Internet Explorer 5.2.3 for Mac

In article <xcWdnTzpTbCAiuLcRVn->,
Wes Groleau <groleau+> wrote:

> About the same time, I checked logs on another website and found IE
> only about half.

WES, YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST PERSON ON USENET!

Read the ****ing stats. Anyone can make anything from a single anecdote,
but to make a sweeping assumption from a single set of logs from a
single web site is the most asinine thing I've read since Bush told the
country Saddam had vast stockpiles of WMD.

You are a complete moron.

"Michael Vilain <>" wrote:
> Wes, pay no attention to that little crazy man behind the curtain...

I didn't need google or a second post
to know what file to put that one in.

--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy

John B. Matthews wrote:
> <shudder> Do you mean there are _incomplete_ morons lurking about:-)

I think you just answered one.

--
Wes Groleau

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy

In article <E56dnVrnpb_Ei-LcRVn->,
Wes Groleau <groleau+> wrote:

> Ian Gregory wrote:
> > Yes, a link would be nice. I don't know of any recent stats
> > but almost exactly a year ago John Gruber posted some stats
> > for people accessing his Daring Fireball site. The relevent
> > bit is:
>
> I didn't say on the Mac. The closest thing
> on the Mac to IE/Win is IE. As for stats,
> there are plenty of people who will tell you
> IE is over fifty percent. I think they are
> exaggerating, but the sad fact is, it's still
> far too many.

Actually a few competing browsers can be configured so say they are IE when
they are in fact something else. This totally hoses any effort to see what
browsers people are actually

> Nevertheless, my genealogy and history web site
> is not the place to preach against Microsloth
> Especially if Microsloth users can't read it. :-)

If you write HMTL so bad IE cannot handle it there is no hope. :-)

In article <me->,
Vingo Optomalicious <> wrote:

> In article <E56dnVrnpb_Ei-LcRVn->,
> Wes Groleau <groleau+> wrote:
>
> > I didn't say on the Mac.
>
> Well then you're a moron because as another poster pointed out, IE on
> Windows is nothing like IE on the Mac.

Even more so because this is comp.sys.mac.system
^^^
> He was talking about IE on the Mac. Inserting IE Windows into the
> conversation was a complete non-sequitur and added nothing to the
> conversation.
>
> As it stands, IE Windows is more than 70 percent of the browser market,
> which you'd know if you knew how to do a ****ing Google search.

The problem is there is little to really back up that claim. Archives and
browser id changing mess the data figures to the point they are boarderline
useless.

Bruce Grubb wrote:
> If you write HMTL so bad IE cannot handle it there is no hope. :-)

I write very simple HTML, but even so, once in a while
one browser or another manages to screw it up.

IE is not exempt from bugs. Can anything good come out of Redmond?


--
Wes Groleau

A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

In article <bgrubb-> Bruce Grubb,
writes:
>Actually a few competing browsers can be configured so say they are IE when
>they are in fact something else. This totally hoses any effort to see what
>browsers people are actually

I just don't get why other browsers insist to id themselves as IE. This
decisions will keep enforcing the incompatibility issue with Web
standards.

I wonder if the next IE will comply with the standards. Is Microsoft
aware of the damage that they have done?