I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof? - Linux

This is a discussion on I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof? - Linux ; After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:37:41 +0000, Tim Smith wrote: > >> On 2007-10-08, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> Linonut told us that all >>>> servers should ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

  1. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:37:41 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-10-08, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>> Linonut told us that all
    >>>> servers should give free access to everyone.
    >>>
    >>> Given your reading comprehension problems and your (and Tim Hadrons) inbred
    >>> dishonesty, you would have to provide exact Msg-IDs

    >>
    >> No need. Linonut has jumped in to make the claim again.

    >
    > You think this 'only the favoured few get access' thing is a good idea,
    > then? I don't.


    Tim's an idiot. Completely mistaking me for Tim Berners-Lee,
    apparently. Not only that, completely mistaking an opinion about a
    desired ideal (shared by the founder of the Web) with a dogmatic
    statement about proprietary concerns.

    Tim's a smarmy ****er.

    What I don't get is why he gives a rat's ass what I say, to the point
    that he seems to make excuses to bring up his distorted picture of my
    words. This ghosty dogging of my spoor is a symptom of something bad, I
    fear. Creeps me out.



    --
    Tux rox!

  2. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kier

    wrote
    on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:46:00 +0100
    :
    > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:37:41 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-10-08, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>> Linonut told us that all
    >>>> servers should give free access to everyone.
    >>>
    >>> Given your reading comprehension problems and your (and Tim Hadrons) inbred
    >>> dishonesty, you would have to provide exact Msg-IDs

    >>
    >> No need. Linonut has jumped in to make the claim again.

    >
    > You think this 'only the favoured few get access' thing is a good idea,
    > then? I don't.
    >


    This could get interesting, and not in a good way.
    It's already bad enough that one has to pay a monthly
    stipend to various companies (though one might justify
    that on a maintenance basis -- someone's gotta pay the
    repair bills if a construction worker accidentally digs
    up a fiberoptic line!) to get home Internet access and
    some basic services, but now the Internet is beginning to
    strirate, apparently; a rich user will buy Windows and get
    all of the access it provides, whereas a poor user might
    be stuck with freeware offerings that will only provide
    "separate but equal" functionality.

    Too bad for the poor, apparently. (What is the Internet
    equivalent of "cake"?) Granted, the commercial sector
    is not the governmental, but the poor are people too last
    I checked -- and there are more of them every year, some
    of them with children. While the causes of such economic
    dislocations are well beyond the scope of COLA, there's
    some interesting and disturbing issues going on and Linux
    does fit thereinto, after a fashion.

    And then there's

    http://computer.howstuffworks.com/penny-per-page.htm

    which is a proposal to take care of some of the Web's
    problems by having everyone pay a stipend per page view or
    page download -- the suggested amount being $0.01, commonly
    referred to as "a penny" here in the US. There are
    hints of this in the HTTP spec as well -- 402 "Payment
    Required" has been marked for future use for awhile.
    One of the problems with the Web is that the *server*
    has to pay costs related to the user's requests for data;
    these costs should probably be assessed on the user at some
    point, though most users (myself included) would rebel.
    Of course considering that one can buy a bit for about
    50 picocents at the retail level (assuming $20/month and
    1.5 Mb/s), and most webpages are about 1 megabyte or so
    at the most, one is looking at an assessment of about 4.1
    millicents therefor, given the current pricing structure.
    Charging a penny for a 1 megabyte page would therefore
    be about a 25,000 x markup in this case. Of course with
    Flash files that take several seconds to load, there might
    be less of a markup -- Flash files can be pretty big.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
    bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:16:19 +0000, Linonut wrote:

    > Tim's a smarmy ****er.
    >
    > What I don't get is why he gives a rat's ass what I say, to the point
    > that he seems to make excuses to bring up his distorted picture of my
    > words. This ghosty dogging of my spoor is a symptom of something bad, I
    > fear. Creeps me out.


    Bad form, certainly, and deeply unnecessary. Don't know what's got into
    him.

    --
    Kier


  4. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    High Plains Thumper wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> No really. He did say that. Do you agree or disagree Mr
    >>>> Mental?
    >>>
    >>> Another fine "linux advocacy post" from the "true linux
    >>> advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert",
    >>> "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin",
    >>> "newsreader magician" and "hardware maven" Hadron Quark, aka
    >>> Hans Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary.

    >>
    >> Actually it is. It is at least discussing "openness" of
    >> servers. What is your contribution troll boy?

    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/2sv65p
    >
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    > [quote]
    > I do admit I troll sometimes. It is amusing to watch puppets like
    > yourself twitch."
    > [/quote


    How quaint, a troll calling you a troll. Typical troll diversionary tactic
    though.
    He also said: "Of course I troll sometimes. I never denied it."
    Hadron
    Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    Message-ID:
    Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007



    --
    Operating systems:
    FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4
    Testing: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
    (K)Ubuntu 7.04, Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" beta

  5. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > Tim's an idiot. Completely mistaking me for Tim Berners-Lee,
    > apparently. Not only that, completely mistaking an opinion about a
    > desired ideal (shared by the founder of the Web) with a dogmatic
    > statement about proprietary concerns.
    >
    > Tim's a smarmy ****er.
    >
    > What I don't get is why he gives a rat's ass what I say, to the point
    > that he seems to make excuses to bring up his distorted picture of my
    > words. This ghosty dogging of my spoor is a symptom of something bad, I
    > fear. Creeps me out.
    >
    >


    I posted that a server owner has the right to block people. You replied
    to that, quoting Berners-Lee and me, in a way that tried to make it look
    like my position was at odds with what Berners-Lee said, and at odds
    with the very foundation of the internet.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    In article ,
    Kier wrote:
    > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:37:41 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    > > On 2007-10-08, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > >>> Linonut told us that all
    > >>> servers should give free access to everyone.
    > >>
    > >> Given your reading comprehension problems and your (and Tim Hadrons) inbred
    > >> dishonesty, you would have to provide exact Msg-IDs

    > >
    > > No need. Linonut has jumped in to make the claim again.

    >
    > You think this 'only the favoured few get access' thing is a good idea,
    > then? I don't.


    No, what I think is that the person that is paying for the server gets
    to decide who uses it. Their server, their rules.

    Linonut disagrees, but refuses to provide any reasons. At least twice,
    he's simply repeated my statement that server owners have a right to
    decide who uses their server, along with a quote from Berners-Lee about
    the importance of open access.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    William Poaster wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> No really. He did say that. Do you agree or disagree
    >>>>> Mr Mental?
    >>>>
    >>>> Another fine "linux advocacy post" from the "true linux
    >>>> advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile
    >>>> expert", "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server
    >>>> admin", "newsreader magician" and "hardware maven"
    >>>> Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary.
    >>>
    >>> Actually it is. It is at least discussing "openness" of
    >>> servers. What is your contribution troll boy?

    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/2sv65p
    >>
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>
    I do admit I troll sometimes. It is amusing to watch
    >> puppets like yourself twitch."

    >
    > How quaint, a troll calling you a troll. Typical troll
    > diversionary tactic though. He also said: "Of course I troll
    > sometimes. I never denied it."
    >
    > Hadron
    > Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    > Message-ID:
    > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007


    True, utter gob****e and shame to the troll.

    I get even a greater kick out of these accusers. I "nym-shifted"
    as HPT with Albasani, HPT with Cnntp, HPT with Motzarella and HPT
    with Google-Groups. With exception to Google-Groups, these
    others are free services, they require authentication prior to
    posting or downloading. The have an AUP. ISP can terminate them
    for abuse, hence why you see them watching their P's and Q's when
    posting.

    Since my ISP does not offer Usenet service, I have made do with
    free servers. However, because they are free, are not always up
    100% of the time but they are quite good. Since there are
    restrictions to cross posting, I can't reply to "Flatty" (or
    whoever She/He/IT is) in a single post. That is why sometimes
    you may see multiple posts or missing newsgroups in the post.

    Those replies best left to the Windows cross post groups I leave
    out COLA. Those best for COLA I leave out of Windows. Albasani
    has all the Windows groups, Cnntp does not.

    In summarising, the trolls major in the minors, bringing up
    insignificant matters and exploding them to major proportions.
    These "Chicken Littles" of the Usenet ether by doing so,
    demonstrate they are only here to troll.

    Their only purpose (including Hadron) is to demoralise, debase,
    debauch, degrade, discourage, destabilise and denounce Linux and
    Open Source advocacy. By attacking the advocates, they are doing
    a psychological process called, "wearing one down".

    Why do they do this? Only the Lord himself knows. However, it
    is a true statement, "You reap what you sowed." I cannot but
    think that somewhere in their lives, they must be paying a price,
    albeit their family relationships, employment or health. One
    does not gather good fruit from a bad tree.

    --
    HPT

  8. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    ____/ William Poaster on Monday 08 October 2007 23:30 : \____

    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> No really. He did say that. Do you agree or disagree Mr
    >>>>> Mental?
    >>>>
    >>>> Another fine "linux advocacy post" from the "true linux
    >>>> advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert",
    >>>> "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin",
    >>>> "newsreader magician" and "hardware maven" Hadron Quark, aka
    >>>> Hans Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary.
    >>>
    >>> Actually it is. It is at least discussing "openness" of
    >>> servers. What is your contribution troll boy?

    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/2sv65p
    >>
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> [quote]
    >> I do admit I troll sometimes. It is amusing to watch puppets like
    >> yourself twitch."
    >> [/quote

    >
    > How quaint, a troll calling you a troll. Typical troll diversionary tactic
    > though.
    > He also said: "Of course I troll sometimes. I never denied it."
    > Hadron
    > Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
    > Message-ID:
    > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007


    'Hadron' enjoys being a part of the scum by defending and joining it.

    Gary/Scott has not given up. Tried again earlier (twice).

    [Mon Oct 8 19:48:18 2007] [error] [client 24.60.155.178] client denied by
    server configuration: /home/boycottn/public_html/index.php
    [Mon Oct 8 19:48:18 2007] [error] [client 24.60.155.178] client denied by
    server configuration: /home/boycottn/public_html/2007
    [Mon Oct 8 19:35:12 2007] [error] [client 24.60.155.178] client denied by
    server configuration: /home/boycottn/public_html/index.php
    [Mon Oct 8 19:35:12 2007] [error] [client 24.60.155.178] client denied by
    server configuration: /home/boycottn/public_html
    [Mon Oct 8 19:29:02 2007] [error] [client 24.60.155.178] client denied by
    server configuration: /home/boycottn/public_html/index.php
    [Mon Oct 8 19:29:02 2007] [error] [client 24.60.155.178] client denied by
    server configuration: /home/boycottn/public_html

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    A computer is like air conditioning: it becomes useless when you open windows.
    ~Linus Torvalds
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  9. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:21:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Kier wrote:
    >> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:37:41 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >> > On 2007-10-08, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> >>> Linonut told us that all
    >> >>> servers should give free access to everyone.
    >> >>
    >> >> Given your reading comprehension problems and your (and Tim Hadrons) inbred
    >> >> dishonesty, you would have to provide exact Msg-IDs
    >> >
    >> > No need. Linonut has jumped in to make the claim again.

    >>
    >> You think this 'only the favoured few get access' thing is a good idea,
    >> then? I don't.

    >
    > No, what I think is that the person that is paying for the server gets
    > to decide who uses it. Their server, their rules.


    Possibly, but that defeats the object of the exercise. If you put a server
    facing the public, then it should either be acessible to all, or it should
    be made private, by paid membership for access, or something. It shouldn't
    just bar users arbirarily for using the wrong browser (which as, if I
    recall, what started off the original debate).

    >
    > Linonut disagrees, but refuses to provide any reasons. At least twice,
    > he's simply repeated my statement that server owners have a right to
    > decide who uses their server, along with a quote from Berners-Lee about
    > the importance of open access.


    Then I think you know very well what his answer is. Stop being a
    disingenuous arse, Tim.

    --
    Kier


  10. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    Kier wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:21:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> Kier wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:37:41 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > On 2007-10-08, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>> >>> Linonut told us that all
    >>> >>> servers should give free access to everyone.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Given your reading comprehension problems and your (and Tim Hadrons)
    >>> >> inbred dishonesty, you would have to provide exact Msg-IDs
    >>> >
    >>> > No need. Linonut has jumped in to make the claim again.
    >>>
    >>> You think this 'only the favoured few get access' thing is a good idea,
    >>> then? I don't.

    >>
    >> No, what I think is that the person that is paying for the server gets
    >> to decide who uses it. Their server, their rules.

    >
    > Possibly, but that defeats the object of the exercise. If you put a server
    > facing the public, then it should either be acessible to all, or it should
    > be made private, by paid membership for access, or something. It shouldn't
    > just bar users arbirarily for using the wrong browser (which as, if I
    > recall, what started off the original debate).
    >


    Oh, I disagree. Things would get better quite fast if enough sites would bar
    IE from accessing the sites and explicitly saying that IE is a no-go

    Malware would at least be a little less rampant than it now is
    --
    If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.


  11. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    High Plains Thumper wrote:



    > In summarising, the trolls major in the minors, bringing up
    > insignificant matters and exploding them to major proportions.


    "Making mountains out of molehills."

    > These "Chicken Littles" of the Usenet ether by doing so,
    > demonstrate they are only here to troll.


    That's their sole purpose. They must live lonely lives.

    > Their only purpose (including Hadron) is to demoralise, debase,
    > debauch, degrade, discourage, destabilise and denounce Linux and
    > Open Source advocacy. By attacking the advocates, they are doing
    > a psychological process called, "wearing one down".


    As you say, their only purpose is a war of attrition, & they'll lead you
    round in circles, dancing to their tune. Entering into conversations with
    them & trying to debate anything, is a complete waste of time....*your*
    time....unless you've nothing better to do. (Personally, I've no time for
    idiots & trolls.) However if they're totally ignored they can't do much
    IMO. Seems to me that's why Quack gets so upset about my killfiles.

    > Why do they do this? Only the Lord himself knows. However, it
    > is a true statement, "You reap what you sowed." I cannot but
    > think that somewhere in their lives, they must be paying a price,
    > albeit their family relationships, employment or health. One
    > does not gather good fruit from a bad tree.



    --
    Operating systems:
    FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4
    Testing: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
    (K)Ubuntu 7.04, Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" beta

  12. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:08:40 +0200, Peter Khlmann wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:21:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Kier wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:37:41 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> > On 2007-10-08, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>> >>> Linonut told us that all
    >>>> >>> servers should give free access to everyone.
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> Given your reading comprehension problems and your (and Tim Hadrons)
    >>>> >> inbred dishonesty, you would have to provide exact Msg-IDs
    >>>> >
    >>>> > No need. Linonut has jumped in to make the claim again.
    >>>>
    >>>> You think this 'only the favoured few get access' thing is a good idea,
    >>>> then? I don't.
    >>>
    >>> No, what I think is that the person that is paying for the server gets
    >>> to decide who uses it. Their server, their rules.

    >>
    >> Possibly, but that defeats the object of the exercise. If you put a server
    >> facing the public, then it should either be acessible to all, or it should
    >> be made private, by paid membership for access, or something. It shouldn't
    >> just bar users arbirarily for using the wrong browser (which as, if I
    >> recall, what started off the original debate).
    >>

    >
    > Oh, I disagree. Things would get better quite fast if enough sites would bar
    > IE from accessing the sites and explicitly saying that IE is a no-go


    I totally disagree with censorship of that kind (or frankly, almost any
    kind). If it's wrong for firefox users it's wrong for IE users.

    >
    > Malware would at least be a little less rampant than it now is


    Possibly. But given the number of people using IE, it would be totaly
    impractical and unjustifiable in every other way to do what you suggest.

    --
    Kier


  13. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    Kier wrote:

    > Possibly. But given the number of people using IE, it would be totaly
    > impractical and unjustifiable in every other way to do what you
    > suggest.


    Considerations of practicality, justification, legality, and common sense
    are unimportant in the face of the sheer raging stupidity of a mindless cola
    "advocate" wishing to harm MS\Windows.

    The OS-terrorist cell Roy [H]omer Kent gives the impression it would break
    its mother's face if she bought it a copy of Windows Vista.




  14. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    William Poaster wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:




    >> Their only purpose (including Hadron) is to demoralise,
    >> debase, debauch, degrade, discourage, destabilise and
    >> denounce Linux and Open Source advocacy. By attacking the
    >> advocates, they are doing a psychological process called,
    >> "wearing one down".

    >
    > As you say, their only purpose is a war of attrition, &
    > they'll lead you round in circles, dancing to their tune.
    > Entering into conversations with them & trying to debate
    > anything, is a complete waste of time....*your* time....unless
    > you've nothing better to do. (Personally, I've no time for
    > idiots & trolls.) However if they're totally ignored they
    > can't do much IMO. Seems to me that's why Quack gets so upset
    > about my killfiles.


    Exactly, by doing so, you deprive him of the attention that he so
    very much craves. If one follows his threads and the replies he
    receives, end result is he looks very stupid in the argument.
    IOW, his mind games are backfiring, LOL.

    --
    HPT

  15. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:38:44 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> Possibly. But given the number of people using IE, it would be totaly
    >> impractical and unjustifiable in every other way to do what you
    >> suggest.

    >
    > Considerations of practicality, justification, legality, and common sense
    > are unimportant in the face of the sheer raging stupidity of a mindless cola
    > "advocate" wishing to harm MS\Windows.


    The majority of Linux advocates would prefer you to stick to Windows where
    you can do less harm with your nonsense ranting. Peter's opinion is his
    own, and does not constitute the majority, even in COLA.

    >
    > The OS-terrorist cell Roy [H]omer Kent gives the impression it would break
    > its mother's face if she bought it a copy of Windows Vista.


    Terorist is not a word to be bandied about in this stupid manner. Grow a
    brain.

    --
    Kier


  16. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    Peter Khlmann wrote:

    >Things would get better quite fast if enough sites would bar
    >IE from accessing the sites and explicitly saying that IE is a no-go
    >
    >Malware would at least be a little less rampant than it now is


    Well, if you wanted to spread malware, it would not make much sense to
    ban IE...


  17. Re: I Keep Reading About Gary Stewert = Flatfish. Where is the proof?

    Kier wrote:

    > On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:21:10 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >=20
    > > In article ,
    > > Kier wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:37:41 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    > >>=20
    > >> > On 2007-10-08, Peter K=C3=83=C2=B6hlmann

    e>
    > >> > wrote:
    > >> >>> Linonut told us that all=20
    > >> >>> servers should give free access to everyone.=20
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Given your reading comprehension problems and your (and Tim
    > >> >> Hadrons) inbred dishonesty, you would have to provide exact
    > >> >> Msg-IDs
    > >> >=20
    > >> > No need. Linonut has jumped in to make the claim again.
    > >>=20
    > >> You think this 'only the favoured few get access' thing is a good
    > >> idea, then? I don't.

    > >=20
    > > No, what I think is that the person that is paying for the server
    > > gets to decide who uses it. Their server, their rules.

    >=20
    > Possibly, but that defeats the object of the exercise. If you put a
    > server facing the public, then it should either be acessible to all,
    > or it should be made private, by paid membership for access, or
    > something. It shouldn't just bar users arbirarily for using the wrong
    > browser (which as, if I recall, what started off the original debate).


    I emphatically disagree. Restricting access based on browser brand is
    no different than Skype limiting access to their resources to software
    they're willing to support. Or indeed, web sites themselves not opening
    up to support direct POP3 downloads of arbitrary pages.

    IE is a risk, not only for its users but for the sites they visit.
    Infected systems and compromised browsers are one of the more lucrative
    ways attackers perform reconnaissance and gather data. Banning IE simply
    means a marked reduction in liability from the perspective of the
    content provider, and if the administrators of providers like banks and
    other mission critical sites had more guts than greed they'd *all*
    flatly ban Micro$oft browsers.