Disable Internet Explorer 11

On Tue, 20 May 2014 14:39:06 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/20/2014 2:07 PM:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 15:03:37 -0400, caver1 wrote:

So evidently Microsoft was in the link.

It is *not enough* for "Microsoft [to be] in the link" - it has to be as
I described in my post:

http://microsft.com/stuff (and so on)

The links you quoted (that I clipped) obey that, but your remark needed
to be clarified.


????

microsft.com != microsoft.com

OK, try to learn to understand the existence of typos.

My spell checker flags "microsoft" as incorrect, since it thinks a
capital M is needed, so the red wiggly line under the error didn't
succeed in getting my attention.

I think I'm supposed to proofread, so that's a reason, not an excuse.
What's yours?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sun, 11 May 2014 23:47:18 -0400, Caver1 wrote:

On 05/11/2014 07:24 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2014 14:20:55 -0400, Nil wrote:

On 11 May 2014, Caver1 wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

So are you saying that Ken1943 posts using Google groups? If
Ken1943 were I wouldn't see any of his posts.
I have checked the thread a couple of times. And not in the same
session. And just did this session.
If he posted another time let him prove it.

I see four posts from Ken. It's up to you to find them. He doesn't have
to prove a damn thing.

+1

But in this case, 4 +1 != 5 :-)

I am starting to wonder why Caver1 has so many problems that no one else
seems to have...


Why do you think that two problems related to 8.1 is so many? The third
is not OS related it is a server problem. Because of it I ran into the
second problem. The other problem I had there is a second poster that
has the same or related problem that I had.
If 2 is so many what is 5 or 6?

Overwhelming!

That's meant as humor. I make no claims as to whether it succeeds.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/20/2014 7:54 PM:
On Tue, 20 May 2014 14:39:06 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/20/2014 2:07 PM:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 15:03:37 -0400, caver1 wrote:

So evidently Microsoft was in the link.

It is *not enough* for "Microsoft [to be] in the link" - it has to be as
I described in my post:

http://microsft.com/stuff (and so on)

The links you quoted (that I clipped) obey that, but your remark needed
to be clarified.


????

microsft.com != microsoft.com

OK, try to learn to understand the existence of typos.

My spell checker flags "microsoft" as incorrect, since it thinks a
capital M is needed, so the red wiggly line under the error didn't
succeed in getting my attention.

I think I'm supposed to proofread, so that's a reason, not an excuse.
What's yours?

I can't believe that a person would actually type a URL when copy/paste
is so simple!

On Tue, 20 May 2014 20:18:42 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/20/2014 7:54 PM:
On Tue, 20 May 2014 14:39:06 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/20/2014 2:07 PM:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 15:03:37 -0400, caver1 wrote:

So evidently Microsoft was in the link.

It is *not enough* for "Microsoft [to be] in the link" - it has to be as
I described in my post:

http://microsft.com/stuff (and so on)

The links you quoted (that I clipped) obey that, but your remark needed
to be clarified.


????

microsft.com != microsoft.com

OK, try to learn to understand the existence of typos.

My spell checker flags "microsoft" as incorrect, since it thinks a
capital M is needed, so the red wiggly line under the error didn't
succeed in getting my attention.

I think I'm supposed to proofread, so that's a reason, not an excuse.
What's yours?

I can't believe that a person would actually type a URL when copy/paste
is so simple!

I certainly believe that a person wouldn't use copy and paste when the
URL in question is not present, as in the given instance.

OTOH, I can also believe that a person might type something whenever
said person wants to.

Of course, it seems that I don't make the rules here.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 5/11/2014 12:12 PM, Caver1 wrote:
On 05/11/2014 10:52 AM, Paul wrote:

6) If you unistall the program, it takes the version down a notch, to
IE10.


Also IE 11 was
built for Windows 8. Will IE 10 work in 8 I don't know. Microsoft also
stated that they would be offering IE 11 to Windows 7 users in the
future sometime.


That's funny. My Windows 8 computer came with IE 10, and I installed IE
11 on my Windows 7 computer months ago.

Gene E. Bloch wrote, On 5/20/2014 7:54 PM:
On Tue, 20 May 2014 14:39:06 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/20/2014 2:07 PM:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 15:03:37 -0400, caver1 wrote:

So evidently Microsoft was in the link.

It is *not enough* for "Microsoft [to be] in the link" - it has to be as
I described in my post:

http://microsft.com/stuff (and so on)

The links you quoted (that I clipped) obey that, but your remark needed
to be clarified.


????

microsft.com != microsoft.com

OK, try to learn to understand the existence of typos.

My spell checker flags "microsoft" as incorrect, since it thinks a
capital M is needed, so the red wiggly line under the error didn't
succeed in getting my attention.

I think I'm supposed to proofread, so that's a reason, not an excuse.
What's yours?


Imo, the typo didn't matter since it was only in reference to making a
point about an unclear remark. The link correctly or incorrectly spelled
would be of little relevance.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Wed, 21 May 2014 00:11:50 -0400, ...winston wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote, On 5/20/2014 7:54 PM:
On Tue, 20 May 2014 14:39:06 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/20/2014 2:07 PM:
On Mon, 19 May 2014 15:03:37 -0400, caver1 wrote:

So evidently Microsoft was in the link.

It is *not enough* for "Microsoft [to be] in the link" - it has to be as
I described in my post:

http://microsft.com/stuff (and so on)

The links you quoted (that I clipped) obey that, but your remark needed
to be clarified.


????

microsft.com != microsoft.com

OK, try to learn to understand the existence of typos.

My spell checker flags "microsoft" as incorrect, since it thinks a
capital M is needed, so the red wiggly line under the error didn't
succeed in getting my attention.

I think I'm supposed to proofread, so that's a reason, not an excuse.
What's yours?


Imo, the typo didn't matter since it was only in reference to making a
point about an unclear remark. The link correctly or incorrectly spelled
would be of little relevance.

I quite agree, and in fact most people would immediately see what I
intended.

It does show that I was careless, possibly not for the first time, and
maybe even not for the last time. Of course, that might not make me
unique.

The reason for many of my replies in this subthread is that for some
reason (unknown to me) Alek Trishan can't seem to find it in his heart
to forgive this sin.

Given his nym, I should probably be shocked.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/21/2014 1:25 PM:

Imo, the typo didn't matter since it was only in reference to making a
point about an unclear remark. The link correctly or incorrectly spelled
would be of little relevance.

I quite agree, and in fact most people would immediately see what I
intended.

It does show that I was careless, possibly not for the first time, and
maybe even not for the last time. Of course, that might not make me
unique.

The reason for many of my replies in this subthread is that for some
reason (unknown to me) Alek Trishan can't seem to find it in his heart
to forgive this sin.

Given that people would likely click on your link, you have a
responsibility to proofread.

On Wed, 21 May 2014 14:04:53 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/21/2014 1:25 PM:

Imo, the typo didn't matter since it was only in reference to making a
point about an unclear remark. The link correctly or incorrectly spelled
would be of little relevance.

I quite agree, and in fact most people would immediately see what I
intended.

It does show that I was careless, possibly not for the first time, and
maybe even not for the last time. Of course, that might not make me
unique.

The reason for many of my replies in this subthread is that for some
reason (unknown to me) Alek Trishan can't seem to find it in his heart
to forgive this sin.

Given that people would likely click on your link, you have a
responsibility to proofread.

It should have been obvious even to you that the link was bogus either
way:

http://microsft.com/stuff

http://microsoft.com/stuff

Does "stuff" sound to you like a legitimate site? Did you actually click
on it?

You also seem not to have noticed that in at least two posts I said the
equivalent of 'mea culpa'.

OK now, how about giving us the reasons for your vendetta against me?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 14:04:53 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/21/2014 1:25 PM:
Imo, the typo didn't matter since it was only in reference to making a
point about an unclear remark. The link correctly or incorrectly spelled
would be of little relevance.
I quite agree, and in fact most people would immediately see what I
intended.

It does show that I was careless, possibly not for the first time, and
maybe even not for the last time. Of course, that might not make me
unique.

The reason for many of my replies in this subthread is that for some
reason (unknown to me) Alek Trishan can't seem to find it in his heart
to forgive this sin.
Given that people would likely click on your link, you have a
responsibility to proofread.

It should have been obvious even to you that the link was bogus either
way:

http://microsft.com/stuff

http://microsoft.com/stuff

Does "stuff" sound to you like a legitimate site? Did you actually click
on it?

You also seem not to have noticed that in at least two posts I said the
equivalent of 'mea culpa'.

OK now, how about giving us the reasons for your vendetta against me?


Most people are copying a URL out of some other tool,
like the URL bar of their browser perhaps. You should
not often be typing links from memory. And "laundering"
a link by testing it yourself (type it into browser, check
that it works), would also reduce the risk of errors
to a low level. Then copy and paste from the URL bar.

Paul

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/21/2014 2:49 PM:

You also seem not to have noticed that in at least two posts I said the
equivalent of 'mea culpa'.

OK now, how about giving us the reasons for your vendetta against me?


You're joking, as usual, right?

On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:32:46 -0400, Paul wrote:

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 14:04:53 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/21/2014 1:25 PM:
Imo, the typo didn't matter since it was only in reference to making a
point about an unclear remark. The link correctly or incorrectly spelled
would be of little relevance.
I quite agree, and in fact most people would immediately see what I
intended.

It does show that I was careless, possibly not for the first time, and
maybe even not for the last time. Of course, that might not make me
unique.

The reason for many of my replies in this subthread is that for some
reason (unknown to me) Alek Trishan can't seem to find it in his heart
to forgive this sin.
Given that people would likely click on your link, you have a
responsibility to proofread.

It should have been obvious even to you that the link was bogus either
way:

http://microsft.com/stuff

http://microsoft.com/stuff

Does "stuff" sound to you like a legitimate site? Did you actually click
on it?

You also seem not to have noticed that in at least two posts I said the
equivalent of 'mea culpa'.

OK now, how about giving us the reasons for your vendetta against me?


Most people are copying a URL out of some other tool,
like the URL bar of their browser perhaps. You should
not often be typing links from memory. And "laundering"
a link by testing it yourself (type it into browser, check
that it works), would also reduce the risk of errors
to a low level. Then copy and paste from the URL bar.

Paul

This was not ever meant to be a real link, but a picture of what
distinguishes real Microsoft links from fake ones.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 21 May 2014 17:07:57 -0400, Alek Trishan wrote:

Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/21/2014 2:49 PM:

You also seem not to have noticed that in at least two posts I said the
equivalent of 'mea culpa'.

OK now, how about giving us the reasons for your vendetta against me?


You're joking, as usual, right?

No, but I'm willing to see our interchange differently so that what I
said above has to morph into a joke.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Alek Trishan wrote, On 5/21/2014 2:04 PM:
Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/21/2014 1:25 PM:

Imo, the typo didn't matter since it was only in reference to making a
point about an unclear remark. The link correctly or incorrectly spelled
would be of little relevance.

I quite agree, and in fact most people would immediately see what I
intended.

It does show that I was careless, possibly not for the first time, and
maybe even not for the last time. Of course, that might not make me
unique.

The reason for many of my replies in this subthread is that for some
reason (unknown to me) Alek Trishan can't seem to find it in his heart
to forgive this sin.

Given that people would likely click on your link, you have a
responsibility to proofread.


That's possible but afaics at this stage not too many others really give
a $#it whether that responsibility or admitting of same is necessary.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Wed, 21 May 2014 20:35:05 -0400, ...winston wrote:

Alek Trishan wrote, On 5/21/2014 2:04 PM:
Gene E. Bloch has written on 5/21/2014 1:25 PM:

Imo, the typo didn't matter since it was only in reference to making a
point about an unclear remark. The link correctly or incorrectly spelled
would be of little relevance.

I quite agree, and in fact most people would immediately see what I
intended.

It does show that I was careless, possibly not for the first time, and
maybe even not for the last time. Of course, that might not make me
unique.

The reason for many of my replies in this subthread is that for some
reason (unknown to me) Alek Trishan can't seem to find it in his heart
to forgive this sin.

Given that people would likely click on your link, you have a
responsibility to proofread.


That's possible but afaics at this stage not too many others really give
a $#it whether that responsibility or admitting of same is necessary.

OK, I'll shut up. Makes sense to do that...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)