searching question

[Phillip M Jones]

I too am on a Mac. A PowerBook 1.67GB 17" and I find all the forums much slower on this new system.

Part of the problem is merging the two server systems together The Old Macromedia users and the old adobe Groups together. Therefore the are serving twice as many people or more on the same amount of Server  equipment. Until they beef up the speed, and size of the servers and have sattelite equipment to lighten the load the system will always be slower than before.

The system should be on the highest speed sytem they can get . T5, FOIS, whatever.  And it should have the bigest hard drives and fastest processor availble. If the want to be serious.

[Phillip M Jones]

~graffiti wrote:

I just realized I have hardly any photos of myself not wearing sunglasses. I guess that's a good sign?

Alright it's there and I look nothing like Jack Nicholson. Not that there's anyhting wrong with that.

Yes you do. You look like his twin brother. Are you as off your rocker as he seems to be?

[Guest]

<Jack Nicholson>Heeeere's Johnny!!</JN>

<The Shining>REDRUM, REDRUM, REDRUM</TS>

[~graffiti]

PjonesCET wrote:

Yes you do. You look like his twin brother. Are you as off your rocker as he seems to be?

I'd say in that respect, I'm pretty close yes.

[Claudio González]

Well, a few less wrinkles and a few extra pounds excepted, you do look like him. And of course there isn't anything wrong with that.

[Phillip M Jones]

<img src="http://www.milbut.org/smilies/roflol.gif">  <img src="http://www.milbut.org/smilies/roflol.gif">

[Guest]

o.O

[Ramón G Castañeda]

~graffiti wrote:

PjonesCET wrote:

So my comment is still valid completely uninformed guesswork, though the names of the servers and systems are different.

There. Fixed that for ya.

[Phillip M Jones]

That's not a nice thng to do to Graffiti

[Ramón G Castañeda]

Right over your head, P.Jones. 

[Phillip M Jones]

Is That your alternate Avatar ??

[JayJhabrix]

Now that is really frightening... changing someone's original post!?

[Phillip M Jones]

Most likely what was done, was he cut and pasted then did his editting. Or simply retyped my message and changed the words .

Unlless he has adminstrator privledges, its not like he could go into some one's message and edit.

[JayJhabrix]

Duplicate... Sorry!

[Wolf Eilers]

PJ, in the 30 or seconds it takes to compose a note, please take another 30 to re-read it, then another 10 seconds to decide if it is worth posting at all.

[~graffiti]

Was my post (#30) REALLY abusive enough for someone to report me?

I mean, really?

[Ramón G Castañeda]

~graffiti wrote:

Was my post (#30) REALLY abusive enough for someone to report me?

I mean, really?

Your post was fine.  I would have given you points for it if I could.

Did you really get a warning, or just a notification?  It'd be good to know how it works.  I expect a lot of petty enemies are (going to be) reporting me. 

[Guest]

If there was, I didn't see it, but I was offline most of the day. John may have done something with it, tho I don't think he would have bothered either. For now it's in test mode, so the mods are mostly observing and dealing with things the old fashioned way as is appropriate using the reports.

And, yes, Ramón, I think you know that you come off as extremely harsh often. I'm waiting to see what happens when posts quit being displayed as people click the report button. (And not you alone, btw.) After a certain number (I have no idea what it is tho) the software automatically removes posts from sight without host intervention. I'm willing to let the people vote.

[Ramón G Castañeda]

DorothyK@Adobe wrote:

I'm waiting to see what happens when posts quit being displayed as people click the report button. (And not you alone, btw.) After a certain number (I have no idea what it is tho) the software automatically removes posts from sight without host intervention.

If that's all that happens, it's pretty much an exercise in futility.  Who goes around checking his own posts?

I don't have to mention names but we all know cases of extreme, offensive abuse and even threats, much worse than all posts of mine combined, that cause a poster to be banned, and they just keep coming back with a succession of varying identities, one after the other.

[Guest]

Ramon-don't take this TOO personal, but the vast majority of your 8,964 posts are negative. One can hardly read a thread that does not contain one of your rants. Knowing that the "moderators" are supposedly on vacation, you seem to have intensified your output. A nice six month banishment to you own private forum would serve the rest of us well.

[Ramón G Castañeda]

Photo_op8 wrote:

Ramon-don't take this TOO personal,

Not to worry, I'm just barely acknowledging this post of yours, which would carry some weight if it came from someone other than a non-entity hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym, or even if you specified what it is that I have directed at you personally that bugs you.  I do not recognize your user ID.

8,000 posts or so represent less than a third of the posts I had to my credit at the time of the attempted changeover a couple of years ago.  I'm confident I have posted in excess of 30,000 in the last seven years or so.  It's still very thoughtful of you to have read nearly 9,000 of my posts just so you could form an informed opinion. 

You are on very thin ice alleging I'm acting with knowledge of the falsely alleged absence of the hosts.  In the first place they've all been posting without interruption, in the second place if they were absent I would not know about it, and in the third place their absence or presence doesn't make one itty bitty bit of difference to me.  They have banned me in the past when they saw fit and, in any event, we have plenty of evidence that others who have been banned return with a new account within minutes.

For my part, I don't give a rat's tail if you do take this personally, but I have to tell you you're wasting your time.  It's your privilege, whoever you are.  

[Claudio González]

I can only judge by what I see now in your message #30. If there was an offensive version that was censored or edited in any way, I missed it. And I see no "This message was edited by..." notice. So really, I don't know what all the fuss is, as I see nothing offensive in message #30.

[Guest]

i think it was post #14 not 30...

[Ramón G Castañeda]

dave milbut wrote:

i think it was post #14 not 30...

Still, nothing objectionable there on graffiti's part either.

[~graffiti]

Sorry. dave is right. I meant post 14.

I basicallly just got a note saying that the content was approved.

[Phillip M Jones]

I didn't see anything objectionable to #30 or even #14 even though In #14 you were directing a dig at me. I see a lot worse all the time. I have a tough hide.

I've seen far worse.