On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:47:22 -0600, Yet Another Bob
> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:49:58 -0800, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:07:08 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:51:15 -0800, sf wrote:
> >>>>>> Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even run Firefox,
> >>>>>> it's *that* old.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clueless Alerts just went off all over the world.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just assumed he meant OS X 10 or something. Some of you are more
> >>>> picky about computer terminology than cooking ingredients.
> >>>
> >>> It's a she, and the X stands for 10. And OS X ver 10.6 was
> >>> released about the same time as Windows 7. It it the second most
> >>> popular OS in the world currently in use today and it's market
> >>> share it on the rise.
> >>
> >> Wait... you mean it *can* run Firefox? How about that.
> >>
> >
> > You and your pal Stevie the Wonder Boy are talking through your tiny
> > little hats. OSX from 1999 can not run FF, not even with two extra
> > squirrels. If you'd care to get a little more updated and call it
> > what it is today: Snow Leopard, then you'd be correct.
>
> Who said anything about 1999? The products line is still named
> "OS X". And it is still in it's 10th version. There is no
> "OS XI."
>
> You said, "Using OSX would be like me using Win3.1. It can't even
> run Firefox", which is complete brain fart. And now rather than
> just admitting it you're trying to backpedal like a weasel making a
> fool of yourself (again).
>
> ObFood: Pork butt roast with baked potatoes and brussels sprouts.
> "Just Caramel" Milky Way for dessert.
>
> -sw


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.