Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3 - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3 - Mozilla ; On May 23, 2:21 am, squaredancer wrote: > On 23/05/2007 11:10, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused > mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? : > > > On May 22, 8:01 am, squaredancer wrote: > > >> On ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

  1. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On May 23, 2:21 am, squaredancer wrote:
    > On 23/05/2007 11:10, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    > mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >
    > > On May 22, 8:01 am, squaredancer wrote:

    >
    > >> On 22/05/2007 16:34, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    > >> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :

    >
    > >>> On May 22, 3:06 am, squaredancer wrote:

    >
    > >>>> On 22/05/2007 11:41, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    > >>>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :

    >
    > >>>>> On May 22, 12:41 am, squaredancer wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>> On 22/05/2007 07:21, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    > >>>>>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :

    >
    > >>>>>>> There are several serious bugs in how Firefox 2.0.0.3
    > >>>>>>> (differing from Internet Explorer) fails to allow
    > >>>>>>> the user to edit a line he has already typed in.
    > >>>>>>> Since such line editing is an extremely high frequency functionality
    > >>>>>>> which the user performs, this is essential to be fixed immediately.

    >
    > >>>>>>> This shows up when the user re-edits the line typed into the Address
    > >>>>>>> field at the top of the Firefox page and when the user re-edits the
    > >>>>>>> line
    > >>>>>>> typed into Google or another web page.

    >
    > >>>>>>> 1) After re-editing text in the middle of the line, which is one of
    > >>>>>>> the most
    > >>>>>>> commonly performed actions when using an Internet Browser, Firefox
    > >>>>>>> will, when the user hits return, revert back to the previous line,
    > >>>>>>> before
    > >>>>>>> the edit.
    > >>>>>>> The bug seems to be that Firefox at this point defaults to the
    > >>>>>>> displayed
    > >>>>>>> AutoComplete line instead of the re-edit the user just typed.

    >
    > >>>>>>> This Bug needs to be fixed in the URL Address line at the top of the
    > >>>>>>> browser page and in any line editing on pages reached, such as the
    > >>>>>>> Google or Altavista command line.
    > >>>>>>> It is hard to imagine how Firefox Testers have not recognized
    > >>>>>>> and reported this outrageous Bug.

    >
    > >>>>>>> 2) Another usability Bug in Firefox which differs from
    > >>>>>>> Internet Explorer in the procession of mouse click text selections in
    > >>>>>>> the
    > >>>>>>> Firefox URL Address line.
    > >>>>>>> The first click on the text in the this Address line selects the whole
    > >>>>>>> field.
    > >>>>>>> Both Firefox and Internet Explorer perform this operation identically.
    > >>>>>>> This is useful is the user wishes to delete the whole line and replace
    > >>>>>>> it with something completely different.
    > >>>>>>> However, that is rarely the case, since all of these lines begin
    > >>>>>>> with "http://www. " and end with " .com" .

    >
    > >>>>>>> 3) Firefox and Internet Explorer differ when the user attempts to
    > >>>>>>> mouse click and drag in the selected text field and select a substring
    > >>>>>>> within that text line to change that text.
    > >>>>>>> The Firefox user is forced to make an additional click in the text
    > >>>>>>> field before he is allowed to then drag the mouse to select a
    > >>>>>>> substring for re-edit.
    > >>>>>>> An example would be to test whether Firefox or Internet Explorer is
    > >>>>>>> quicker at allowing the user to change the URL Address text from
    > >>>>>>> "http://www.google.com" to "http://www.altavista.com" .

    >
    > >>>>>>> 4) The best mouse click text selection progression within the URL
    > >>>>>>> Address line and perhaps in other places would be to highlight all
    > >>>>>>> text to the right of where the mouse is clicked, first or second in
    > >>>>>>> the progression, without even requiring the user to drag the mouse to
    > >>>>>>> achieve this.
    > >>>>>>> Any subsequent drag of this mouse from this initial position would
    > >>>>>>> then override the initial text selection default.

    >
    > >>>>>>> 5) There are also some bugs editing text in this Fire/Google
    > >>>>>>> interface to enter this text into this message, often involving
    > >>>>>>> failure of a mouse click within typed text to put the cursor where the
    > >>>>>>> mouse was clicked.

    >
    > >>>>>> sounds *VERY MUCH* as if your system has a serious fault! Either that,
    > >>>>>> or you are editing the input fields (they are *NOT* text-processing
    > >>>>>> areas) incorrectly.... once you have changed a text entry, you *MUST*
    > >>>>>> *MUST* *MUST* reset the cursor to complete the action (best is to end of
    > >>>>>> line and click)
    > >>>>>> BTW - the best way to avoid what you are getting???? TYPE CORRECTLY at
    > >>>>>> the first go!
    > >>>>>> reg

    >
    > >>>>> Clearly, this guy has used the Firefox program to the point
    > >>>>> that he knows that what I have described is a problem.
    > >>>>> But yet, that does not appear to be a high priority of his;
    > >>>>> he knows about it and yet has not posted a critical Bug
    > >>>>> of this high frequency magnitude to demand it be fixed.

    >
    > >>>> because....
    > >>>> it is *NOT* a high priority bug on my system and "way of working".
    > >>>> I use bookmarks - they work!
    > >>>> What you are seeing occurs on *my system* when I edit to an invalid URL
    > >>>> your post is a *rant* on the fact that *YOU* can't edit URLs correctly!

    >
    > >>>> reg

    >
    > >>> Again, this is more pointless Usenet epithets directed
    > >>> at someone's point of view, with which you disagree.
    > >>> If you disagree with my point of view, then disprove it.

    >
    > >> I can't disprove what isn't there... "point of view" ?? where do you
    > >> express one??
    > >> You *STATE* that what you have is VERY, VERY IMPORTANT to the
    > >> functioning of the internet... it isn't!

    >
    > >>> It is not caused simply by mistyping text in a URL
    > >>> or text in a Google/Altavista command line.
    > >>> Often, in pursuit of information, Real Users type
    > >>> in a series of command lines which are very similar.
    > >>> The similarity invokes the capability in these
    > >>> programs that Microsoft calls AutoComplete.

    >
    > >> Must we assume that *YOU* are a "Real User" (laugh my **** off at that one)
    > >> Did you look to see if FF has "Auto Complete" functionality, and did you
    > >> see if it can be toggled??

    >
    > >>> When you continue typing on the command line, you
    > >>> override that capability, and eventually create
    > >>> something unique.

    >
    > >> obviously your assumtion there is wrong! You are _inserting_ text into
    > >> an already located URL - any Auto Complete would (or, to use your
    > >> assumtions - should) start "auto-completing" from where you started
    > >> inserting!

    >
    > >>> When the user hits return, that unique command line
    > >>> should be entered and sent to the web site.
    > >>> However, that is not what happens and the
    > >>> AutoComplete line replaces what you typed and is
    > >>> sent instead.
    > >>> That is a huge Bug which interferes with the most
    > >>> basic functionality of the product.

    >
    > >> maybe you should use IE, as that fulfills your purpose??
    > >> You could, of course, start to re-code the application, as it is open
    > >> source and for anyone interested enough available for download!
    > >> As a "Real User" that shouldn't be too difficult a task for you, or...??
    > >> reg

    > > Do you consider it part of your job as a support person
    > > to communicate Real Bugs to the developers and ensure
    > > that those Bugs are fixed ?

    > nope!
    > I don't have any "real bugs" on my system - and I'm not a support
    > person either, but a very UNreal user!
    > As I wrote - you want something fixed real bad, get the code and *DO IT*
    > yourself!
    > reg


    It takes a significant amount of time to immerse oneself
    in how a program is written.
    There are already numerous people who have done that
    and have been allowed to enjoy working on and putting
    their name on various parts of the program.
    Those are the people who should be required
    to perform the maybe 2 hours extra work
    to fix these problems I have described.

    Next you will be telling us that those critical
    of Bugs in this product should also fix the
    potholes down the street, rather than expect those
    in city government, who already have made the
    investment in the needed equipment and research
    to do it.

    And I do not believe that all the people who have
    worked on the Mozilla source code have performed
    this service free of charge.


  2. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 23/05/2007 11:34, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    mkbrown32@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    > On May 23, 2:21 am, squaredancer wrote:
    >
    >> On 23/05/2007 11:10, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    >> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >>
    >>
    >>> On May 22, 8:01 am, squaredancer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 22/05/2007 16:34, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    >>>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >>>>
    >>>>> On May 22, 3:06 am, squaredancer wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 22/05/2007 11:41, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    >>>>>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On May 22, 12:41 am, squaredancer wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 22/05/2007 07:21, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    >>>>>>>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> There are several serious bugs in how Firefox 2.0.0.3
    >>>>>>>>> (differing from Internet Explorer) fails to allow
    >>>>>>>>> the user to edit a line he has already typed in.
    >>>>>>>>> Since such line editing is an extremely high frequency functionality
    >>>>>>>>> which the user performs, this is essential to be fixed immediately.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> This shows up when the user re-edits the line typed into the Address
    >>>>>>>>> field at the top of the Firefox page and when the user re-edits the
    >>>>>>>>> line
    >>>>>>>>> typed into Google or another web page.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> 1) After re-editing text in the middle of the line, which is one of
    >>>>>>>>> the most
    >>>>>>>>> commonly performed actions when using an Internet Browser, Firefox
    >>>>>>>>> will, when the user hits return, revert back to the previous line,
    >>>>>>>>> before
    >>>>>>>>> the edit.
    >>>>>>>>> The bug seems to be that Firefox at this point defaults to the
    >>>>>>>>> displayed
    >>>>>>>>> AutoComplete line instead of the re-edit the user just typed.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> This Bug needs to be fixed in the URL Address line at the top of the
    >>>>>>>>> browser page and in any line editing on pages reached, such as the
    >>>>>>>>> Google or Altavista command line.
    >>>>>>>>> It is hard to imagine how Firefox Testers have not recognized
    >>>>>>>>> and reported this outrageous Bug.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> 2) Another usability Bug in Firefox which differs from
    >>>>>>>>> Internet Explorer in the procession of mouse click text selections in
    >>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>> Firefox URL Address line.
    >>>>>>>>> The first click on the text in the this Address line selects the whole
    >>>>>>>>> field.
    >>>>>>>>> Both Firefox and Internet Explorer perform this operation identically.
    >>>>>>>>> This is useful is the user wishes to delete the whole line and replace
    >>>>>>>>> it with something completely different.
    >>>>>>>>> However, that is rarely the case, since all of these lines begin
    >>>>>>>>> with "http://www. " and end with " .com" .
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> 3) Firefox and Internet Explorer differ when the user attempts to
    >>>>>>>>> mouse click and drag in the selected text field and select a substring
    >>>>>>>>> within that text line to change that text.
    >>>>>>>>> The Firefox user is forced to make an additional click in the text
    >>>>>>>>> field before he is allowed to then drag the mouse to select a
    >>>>>>>>> substring for re-edit.
    >>>>>>>>> An example would be to test whether Firefox or Internet Explorer is
    >>>>>>>>> quicker at allowing the user to change the URL Address text from
    >>>>>>>>> "http://www.google.com" to "http://www.altavista.com" .
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> 4) The best mouse click text selection progression within the URL
    >>>>>>>>> Address line and perhaps in other places would be to highlight all
    >>>>>>>>> text to the right of where the mouse is clicked, first or second in
    >>>>>>>>> the progression, without even requiring the user to drag the mouse to
    >>>>>>>>> achieve this.
    >>>>>>>>> Any subsequent drag of this mouse from this initial position would
    >>>>>>>>> then override the initial text selection default.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> 5) There are also some bugs editing text in this Fire/Google
    >>>>>>>>> interface to enter this text into this message, often involving
    >>>>>>>>> failure of a mouse click within typed text to put the cursor where the
    >>>>>>>>> mouse was clicked.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> sounds *VERY MUCH* as if your system has a serious fault! Either that,
    >>>>>>>> or you are editing the input fields (they are *NOT* text-processing
    >>>>>>>> areas) incorrectly.... once you have changed a text entry, you *MUST*
    >>>>>>>> *MUST* *MUST* reset the cursor to complete the action (best is to end of
    >>>>>>>> line and click)
    >>>>>>>> BTW - the best way to avoid what you are getting???? TYPE CORRECTLY at
    >>>>>>>> the first go!
    >>>>>>>> reg
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Clearly, this guy has used the Firefox program to the point
    >>>>>>> that he knows that what I have described is a problem.
    >>>>>>> But yet, that does not appear to be a high priority of his;
    >>>>>>> he knows about it and yet has not posted a critical Bug
    >>>>>>> of this high frequency magnitude to demand it be fixed.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> because....
    >>>>>> it is *NOT* a high priority bug on my system and "way of working".
    >>>>>> I use bookmarks - they work!
    >>>>>> What you are seeing occurs on *my system* when I edit to an invalid URL
    >>>>>> your post is a *rant* on the fact that *YOU* can't edit URLs correctly!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> reg
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Again, this is more pointless Usenet epithets directed
    >>>>> at someone's point of view, with which you disagree.
    >>>>> If you disagree with my point of view, then disprove it.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I can't disprove what isn't there... "point of view" ?? where do you
    >>>> express one??
    >>>> You *STATE* that what you have is VERY, VERY IMPORTANT to the
    >>>> functioning of the internet... it isn't!
    >>>>
    >>>>> It is not caused simply by mistyping text in a URL
    >>>>> or text in a Google/Altavista command line.
    >>>>> Often, in pursuit of information, Real Users type
    >>>>> in a series of command lines which are very similar.
    >>>>> The similarity invokes the capability in these
    >>>>> programs that Microsoft calls AutoComplete.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Must we assume that *YOU* are a "Real User" (laugh my **** off at that one)
    >>>> Did you look to see if FF has "Auto Complete" functionality, and did you
    >>>> see if it can be toggled??
    >>>>
    >>>>> When you continue typing on the command line, you
    >>>>> override that capability, and eventually create
    >>>>> something unique.
    >>>>>
    >>>> obviously your assumtion there is wrong! You are _inserting_ text into
    >>>> an already located URL - any Auto Complete would (or, to use your
    >>>> assumtions - should) start "auto-completing" from where you started
    >>>> inserting!
    >>>>
    >>>>> When the user hits return, that unique command line
    >>>>> should be entered and sent to the web site.
    >>>>> However, that is not what happens and the
    >>>>> AutoComplete line replaces what you typed and is
    >>>>> sent instead.
    >>>>> That is a huge Bug which interferes with the most
    >>>>> basic functionality of the product.
    >>>>>
    >>>> maybe you should use IE, as that fulfills your purpose??
    >>>> You could, of course, start to re-code the application, as it is open
    >>>> source and for anyone interested enough available for download!
    >>>> As a "Real User" that shouldn't be too difficult a task for you, or...??
    >>>> reg
    >>>>
    >>> Do you consider it part of your job as a support person
    >>> to communicate Real Bugs to the developers and ensure
    >>> that those Bugs are fixed ?
    >>>

    >> nope!
    >> I don't have any "real bugs" on my system - and I'm not a support
    >> person either, but a very UNreal user!
    >> As I wrote - you want something fixed real bad, get the code and *DO IT*
    >> yourself!
    >> reg
    >>

    >
    > It takes a significant amount of time to immerse oneself
    > in how a program is written.
    >


    too true - I've been at it in my spare time since around 1967 and still
    can't do it properly

    > There are already numerous people who have done that
    > and have been allowed to enjoy working on and putting
    > their name on various parts of the program.
    > Those are the people who should be required
    > to perform the maybe 2 hours extra work
    > to fix these problems I have described.
    >


    Ya know what, fella??? This is one statement of yours that I actually
    agree with.... ain't that strange!

    > Next you will be telling us that those critical
    > of Bugs in this product should also fix the
    > potholes down the street, rather than expect those
    > in city government, who already have made the
    > investment in the needed equipment and research
    > to do it.
    >


    If it is *your car* getting damaged by those potholes - get a bucket of
    cement and fill them... it's to *YOUR* advantage

    > And I do not believe that all the people who have
    > worked on the Mozilla source code have performed
    > this service free of charge.
    >


    ah, yes! we had a lively discussion some weeks ago, ref:
    "Beliefs"...... PROOF is what's needed there... have you any?? (apart
    from the fact that it is general knowlage)

    reg


  3. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    squaredancer wrote:
    > On 23/05/2007 11:34, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    > mkbrown32@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >> On May 23, 2:21 am, squaredancer wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 23/05/2007 11:10, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    >>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> On May 22, 8:01 am, squaredancer wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 22/05/2007 16:34, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    >>>>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On May 22, 3:06 am, squaredancer wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 22/05/2007 11:41, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    >>>>>>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On May 22, 12:41 am, squaredancer wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2007 07:21, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused
    >>>>>>>>> mkbrow...@hotmail.com to generate the following:? :
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> There are several serious bugs in how Firefox 2.0.0.3
    >>>>>>>>>> (differing from Internet Explorer) fails to allow
    >>>>>>>>>> the user to edit a line he has already typed in.
    >>>>>>>>>> Since such line editing is an extremely high frequency
    >>>>>>>>>> functionality
    >>>>>>>>>> which the user performs, this is essential to be fixed
    >>>>>>>>>> immediately.
    >>>>>>>>>> This shows up when the user re-edits the
    >>>>>>>>>> line typed into the Address
    >>>>>>>>>> field at the top of the Firefox page and when the user
    >>>>>>>>>> re-edits the
    >>>>>>>>>> line
    >>>>>>>>>> typed into Google or another web page.
    >>>>>>>>>> 1) After re-editing text in the middle of
    >>>>>>>>>> the line, which is one of
    >>>>>>>>>> the most
    >>>>>>>>>> commonly performed actions when using an Internet Browser,
    >>>>>>>>>> Firefox
    >>>>>>>>>> will, when the user hits return, revert back to the previous
    >>>>>>>>>> line,
    >>>>>>>>>> before
    >>>>>>>>>> the edit.
    >>>>>>>>>> The bug seems to be that Firefox at this point defaults to the
    >>>>>>>>>> displayed
    >>>>>>>>>> AutoComplete line instead of the re-edit the user just typed.
    >>>>>>>>>> This Bug needs to be fixed in the URL
    >>>>>>>>>> Address line at the top of the
    >>>>>>>>>> browser page and in any line editing on pages reached, such as
    >>>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>>> Google or Altavista command line.
    >>>>>>>>>> It is hard to imagine how Firefox Testers have not recognized
    >>>>>>>>>> and reported this outrageous Bug.
    >>>>>>>>>> 2) Another usability Bug in Firefox which
    >>>>>>>>>> differs from
    >>>>>>>>>> Internet Explorer in the procession of mouse click text
    >>>>>>>>>> selections in
    >>>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>>> Firefox URL Address line.
    >>>>>>>>>> The first click on the text in the this Address line selects
    >>>>>>>>>> the whole
    >>>>>>>>>> field.
    >>>>>>>>>> Both Firefox and Internet Explorer perform this operation
    >>>>>>>>>> identically.
    >>>>>>>>>> This is useful is the user wishes to delete the whole line and
    >>>>>>>>>> replace
    >>>>>>>>>> it with something completely different.
    >>>>>>>>>> However, that is rarely the case, since all of these lines begin
    >>>>>>>>>> with "http://www. " and end with " .com" .
    >>>>>>>>>> 3) Firefox and Internet Explorer differ when
    >>>>>>>>>> the user attempts to
    >>>>>>>>>> mouse click and drag in the selected text field and select a
    >>>>>>>>>> substring
    >>>>>>>>>> within that text line to change that text.
    >>>>>>>>>> The Firefox user is forced to make an additional click in the
    >>>>>>>>>> text
    >>>>>>>>>> field before he is allowed to then drag the mouse to select a
    >>>>>>>>>> substring for re-edit.
    >>>>>>>>>> An example would be to test whether Firefox or Internet
    >>>>>>>>>> Explorer is
    >>>>>>>>>> quicker at allowing the user to change the URL Address text from
    >>>>>>>>>> "http://www.google.com" to "http://www.altavista.com" .
    >>>>>>>>>> 4) The best mouse click text selection
    >>>>>>>>>> progression within the URL
    >>>>>>>>>> Address line and perhaps in other places would be to highlight
    >>>>>>>>>> all
    >>>>>>>>>> text to the right of where the mouse is clicked, first or
    >>>>>>>>>> second in
    >>>>>>>>>> the progression, without even requiring the user to drag the
    >>>>>>>>>> mouse to
    >>>>>>>>>> achieve this.
    >>>>>>>>>> Any subsequent drag of this mouse from this initial position
    >>>>>>>>>> would
    >>>>>>>>>> then override the initial text selection default.
    >>>>>>>>>> 5) There are also some bugs editing text in
    >>>>>>>>>> this Fire/Google
    >>>>>>>>>> interface to enter this text into this message, often involving
    >>>>>>>>>> failure of a mouse click within typed text to put the cursor
    >>>>>>>>>> where the
    >>>>>>>>>> mouse was clicked.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> sounds *VERY MUCH* as if your system has a serious fault!
    >>>>>>>>> Either that,
    >>>>>>>>> or you are editing the input fields (they are *NOT*
    >>>>>>>>> text-processing
    >>>>>>>>> areas) incorrectly.... once you have changed a text entry, you
    >>>>>>>>> *MUST*
    >>>>>>>>> *MUST* *MUST* reset the cursor to complete the action (best is
    >>>>>>>>> to end of
    >>>>>>>>> line and click)
    >>>>>>>>> BTW - the best way to avoid what you are getting???? TYPE
    >>>>>>>>> CORRECTLY at
    >>>>>>>>> the first go!
    >>>>>>>>> reg
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Clearly, this guy has used the Firefox program to the point
    >>>>>>>> that he knows that what I have described is a problem.
    >>>>>>>> But yet, that does not appear to be a high priority of his;
    >>>>>>>> he knows about it and yet has not posted a critical Bug
    >>>>>>>> of this high frequency magnitude to demand it be fixed.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> because....
    >>>>>>> it is *NOT* a high priority bug on my system and "way of working".
    >>>>>>> I use bookmarks - they work!
    >>>>>>> What you are seeing occurs on *my system* when I edit to an
    >>>>>>> invalid URL
    >>>>>>> your post is a *rant* on the fact that *YOU* can't edit URLs
    >>>>>>> correctly!
    >>>>>>> reg
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Again, this is more pointless Usenet epithets directed
    >>>>>> at someone's point of view, with which you disagree.
    >>>>>> If you disagree with my point of view, then disprove it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> I can't disprove what isn't there... "point of view" ?? where do you
    >>>>> express one??
    >>>>> You *STATE* that what you have is VERY, VERY IMPORTANT to the
    >>>>> functioning of the internet... it isn't!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It is not caused simply by mistyping text in a URL
    >>>>>> or text in a Google/Altavista command line.
    >>>>>> Often, in pursuit of information, Real Users type
    >>>>>> in a series of command lines which are very similar.
    >>>>>> The similarity invokes the capability in these
    >>>>>> programs that Microsoft calls AutoComplete.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Must we assume that *YOU* are a "Real User" (laugh my **** off at
    >>>>> that one)
    >>>>> Did you look to see if FF has "Auto Complete" functionality, and
    >>>>> did you
    >>>>> see if it can be toggled??
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> When you continue typing on the command line, you
    >>>>>> override that capability, and eventually create
    >>>>>> something unique.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> obviously your assumtion there is wrong! You are _inserting_ text
    >>>>> into
    >>>>> an already located URL - any Auto Complete would (or, to use your
    >>>>> assumtions - should) start "auto-completing" from where you started
    >>>>> inserting!
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> When the user hits return, that unique command line
    >>>>>> should be entered and sent to the web site.
    >>>>>> However, that is not what happens and the
    >>>>>> AutoComplete line replaces what you typed and is
    >>>>>> sent instead.
    >>>>>> That is a huge Bug which interferes with the most
    >>>>>> basic functionality of the product.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> maybe you should use IE, as that fulfills your purpose??
    >>>>> You could, of course, start to re-code the application, as it is open
    >>>>> source and for anyone interested enough available for download!
    >>>>> As a "Real User" that shouldn't be too difficult a task for you,
    >>>>> or...??
    >>>>> reg
    >>>>>
    >>>> Do you consider it part of your job as a support person
    >>>> to communicate Real Bugs to the developers and ensure
    >>>> that those Bugs are fixed ?
    >>>>
    >>> nope!
    >>> I don't have any "real bugs" on my system - and I'm not a support
    >>> person either, but a very UNreal user!
    >>> As I wrote - you want something fixed real bad, get the code and *DO IT*
    >>> yourself!
    >>> reg
    >>>

    >>
    >> It takes a significant amount of time to immerse oneself
    >> in how a program is written.
    >>

    >
    > too true - I've been at it in my spare time since around 1967 and still
    > can't do it properly
    >
    >> There are already numerous people who have done that
    >> and have been allowed to enjoy working on and putting
    >> their name on various parts of the program.
    >> Those are the people who should be required
    >> to perform the maybe 2 hours extra work
    >> to fix these problems I have described.
    >>

    >
    > Ya know what, fella??? This is one statement of yours that I actually
    > agree with.... ain't that strange!
    >
    >> Next you will be telling us that those critical
    >> of Bugs in this product should also fix the
    >> potholes down the street, rather than expect those
    >> in city government, who already have made the
    >> investment in the needed equipment and research
    >> to do it.
    >>

    >
    > If it is *your car* getting damaged by those potholes - get a bucket of
    > cement and fill them... it's to *YOUR* advantage
    >


    Maybe not. I read about a guy who was doing that, and they sent the
    police after him. A pothole vigilante is not appreciated. In the same
    way, even if the user managed to write something to correct what he sees
    as a 'bug', getting it accepted so it would benefit like-minded others
    isn't likely.


    >> And I do not believe that all the people who have
    >> worked on the Mozilla source code have performed
    >> this service free of charge.
    >>

    >
    > ah, yes! we had a lively discussion some weeks ago, ref:
    > "Beliefs"...... PROOF is what's needed there... have you any?? (apart
    > from the fact that it is general knowlage)
    >
    > reg
    >



    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

  4. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 5/23/2007 7:56 AM Ron Hunter opined:



    >>
    >> If it is *your car* getting damaged by those potholes - get a bucket of
    >> cement and fill them... it's to *YOUR* advantage
    >>

    >
    > Maybe not. I read about a guy who was doing that, and they sent the
    > police after him. A pothole vigilante is not appreciated. In the same
    > way, even if the user managed to write something to correct what he sees
    > as a 'bug', getting it accepted so it would benefit like-minded others
    > isn't likely.


    a little trimming goes a long way, Ron - I had to go a ways to find your
    pearls.
    Let the OP file for a refund of the monies he paid for the egregious
    software.
    >


  5. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:
    > It takes a significant amount of time to immerse oneself in how a
    > program is written.

    You could just admit that you are not smart enough to do it. We'd all
    understand....
    > There are already numerous people who have done that and have been
    > allowed to enjoy working on and putting their name on various parts of
    > the program. Those are the people who should be required to perform
    > the maybe 2 hours extra work to fix these problems I have described.

    What fer? As stated already most of us don't experience the problem.
    Just because you don't know how to operate or configure your system does
    not mean that somebody must now fix your problems.
    > Next you will be telling us that those critical of Bugs in this
    > product should also fix the potholes down the street, rather than
    > expect those in city government, who already have made the investment
    > in the needed equipment and research to do it.

    WTF? Seek professional help.
    > And I do not believe that all the people who have worked on the
    > Mozilla source code have performed
    > this service free of charge.

    So what if they have. What is your stake in this? If you are
    dissatisfied with the product as it stands I suggest you return it for a
    full refund! ;-)

    Otherwise STFU!
    --
    ClearSCM, Inc.
    Andrew DeFaria, President
    Young at heart. Slightly older in other places.


  6. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 5/23/2007 9:01 PM Andrew DeFaria opined:



    >
    > Otherwise STFU!


    most useful thing said this thread...

    > --
    > ClearSCM, Inc.
    > Andrew DeFaria, President
    > Young at heart. Slightly older in other places.


    sig looks borke

  7. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    goodwin wrote:
    > On 5/23/2007 9:01 PM Andrew DeFaria opined:
    >
    >

    Thanks for your opinion.
    >> Otherwise STFU!

    > most useful thing said this thread...

    Too bad you didn't take this advice.
    >> --
    >> ClearSCM, Inc.
    >> Andrew DeFaria, President
    >> Young at heart. Slightly older in other places.

    > sig looks borke

    Bug in TB...
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    Just for today, I will not sit in my living room all day in my
    underwear. Instead, I will move my computer into the bedroom.


  8. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 5/24/2007 5:10 AM Andrew DeFaria opined:

    > goodwin wrote:
    >> On 5/23/2007 9:01 PM Andrew DeFaria opined:
    >>
    >>

    > Thanks for your opinion.


    fact, actually...

    >>> Otherwise STFU!

    >> most useful thing said this thread...

    > Too bad you didn't take this advice.


    awww, Andrew, feisty as ever...

    >>> --
    >>> ClearSCM, Inc.
    >>> Andrew DeFaria, President
    >>> Young at heart. Slightly older in other places.

    >> sig looks borke

    > Bug in TB...


    don't see it much...

  9. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    goodwin wrote:
    > On 5/24/2007 5:10 AM Andrew DeFaria opined:
    >> goodwin wrote:
    >>> On 5/23/2007 9:01 PM Andrew DeFaria opined:
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Thanks for your opinion.

    > fact, actually...

    Hardly. It's just your stupid opinion.
    >>>> Otherwise STFU!
    >>> most useful thing said this thread...

    >> Too bad you didn't take this advice.

    > awww, Andrew, feisty as ever...

    And why not?
    >>>> --
    >>>> ClearSCM, Inc.
    >>>> Andrew DeFaria, President
    >>>> Young at heart. Slightly older in other places.
    >>> sig looks borke

    >> Bug in TB...

    > don't see it much...

    Open your frigging eyes then...
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    Boycott shampoo! Demand the REAL poo!


  10. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On May 25, 1:05 pm, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    > goodwin wrote:
    > > On 5/24/2007 5:10 AM Andrew DeFaria opined:
    > >> goodwin wrote:
    > >>> On 5/23/2007 9:01 PM Andrew DeFaria opined:

    >
    > >>>
    > >> Thanks for your opinion.

    > > fact, actually...

    >
    > Hardly. It's just your stupid opinion.>>>> Otherwise STFU!
    > >>> most useful thing said this thread...
    > >> Too bad you didn't take this advice.

    > > awww, Andrew, feisty as ever...

    > And why not?
    > >>>> --
    > >>>> ClearSCM, Inc.
    > >>>> Andrew DeFaria, President
    > >>>> Young at heart. Slightly older in other places.
    > >>> sig looks borke
    > >> Bug in TB...

    > > don't see it much...

    >
    > Open your frigging eyes then...
    > --
    > Andrew DeFaria
    > Boycott shampoo! Demand the REAL poo!


    Tell the truth now:
    what is your reason for defending this program
    over these many fruitless years of wasted resources,
    besides being Paid ?


  11. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On May 25, 5:24 pm, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    > mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > Tell the truth now:

    >
    > Actually I, unlike you, always do!> what is your reason for defending this program
    >
    > I wasn't defending anything you ****ing nimrod - *I was attacking
    > you!!!* Geeze are you really that stupid! Get it straight!> over these many fruitless years of wasted resources,
    >
    > How many years was that? Show your work...> besides being Paid ?
    >
    > By that insane logic how much are they paying you?
    > --
    > Andrew DeFaria
    > DOS Tip #17: Add DEVICE=FNGRCROS.SYS to CONFIG.SYS


    You took all this time out of your life to attack me,
    a complete stranger ?
    You think everyone reading this are fools ?
    You may be attacking me, but only as part of a strategy
    to defend this hopeless product.
    Why would you not have something better to do with your time ?
    Unless you were being Paid to make this ad hominem
    defense of this product worth your while.


  12. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:
    > On May 25, 5:24 pm, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >> mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>> Tell the truth now:

    >> Actually I, unlike you, always do!> what is your reason for defending this program
    >>
    >> I wasn't defending anything you ****ing nimrod - *I was attacking
    >> you!!!* Geeze are you really that stupid! Get it straight!> over these many fruitless years of wasted resources,
    >>
    >> How many years was that? Show your work...> besides being Paid ?
    >>
    >> By that insane logic how much are they paying you?
    >> --
    >> Andrew DeFaria
    >> DOS Tip #17: Add DEVICE=FNGRCROS.SYS to CONFIG.SYS

    >
    > You took all this time out of your life to attack me,
    > a complete stranger ?
    > You think everyone reading this are fools ?
    > You may be attacking me, but only as part of a strategy
    > to defend this hopeless product.
    > Why would you not have something better to do with your time ?
    > Unless you were being Paid to make this ad hominem
    > defense of this product worth your while.
    >



    You sir are the one who is making up facts.

    You sir are the one who is the LIAR

    You make up fabrications about being paid
    You make up figures on how 'important' your perceived faults are

    In short, you lie.

    You sir, are not worthy of replies

  13. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:
    > There is only one genuine reason for a non-Paid person to be on a
    > forum like this: there is something wrong with the program which needs
    > to be fixed,

    Demonstrably false! After all I'm here to attack you. Remember that!

    But there are many reasons to be here. Just because you're too stupid to
    see that doesn't mean it's not so - it just means that you're too stupid
    to see it.
    > Anyone claiming they are not Paid and are continuing to defend the
    > product, without any criticism of the product, is obviously involved
    > in trying to con the public.

    Please show some evidence of anybody here getting paid. You have not
    done so today - just conjecture and downright lies. I'm not defending
    any such product, in fact I'm not even talking about it - I'm merely
    calling you an idiot.
    > And we have now had admissions by some people here that they do work
    > for Netscape or Mozilla.
    >
    > Especially when one sees personal attacks from the persons, it is
    > clear that they are desperate to defend the product,

    No, not at all. It's clear that they are personally attacking you. It
    shows nothing more. In fact, "the product" hasn't even been mentioned by
    me at all!
    > not because the product is genuinely good and they can prove it, but
    > by attempting to intimidate critics from
    > making their criticisms of the product.

    I'm not even talking about the product. I'm just calling you an idiot!
    Learn the difference!
    > This is what Paid public relations people do.

    Show me one other example of a paid public relationship person making ad
    homienen attacks on anybody else?
    > They usually do not know enough about their numerous and varied
    > assigned products to defend, to be able to defend them, on the facts.
    >
    > Criticizing problems in products is the purpose of forums like this one.

    I don't know about you but from my viewpoint this is a newsgroup - not
    what is commonly called a forum.
    > Only incompetent and arrogant companies would seek to discourage
    > information about the faults their products have from being discussed.

    As opposed to incompetent and arrogant people such as yourself?
    > That is because competent companies really want and intend to fix
    > those problems with their products.

    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.


  14. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:
    > There is only one genuine reason for a non-Paid person
    > to be on a forum like this:
    > there is something wrong with the program which needs
    > to be fixed,
    > and they want to describe what is wrong, so the incompetent
    > employees at the company cannot claim they did not know
    > the importance of the failure the program has.
    >
    > Anyone claiming they are not Paid and are continuing
    > to defend the product, without any criticism of the product,
    > is obviously involved in trying to con the public.
    > And we have now had admissions by some people here that
    > they do work for Netscape or Mozilla.
    >
    > Especially when one sees personal attacks from the persons,
    > it is clear that they are desperate to defend the product,
    > not because the product is genuinely good and they can
    > prove it, but by attempting to intimidate critics from
    > making their criticisms of the product.
    >
    > This is what Paid public relations people do.
    > They usually do not know enough about their
    > numerous and varied assigned products to defend,
    > to be able to defend them, on the facts.
    >
    > Criticizing problems in products is the purpose
    > of forums like this one. Only incompetent and arrogant
    > companies would seek to discourage information about
    > the faults their products have from being discussed.
    >
    > That is because competent companies really want and
    > intend to fix those problems with their products.

    You said that already. Has your argument ran out of steam already?
    --
    Andrew DeFaria
    Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.


  15. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On May 27, 1:36 pm, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    > mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > There is only one genuine reason for a non-Paid person
    > > to be on a forum like this:
    > > there is something wrong with the program which needs
    > > to be fixed,
    > > and they want to describe what is wrong, so the incompetent
    > > employees at the company cannot claim they did not know
    > > the importance of the failure the program has.

    >
    > > Anyone claiming they are not Paid and are continuing
    > > to defend the product, without any criticism of the product,
    > > is obviously involved in trying to con the public.
    > > And we have now had admissions by some people here that
    > > they do work for Netscape or Mozilla.

    >
    > > Especially when one sees personal attacks from the persons,
    > > it is clear that they are desperate to defend the product,
    > > not because the product is genuinely good and they can
    > > prove it, but by attempting to intimidate critics from
    > > making their criticisms of the product.

    >
    > > This is what Paid public relations people do.
    > > They usually do not know enough about their
    > > numerous and varied assigned products to defend,
    > > to be able to defend them, on the facts.

    >
    > > Criticizing problems in products is the purpose
    > > of forums like this one. Only incompetent and arrogant
    > > companies would seek to discourage information about
    > > the faults their products have from being discussed.

    >
    > > That is because competent companies really want and
    > > intend to fix those problems with their products.

    >
    > You said that already. Has your argument ran out of steam already?
    > --
    > Andrew DeFaria
    > Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    So what is your role at Netscape, by the way.
    Public relations ?


  16. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 03.06.2007 20:09, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > So what is your role at Netscape, by the way.
    > Public relations ?


    He has no role at Netscape. As a Netscape employee, I know.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  17. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On Jun 3, 8:20 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 03.06.2007 20:09, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    > > So what is your role at Netscape, by the way.
    > > Public relations ?

    >
    > He has no role at Netscape. As a Netscape employee, I know.
    >
    > --
    > Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    > UFAQ -http://www.UFAQ.org


    So are you in the public relations/marketing department at Netscape ?


  18. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 03.06.2007 22:21, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On Jun 3, 8:20 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >> On 03.06.2007 20:09, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >> > So what is your role at Netscape, by the way.
    >> > Public relations ?

    >>
    >> He has no role at Netscape. As a Netscape employee, I know.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    >> UFAQ -http://www.UFAQ.org

    >
    > So are you in the public relations/marketing department at Netscape ?
    >


    No I am not, my job description as posted here previously is that of
    programming staff consultant. I am not paid to support Firefox, Mozilla,
    Seamonkey in these groups. The support I give here is volunteer peer
    support.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  19. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 04.06.2007 20:10, Jay Garcia wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On 03.06.2007 22:21, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> On Jun 3, 8:20 pm, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>> On 03.06.2007 20:09, mkbrow...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>> --- Original Message ---
    >>>
    >>> > So what is your role at Netscape, by the way.
    >>> > Public relations ?
    >>>
    >>> He has no role at Netscape. As a Netscape employee, I know.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    >>> UFAQ -http://www.UFAQ.org

    >>
    >> So are you in the public relations/marketing department at Netscape ?
    >>

    >
    > No I am not, my job description as posted here previously is that of
    > programming staff consultant. I am not paid to support Firefox, Mozilla,
    > Seamonkey in these groups. The support I give here is volunteer peer
    > support.
    >


    Oh, forgot to ask, I have a friend that lives on Palomar Place in Vista,
    you know where that is?

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  20. Re: Line Text editing Bugs in Firefox 2.0.0.3

    On 04.06.2007 21:14, mkbrown32@hotmail.com wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Does this mean that you write software for Netscape or
    > that it is your to provide non-technical support to
    > the programming staff ?


    I do not write software or else I would be a "programmer", I am not. But
    I do provide tech support to the staff as well as non-technical neither
    of which requires me to be a programmer that writes software. Sort of
    like Johnny Weismuller's (Tarzan) swimming coach who couldn't swim. And
    this is as far as I'm going with this, thanks for asking.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast