On 2009-08-31, Sqwertz > wrote:>

> Google placed over 290 cookies in just 2-3 days.

.....and some of those google cookies don't expire till 2038!, despite
federal law stating cookies aren't to last for more than one yr.

Do yourself a favor. Don't allow ANY cookies. Just turn 'em off. If
a website will not let you in till you turn 'em on, well, then you
have a decision to make. Most sites do NOT inhibit you if you don't
accept cookies. The better sites will notify you to turn cookies on.
Some sites just don't work, but you can usually tell if it's cookie
related.

One of the reasons I changed from firefox to seamonkey was FF was
starting to dumb-down its user controls, eliminating optional settings
in favor of we-know-better defaults. For example, seamonkey still has
a cookie manager control in its tools menu. FF used to have it, but
disappeared it in favor of cookies-on-by-default and we dare you to
find access.

Another brilliant SM/FF plug-in is NoScript. If turning off cookies
don't stop it, NoScript will. NoScript kills everything. Ads,
popups, cookies, google anylitics, adclik, tracking, client-side
scripts, java, flash.... all that crap! It has a handy override if
you just hafta see that site, though. What is amazing about NoScript
is, you have a menu that lets you actually see and turn off/on all the
individual scripts in the webpage. You should see how many some pages
have, half a dozen or more, most outside feeds looking to harvest more
info about you and your surfing habits. NoScript kills 'em all dead!!


nb

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:22:40 -0400, Bob Muncie wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> I'm sure Google will get better about their intrusiveness, though.
>> <cough>. Look at Microsoft, for example.
>
> sw - Not saying they don't _try_, but if you have your system fairly
> protected, those 290 cookies would not be there. It's not that difficult
> to make your self pretty secure.

I know what I'm doing, Munchie. I purposely turned off all my
cookie acceptance polices to see what would happen. I have only had
one trojan in my lifetime and I have never used any sort of virus
protection software. Just a couple small utils to monitor certain
parts of my registry and startup files.

You do know it's not possible to log into and use (effectively)
*any* of the google sites having cookies turned off, right?

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:39:06 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> I would not enable Google's cookies under any
>> conditions. People who do are fools, and deserve
>> what they will get.
>
> I enabled cookies and created a google account, then signed into all
> the google sites. I also turned Adblock+ off to see what
> third-party cookies Google would leave behind when I visited sites
> that simply displayed Google ads.
>
> Google placed over 290 cookies in just 2-3 days. Some of the Google
> domains (gmail.com) had placed over 40 cookies. Of course I had no
> idea what all those cryptic cookie strings meant...
>
> I don't like to tie up my Internet connection with the whole Cookie
> Exchange scam.
>
> I'm sure Google will get better about their intrusiveness, though.
> <cough>. Look at Microsoft, for example.
>
> -sw

I've been using Google's Chrome. It's super fast and I don't have to
worry about cookies or pop-ups. I haven't done a survey on cookies
allowed in this browser but I don't really care since Chrome is so fast
it makes you forget that any of that nonsense exists.

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-08-31, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>
>> been out a bit longer.
>
> How long ya' want? I've been using it for over 2 yrs. There were
> some about:config settings that were iffy, but it's pretty much stable
> for at least a year. I only use it for browsing (like FF, NoScript is
> a must) and email. I use more powerful clients for news and irc.
>
> nb

nb - Since it does not add any benefits to what I currently use, there
is no reason yet to change. I expect I will at some point, just not yet.

You likely also noticed I did not knock it. I'm just a quality process
kind of guy, and since it does not yet more value than the tools I
currently use, there is no reason for me to change yet.

Bob

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:26:57 -0400, Bob Muncie wrote:
>
>> Mark - Netscape was always my favorite browser (I used it since it first
>> came out on SunOS, until FF came out.. You should give it a try if you
>> haven't already. It and Thunderbird are a good combo, and kept up to
>> date for web browsing, mail, and usenet.
>
> I use Seamonkey. It['s basically just Firefox and Thunderbird
> rolled into one, just slightly more ornery (especially with
> Add-ons).
>
> There's really not much of an advantage over using the two separate
> clients. Mozilla has always had odd problems with Usenet, though,
> so I use a separate client for News. Mozilla usenet news clients do
> not save news articles, only headers. And that really sucks for
> binary groups as well as causing unnecessary traffic between your
> computer and your news provider, where you often pay for bandwidth.
>
> ObDinner: Brined, roasted chicken breast, bacon and blue cheese
> potato salad, Persian cukes marinated in [salt, rice wine vinegar, a
> touch of sugar, and huy fong garlic chile sauce], and an ear of
> roasted white corn.
>
> -sw

sw - No complaints here. If I want to download binaries, I use my paid
for usenet feed, and use "grabit" as a tool to save the files since I
stopped updating my license for Agent at v1.x.

I also appreciate the fact that Mozilla does not save more than header
information, unless configured to download for off-line use. I consider
that a benefit

But if you were trying to trip me up on being Inet savvy, please spin
the wheel again.

Now... I did not address this issue in RFC, but did in AFB, or AFB.

Please stop referring to me as "Munchie", bobbie, or she.

That just labels you as rude. Would you prefer I address you as Stevie
(or Stephanie), "it", or Squirts?

Think about it.

Bob

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> You do know it's not possible to log into and use (effectively)
> *any* of the google sites having cookies turned off, right?

I do searches all the time without any trouble,
and I don't accept their cookies.

dsi1 wrote:
>
> I've been using Google's Chrome. It's super fast and I don't have to
> worry about cookies or pop-ups. I haven't done a survey on cookies
> allowed in this browser but I don't really care since Chrome is so fast
> it makes you forget that any of that nonsense exists.

In other words, a fool's paradise.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:30:51 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> You do know it's not possible to log into and use (effectively)
>> *any* of the google sites having cookies turned off, right?
>
> I do searches all the time without any trouble,
> and I don't accept their cookies.

Searching works fine, you got me on that oversight. It's (I think)
the only thing you don't have to *log in* for. But it will slurp up
that cookie if you have one, log you in, and record all your search
requests without you having to shake a finger.

-sw

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:52:12 GMT, notbob wrote:

> One of the reasons I changed from firefox to seamonkey was FF was
> starting to dumb-down its user controls, eliminating optional settings
> in favor of we-know-better defaults. For example, seamonkey still has
> a cookie manager control in its tools menu. FF used to have it, but
> disappeared it in favor of cookies-on-by-default and we dare you to
> find access.

I would not use Firefox if it didn't have the Cookie Manager. It
can be tricky getting int0o sites like Google or Fox with your
cookie perms set in a certain way using the Cookie Manager, and it
was a bitch for me to figure it out. So I can somewhat see why it
must be used with care.

> Another brilliant SM/FF plug-in is NoScript. If turning off cookies
> don't stop it, NoScript will. NoScript kills everything. Ads,
> popups, cookies, google anylitics, adclik, tracking, client-side
> scripts, java, flash.... all that crap!

I use Prefbar, Adblock+, IEtab (which overrides all the previous
add-ons, but at least won't contaminate Seamonkey space), and
HomeButton. Adblock and Prefbar kinda do the same thing as noscript
in a more user-friendly way. I know noscript does more, though.
But it's a little bulkier.

> It has a handy override if
> you just hafta see that site, though. What is amazing about NoScript
> is, you have a menu that lets you actually see and turn off/on all the
> individual scripts in the webpage. You should see how many some pages
> have, half a dozen or more, most outside feeds looking to harvest more
> info about you and your surfing habits. NoScript kills 'em all dead!!

I'll have to check it out. I have noscript installed, but most of
it is disabled. I understand most of what it does, but I can see
how it would intimidate and frustrate the average user for sites
they *need* to get into.

-sw

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:53:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:

> I've been using Google's Chrome. It's super fast and I don't have to
> worry about cookies or pop-ups. I haven't done a survey on cookies
> allowed in this browser but I don't really care since Chrome is so fast
> it makes you forget that any of that nonsense exists.

So what you're saying is, "Ignorance is bliss. And faster, too!"

-sw

Bob Muncie wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:26:57 -0400, Bob Muncie wrote:
>>
>>> Mark - Netscape was always my favorite browser (I used it since it
>>> first came out on SunOS, until FF came out.. You should give it a try
>>> if you haven't already. It and Thunderbird are a good combo, and kept
>>> up to date for web browsing, mail, and usenet.
>>
>> I use Seamonkey. It['s basically just Firefox and Thunderbird
>> rolled into one, just slightly more ornery (especially with
>> Add-ons).
>>
>> There's really not much of an advantage over using the two separate
>> clients. Mozilla has always had odd problems with Usenet, though,
>> so I use a separate client for News. Mozilla usenet news clients do
>> not save news articles, only headers. And that really sucks for
>> binary groups as well as causing unnecessary traffic between your
>> computer and your news provider, where you often pay for bandwidth.
>>
>> ObDinner: Brined, roasted chicken breast, bacon and blue cheese
>> potato salad, Persian cukes marinated in [salt, rice wine vinegar, a
>> touch of sugar, and huy fong garlic chile sauce], and an ear of
>> roasted white corn.
>>
>> -sw
>
> sw - No complaints here. If I want to download binaries, I use my paid
> for usenet feed, and use "grabit" as a tool to save the files since I
> stopped updating my license for Agent at v1.x.
>
> I also appreciate the fact that Mozilla does not save more than header
> information, unless configured to download for off-line use. I consider
> that a benefit
>
> But if you were trying to trip me up on being Inet savvy, please spin
> the wheel again.
>
> Now... I did not address this issue in RFC, but did in AFB, or AFB.
>
> Please stop referring to me as "Munchie", bobbie, or she.
>
> That just labels you as rude. Would you prefer I address you as Stevie
> (or Stephanie), "it", or Squirts?
>
> Think about it.
>
> Bob
>

One of the AFBs was supposed to be ABF. Sorry. Never could type well.

Bob

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:19:54 -0400, Bob Muncie wrote:

> But if you were trying to trip me up on being Inet savvy, please spin
> the wheel again.

No, that was you doing that to me in another post when you said:

"sw - Not saying they don't _try_, but if you have your system
fairly protected, those 290 cookies would not be there."

....even after I specifically said that I opened up my browser on
purpose.

> Please stop referring to me as "Munchie", bobbie, or she.

Oh, don't get your panties in a wad, Bobbie (that's the first time I
called you bobbie, BTW). Munchie is a perfectly apt word here in
RFC.

And you're not helping yourself by telling all your detractors
(which I'm not sold quite yet) all your buttons.

> That just labels you as rude. Would you prefer I address you as Stevie
> (or Stephanie), "it", or Squirts?

You missed, "Warts". Much more derogatory than "Munchi". Knock
yourself out.

> Think about it.

I just did.

-sw

On 2009-08-31, Sqwertz > wrote:
> how it would intimidate and frustrate the average user for sites
> they *need* to get into.

I run several user accts. Each for a specific purpose and each set up
differently. I have one acct strictly for business and on-line
banking. Cookies must be enabled, but permission is required for each
one. Ad cookies sneak in even on bank websites. I don't run
NoScript, but everything else is pretty much buttoned down. No cache,
no history, no passwords, etc. Different requirements need different
users/settings.

nb

On 2009-08-31, Sqwertz > wrote:

> So what you're saying is, "Ignorance is bliss. And faster, too!"

Patent it. Bliss-Whiz!

nb

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:19:54 -0400, Bob Muncie wrote:
>
>> But if you were trying to trip me up on being Inet savvy, please spin
>> the wheel again.
>
> No, that was you doing that to me in another post when you said:
>
> "sw - Not saying they don't _try_, but if you have your system
> fairly protected, those 290 cookies would not be there."
>
> ...even after I specifically said that I opened up my browser on
> purpose.
>
>> Please stop referring to me as "Munchie", bobbie, or she.
>
> Oh, don't get your panties in a wad, Bobbie (that's the first time I
> called you bobbie, BTW). Munchie is a perfectly apt word here in
> RFC.
>
> And you're not helping yourself by telling all your detractors
> (which I'm not sold quite yet) all your buttons.
>
>> That just labels you as rude. Would you prefer I address you as Stevie
>> (or Stephanie), "it", or Squirts?
>
> You missed, "Warts". Much more derogatory than "Munchi". Knock
> yourself out.
>
>> Think about it.
>
> I just did.
>
> -sw

Steve - I apologize for mentioning the Bobbie reference. That was Bob T.
(my bad). But you do use Munchie, and I find that offensive. Please stop.

I'd like to just share stories, recipes (although I'll have to make them
up as I don't use them), and camaraderie. I can also help others on
topics brought up because they are having one problem or another,
usually doing with technology.

I have no issues with you. If the animosity can stop here, lets.

Not asking for a hug (Cyber - You can kiss my blitz, at least in a nice
way).

Bob

Mark Thorson wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> I've been using Google's Chrome. It's super fast and I don't have to
>> worry about cookies or pop-ups. I haven't done a survey on cookies
>> allowed in this browser but I don't really care since Chrome is so fast
>> it makes you forget that any of that nonsense exists.
>
> In other words, a fool's paradise.

Is this just some sort of random feeling you have about Chrome or are
there any problems that you're been having with this browser or is it
because you don't care for programs that are too gosh darn fast? :-)

dsi1 wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> I've been using Google's Chrome. It's super fast and I don't have to
>>> worry about cookies or pop-ups. I haven't done a survey on cookies
>>> allowed in this browser but I don't really care since Chrome is so fast
>>> it makes you forget that any of that nonsense exists.
>>
>> In other words, a fool's paradise.
>
> Is this just some sort of random feeling you have about Chrome or are
> there any problems that you're been having with this browser or is it
> because you don't care for programs that are too gosh darn fast? :-)

dsi1 - The fact that chrome is so aggressive on it's install should give
you an indicator.

When ( was starting an install on it, it tried to connect to several IPs
while installing. That's one of my high water marks to do a cancel.

That's one of the cool things to using Comodo firewall. It doesn't just
kick back and take it like the MS firewall.

If you think the Inet is kind to you, consider it an early age
experience where the boyfriend said, don't worry, "I'll take it out in
time", as an analogy. Too many are out there trying to track you, take
your identity and credit, or just be mean and nasty. Cover up, and you
won't have to worry too much about it.

Bob ( who uses google for mail, but does not trust many things, so I
take precautions).

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:53:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> I've been using Google's Chrome. It's super fast and I don't have to
>> worry about cookies or pop-ups. I haven't done a survey on cookies
>> allowed in this browser but I don't really care since Chrome is so fast
>> it makes you forget that any of that nonsense exists.
>
> So what you're saying is, "Ignorance is bliss. And faster, too!"
>
> -sw

My guess is that you're the one exercising ignorance. I'm running Chrome
on all the default settings which is remarkable. I'll bet you've never
been able to run a browser without monkeying around with the settings -
me nether. It's obvious that right out of the box, Chrome suppresses
scripts and pop-ups and restricts cookies. Please feel free to dick
around endlessly with your slow, bloated browser in order to get it to
work properly. :-)

Bob Muncie wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>> I've been using Google's Chrome. It's super fast and I don't have to
>>>> worry about cookies or pop-ups. I haven't done a survey on cookies
>>>> allowed in this browser but I don't really care since Chrome is so fast
>>>> it makes you forget that any of that nonsense exists.
>>>
>>> In other words, a fool's paradise.
>>
>> Is this just some sort of random feeling you have about Chrome or are
>> there any problems that you're been having with this browser or is it
>> because you don't care for programs that are too gosh darn fast? :-)
>
> dsi1 - The fact that chrome is so aggressive on it's install should give
> you an indicator.
>
> When ( was starting an install on it, it tried to connect to several IPs
> while installing. That's one of my high water marks to do a cancel.
>
> That's one of the cool things to using Comodo firewall. It doesn't just
> kick back and take it like the MS firewall.
>
> If you think the Inet is kind to you, consider it an early age
> experience where the boyfriend said, don't worry, "I'll take it out in
> time", as an analogy. Too many are out there trying to track you, take
> your identity and credit, or just be mean and nasty. Cover up, and you
> won't have to worry too much about it.
>
> Bob ( who uses google for mail, but does not trust many things, so I
> take precautions).
>

Thanks for the explanation. I used to use the Comodo firewall but
stopped long ago - all the pop-up messages were driving me nuts. You
might be right about me living in a fool's paradise but I've always been
concerned about computer security. It's important to use Firefox with a
program like Noscript but Chrome doesn't allow for add-ons or much
tinkering with the program. This goes against current thinking on
browsers as quasi-operating systems but heck, it works fine for me. If
you've used it, you'd be aware of the security measures in place with
Chrome.

I will use Firefox because I use it to edit my web page but it's
sluggishness and constant need for updates reminds me too much of the
history of the bloating of PC operating systems and programs that need
constant attention. The future wasn't supposed to turn out this way.

dsi1 wrote:
> Bob Muncie wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> I've been using Google's Chrome. It's super fast and I don't have to
>>>>> worry about cookies or pop-ups. I haven't done a survey on cookies
>>>>> allowed in this browser but I don't really care since Chrome is so
>>>>> fast
>>>>> it makes you forget that any of that nonsense exists.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, a fool's paradise.
>>>
>>> Is this just some sort of random feeling you have about Chrome or are
>>> there any problems that you're been having with this browser or is it
>>> because you don't care for programs that are too gosh darn fast? :-)
>>
>> dsi1 - The fact that chrome is so aggressive on it's install should
>> give you an indicator.
>>
>> When ( was starting an install on it, it tried to connect to several
>> IPs while installing. That's one of my high water marks to do a cancel.
>>
>> That's one of the cool things to using Comodo firewall. It doesn't
>> just kick back and take it like the MS firewall.
>>
>> If you think the Inet is kind to you, consider it an early age
>> experience where the boyfriend said, don't worry, "I'll take it out in
>> time", as an analogy. Too many are out there trying to track you, take
>> your identity and credit, or just be mean and nasty. Cover up, and you
>> won't have to worry too much about it.
>>
>> Bob ( who uses google for mail, but does not trust many things, so I
>> take precautions).
>>
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I used to use the Comodo firewall but
> stopped long ago - all the pop-up messages were driving me nuts. You
> might be right about me living in a fool's paradise but I've always been
> concerned about computer security. It's important to use Firefox with a
> program like Noscript but Chrome doesn't allow for add-ons or much
> tinkering with the program. This goes against current thinking on
> browsers as quasi-operating systems but heck, it works fine for me. If
> you've used it, you'd be aware of the security measures in place with
> Chrome.
>
> I will use Firefox because I use it to edit my web page but it's
> sluggishness and constant need for updates reminds me too much of the
> history of the bloating of PC operating systems and programs that need
> constant attention. The future wasn't supposed to turn out this way.

I agree that the pop-ups are a killer. But that's only because the
explanation of how to manage them is lacking. If you were to right click
over the tray item for Comodo you will see a menu that allows you to
turn the firewall, and security options off for when you are doing a
software install/update.

I suggest you try it again. It's been a pretty good free tool for me for
a while now. You just need to learn how to use it. If you need a couple
assistance points, email me. And no, I have zero dollars in support of
it. I just appreciate it.

Bob

Bob Muncie wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanation. I used to use the Comodo firewall but
>> stopped long ago - all the pop-up messages were driving me nuts. You
>> might be right about me living in a fool's paradise but I've always
>> been concerned about computer security. It's important to use Firefox
>> with a program like Noscript but Chrome doesn't allow for add-ons or
>> much tinkering with the program. This goes against current thinking on
>> browsers as quasi-operating systems but heck, it works fine for me. If
>> you've used it, you'd be aware of the security measures in place with
>> Chrome.
>>
>> I will use Firefox because I use it to edit my web page but it's
>> sluggishness and constant need for updates reminds me too much of the
>> history of the bloating of PC operating systems and programs that need
>> constant attention. The future wasn't supposed to turn out this way.
>
> I agree that the pop-ups are a killer. But that's only because the
> explanation of how to manage them is lacking. If you were to right click
> over the tray item for Comodo you will see a menu that allows you to
> turn the firewall, and security options off for when you are doing a
> software install/update.
>
> I suggest you try it again. It's been a pretty good free tool for me for
> a while now. You just need to learn how to use it. If you need a couple
> assistance points, email me. And no, I have zero dollars in support of
> it. I just appreciate it.
>
> Bob

I've had that running for a while on most of my computers. At first it
was kind of fun to be asked if a program would be allowed to run but
that fun soon wore off. As I recall, the program was building a data
base of allowed programs but the prompts never seemed to lessen. No
matter, I can try it again - maybe it wasn't set-up right. Thanks.

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Mark Thorson > wrote:
> >
> > > Omelet wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know if this link works?
> > >
> > > Doesn't work for me. I use Netscape
> > > with come-rape-my-computer turned off.
> >
> > Does tinypic work for you? I quit using Nyetscape after it ate a second
> > hard drive... Have not had a problem since I started using Firefox.
>
> I don't understand how Netscape could damage
> a hard disk drive. Several times, Netscape
> has thrown away all of my bookmarks or the
> newsgroups I read, but it hasn't damaged a
> hard disk drive. I could always recover by
> rebuilding everything.

Sorry, I mis-spoke,
I had to re-format and lost everything.
I've not had a single major crash since I dumped Netscape and went to
using firefox. But in the meantime, I purchased an 80 gig Iomega desktop
hard drive and back up everything important as I go now.

>
> But then again, I don't enable the mechanisms
> which allow remote computers to take over my
> machine. The probably why I can't use Google's
> Picasa. Google is among the worst with regard
> to gathering information from your machine.
> I would not enable Google's cookies under any
> conditions. People who do are fools, and deserve
> what they will get.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:57:52 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Sqwertz > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:29:42 -0500, Omelet wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Sqwertz > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Have you tried creating an account at tinypic. And logging in? All
> >>>> my stuff is still there, but all the ones I put there before I
> >>>> created my account are mostly gone.
> >> ...
> >>>> Picassa sucks. But hey - Google Rules, right?
> >>>
> >>> It's easier than tinypic and the links won't die.
> >>
> >> I just explained to you why your links die. Did you read the post?
> >>
> >> Whatever. Nevermind.
> >
> > I have no intention of signing up for more spam by having to log into an
> > account that had animated advertising.
> >
> > But, thanks anyway.
>
> More unsubstantiated speculation. I get no spam from the account I
> created there.
>
> What I love about my mail server is that I can attach any arbitrary
> subdomain to my mail servers domain and if that site starts sending
> me spam, I'd know.
>
> For example, I signed up with the email address
> ". If anything ever comes to that email
> address I will receive it and know exactly who gave them that email
> address. Then I have the option of filtering out anything that
> comes to that address.
>
> Can't do that with gmail. And tinypic has yet to spam me.
>
> Of course you could always just use a bogus email address.
>
> I told you the solution to your problem and now you're just making
> up excuses for not understanding why your links don't stick around.
>
> -sw

Steve, I've known for long time why my links did not stay up. I just
have no wish to sign up for a tinypic account and I really do like the
gmail albums. More versatile and a LOT faster to upload and I only have
to upload once per 5 pics which is handy for a long cooking series.

And I can caption them.

Granted, I could caption them with photoshop, but I was able to caption
with an actual recipe on these.

I just really like it better. :-)
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:33:28 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > Sqwertz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:37:30 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Omelet wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Please let me know if this link works?
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't work for me. I use Netscape
> >>> with come-rape-my-computer turned off.
> >>
> >> http://i30.tinypic.com/33usbgx.jpg
> >>
> >> Does that work?
> >
> > It loads just fine.
>
> See, Om? No frills and annoying borders and fluff. Just pictures.
>
> -sw

My borders are put on by me using photoshop.
I LIKE to frame my pics.
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

Sqwertz wrote:

> BTW: My biggest complaints with Picasa is that the site takes longer to load,

Well then your system and/or the isp you are using has problems or both.
I bet on both.

>has a very awkward and bulky local client,

What local client? I have used picasa with NO local client required.

> and it resizes all your pictures.

Waah says the cry baby. Easy enough to deal with if the viewer is not a
WUSS like you steve.

Sqwertz wrote:
> Yes, you can.
>
> You've already made up your mind to hate tinypic based on your
> ignorance.

Like you have already made up your defective mind to hate anything but
tinypic because you cannot handle anything else and cannot stand it that
someone is not accepting your crappy advise. Unbunch your panties loser.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>> Please let me know if this link works?
>
> Doesn't work for me. I use Netscape
> with come-rape-my-computer turned off.

Of course crapscapeasauros is all that will work on your outdated piece
of shit dinosaur computer. I would suggest moving into the current
century but you cannot handle that with any competency no doubt so stay
back in 1990 where you belong.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> I would not enable Google's cookies under any
> conditions. People who do are fools, and deserve
> what they will get.

None of the google functions require cookies to work. I have got ALL
google functions to work a little earlier with no cookies, and without
logging in to google. If picasa from google does not work your browser
or system has other problems.

Sqwertz wrote:

> You do know it's not possible to log into and use (effectively)
> *any* of the google sites having cookies turned off, right?

Bullshit Steve. I used all of the google sites earlier successfully with
no problems without having to login and with having ALL cookies from
google disabled. I guess your piece of shit system must have problems
other than the indicated operator issues.

Sqwertz wrote:

> I just know I won't be clicking on Picasa links.

I thought you said you KNEW what you were doing? If your system is as
secure as you say what does it matter what you click on? What a pussy
you are Steve. No wonder you have went from programming to designing
toilets. I would call that a negative career upgrade.

cl wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> You do know it's not possible to log into and use (effectively)
>> *any* of the google sites having cookies turned off, right?
>
> Bullshit Steve. I used all of the google sites earlier successfully with
> no problems without having to login and with having ALL cookies from
> google disabled. I guess your piece of shit system must have problems
> other than the indicated operator issues.

Is it okay to assume we both agree that the google stuff is worth pursuing?

No need to be mean. No need to be not nice.

Bob

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:29:28 -0700, cl wrote:

> Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> I just know I won't be clicking on Picasa links.
>
> I thought you said you KNEW what you were doing? If your system is as
> secure as you say what does it matter what you click on? What a pussy
> you are Steve. No wonder you have went from programming to designing
> toilets. I would call that a negative career upgrade.

oh, i don't know. programmers are a dime a dozen, if that.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:29:28 -0700, cl wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> I just know I won't be clicking on Picasa links.
>>
>> I thought you said you KNEW what you were doing? If your system is as
>> secure as you say what does it matter what you click on? What a pussy
>> you are Steve. No wonder you have went from programming to designing
>> toilets. I would call that a negative career upgrade.
>
> oh, i don't know. programmers are a dime a dozen, if that.

I can understand why someone who knows more about these things, would want
to explain how they work... but why in the world do they have to be so nasty
and
bitchy about it. Do they think it makes them look clever? If so, I have
some news for them..........

In article >,
"Ophelia" > wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:29:28 -0700, cl wrote:
> >
> >> Sqwertz wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just know I won't be clicking on Picasa links.
> >>
> >> I thought you said you KNEW what you were doing? If your system is as
> >> secure as you say what does it matter what you click on? What a pussy
> >> you are Steve. No wonder you have went from programming to designing
> >> toilets. I would call that a negative career upgrade.
> >
> > oh, i don't know. programmers are a dime a dozen, if that.
>
> I can understand why someone who knows more about these things, would want
> to explain how they work... but why in the world do they have to be so nasty
> and
> bitchy about it. Do they think it makes them look clever? If so, I have
> some news for them..........

I could comment, but I won't, as I know him personally...
--
Peace! Om

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down."
--Steve Rothstein


Subscribe:

On Aug 30, 6:39*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:

> I would not enable Google's cookies under any
> conditions. *People who do are fools, and deserve
> what they will get.

I accept any and all cookies *for the session* and what's happened?
Zero. Good grief, you and I are not that important. I have my
scripts turn off as a matter of course though and turn them on as
needed.

sf

On Aug 30, 8:33*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:30:51 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:
> > Sqwertz wrote:
>
> >> You do know it'snotpossible to log into and use (effectively)
> >> *any* of the google sites having cookies turnedoff, right?
>
> > I do searches all the time without any trouble,
> > and I don't accept their cookies.
>
> Searching works fine, you got me on that oversight. *It's (I think)
> the only thing you don't have to *log in* for. *But it will slurp up
> that cookie if you have one, log you in, and record all your search
> requests without you having to shake a finger.
>
> -sw

Ever stop to think that nobody cares that you are completely paranoid?

On Aug 30, 8:19*pm, Bob Muncie > wrote:
>
> Please stop referring to me as "Munchie", bobbie, or she.
>
> That just labels you as rude. Would you prefer I address you as Stevie
> (or Stephanie), "it", or Squirts?
>
> Think about it.
>

He's rude, crude and knows he embarrasses himself in public. That's
why he doesn't archive his posts. Nuff said about No Balls Squirtz.

sf

Ophelia wrote:
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:29:28 -0700, cl wrote:
>>
>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just know I won't be clicking on Picasa links.
>>> I thought you said you KNEW what you were doing? If your system is as
>>> secure as you say what does it matter what you click on? What a pussy
>>> you are Steve. No wonder you have went from programming to designing
>>> toilets. I would call that a negative career upgrade.
>> oh, i don't know. programmers are a dime a dozen, if that.
>
> I can understand why someone who knows more about these things, would want
> to explain how they work... but why in the world do they have to be so nasty
> and
> bitchy about it. Do they think it makes them look clever? If so, I have
> some news for them..........
>
>
>
Ophelia -

Some of us are not that way. I'd rather be friends, than have people I'd
rather not know. I don't come to RFC to make enemies. I'd much rather be
nice, and share nice cooking things.

And yes, I am geek enough, that if you want advice, I would help.

Bob

sf wrote:
> On Aug 30, 6:39 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>> I would not enable Google's cookies under any
>> conditions. People who do are fools, and deserve
>> what they will get.
>
> I accept any and all cookies *for the session* and what's happened?
> Zero. Good grief, you and I are not that important. I have my
> scripts turn off as a matter of course though and turn them on as
> needed.
>
> sf
>

That is a pretty good strategy... I do the same. And as I said
previously, I use CCleaner when finished for the day.

But I don't accept "all" cookies. But they are something I can click to
accept.

Bob

"Bob Muncie" > wrote in message
...
> Ophelia wrote:
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:29:28 -0700, cl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just know I won't be clicking on Picasa links.
>>>> I thought you said you KNEW what you were doing? If your system is as
>>>> secure as you say what does it matter what you click on? What a pussy
>>>> you are Steve. No wonder you have went from programming to designing
>>>> toilets. I would call that a negative career upgrade.
>>> oh, i don't know. programmers are a dime a dozen, if that.
>>
>> I can understand why someone who knows more about these things, would
>> want
>> to explain how they work... but why in the world do they have to be so
>> nasty and
>> bitchy about it. Do they think it makes them look clever? If so, I have
>> some news for them..........
>>
>>
>>
> Ophelia -
>
> Some of us are not that way. I'd rather be friends, than have people I'd
> rather not know. I don't come to RFC to make enemies. I'd much rather be
> nice, and share nice cooking things.
>
> And yes, I am geek enough, that if you want advice, I would help.

Yes, I know.