhune

Gary S. Terhune

legg

Gary S. Terhune

philo

philo

legg

philo

philo

Gary S. Terhune

PCR

PCR

Similar threads