Jump to content

Phil Deakins

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. I'm a pastry chef and I haven't been to Paris. I don't feel that I need to when all I do is make basic pastry for myself
  2. I think the number of people who have had problems with PayPal is miniscule compared to the number of people who use it, but it's the fact that PayPal can be, and has been, arbitrarily problematic, without any banking laws to protect its users, that cause some people, including me, not to trust it with access to my money.
  3. Years ago, there was a lot of stuff on the web about PayPal's 'bad' dealings with people. It put me off using PayPal for years. I certainly didn't want them having any access to any bank account of mine. Maybe there is still a lot of such reports. When LL stopped doing bank transfers and went over to paying out into PayPal, I had to have a PayPal account, so, for the verification, I used a virtually empty bank account that I was no longer using. I think it had £1 in it. PayPal isn't a bank, and isn't subject to banking laws, so I still wouldn't want them to have access to any of my money, except the money that LL pays into it for me. I don't trust them with access to my money, and there's every reason not to trust them.
  4. You wouldn't. The OP wants to send money to LL, not the other way round.
  5. It depends how much you're taking out. In recent times, I pay for stuff with PayPal.
  6. LL doesn't transfer money to bank accounts any more - not for a long time. Perhaps if someone is earning mega amounts they might do it. They used to do it but they changed to only doing it for a minimum of US$10,000, and I believe that's way too small an amount now. However, they DO do what you suggested - transfer money to PayPal - in small amounts. None of that helps with your difficulty, but in the process of having the difficulty, you've managed to pick up some wrong information.
  7. There are some annoying faults with this forum software. One that I come across frequently occurs when writing a post (just like I'm doing right now), and want to move the cursor to a place in the text that I've already written, perhaps to correct a typo, or add (insert) something. Usually the cursor keys move it ok, but sometimes the cursor keys won't move it at all. And "sometimes" is common. It is only in this forum that I find the problem. It doesn't happen for me in any other programme. I think that refreshing the page re-enables the cursor keys, but I usually use the mouse to place the cursor where I want it instead.
  8. LOL I did too. But that was a typing error (I'm very good at those) - not the same thing at all 👩‍❤️‍👨
  9. I know you're not a native english speaker, Coby, and I didn't criticise your written english. I made use of it as humour. But you know that. On the other hand, I am a native english speaker and I don't believe I make 'english' errors, but if you see one, be sure to tell me. I do make errors, but not with the english though. It's with my typing of it. So many times I've quickly typed a word, with my brain racing ahead, and unintentionally leaving a bit off the end, so that it says exactly the opposite as what was intended. E.g. do when my brain is typing don't. ETA: Ooo. I just spotted your pointing out of my not capitalising the word 'english'. That's not a mistake on my part. I intentionally write it that way, as I do with the names of other languages.
  10. I was going to say that it aleady exists, and has done for many years, but Thorinll beat me to it.
  11. Actually, I DID go to Specsavers - right up until I had the lenses in both eyes replaced If you read my post above this one, I think you'll find that it's you who should have gone to Specsavers
  12. Ah but "(which they don't are)" isn't understandable english. It doesn't make any sense. You can't have both "don't" and "are" together like that, so I crossed out the surplus one
  13. Naa, Coby. Yes, there's a slight difference in the darkness of the darker parts of the 2 chat windows, but it's so slight that the difference wouldn't even be noticed unless you put them side by side - as you did in the graphic you posted. And the difference seen there is so small that it's really not worth mentioning. The difference between pitch black and dark grey is very big, and definitely worth mentioning, except that it simply doesn't apply here. Sorry Coby, but having the 2 viewers open side by side, there is precious little difference between them, and definitely no difference worth even mentioning in their darknesses - as your nit-picking percentages actually show! FIFY
  14. No, IE wasn't awful, and there were no standards for it to follow. If there were any standards, IE made them after it entered the fray. IE became the standard browser through sheer popularity of use. There have always been recommendations from W3C, but they aren't, and never were, standards. And W3C never claimed them to be. Edge was very late to the party, and from its inception, it would always fight an uphill battle. You're right about the alternatives being better enough to kill the original though. The original being Netscape, and the alternatives being IE and one or two very small ones, the biggie being IE, of course. Perhaps you were a bit late to the party too
  15. @Alyona Su On the web, we see a lot of people who are anti <the main things>. It's occured with Microsoft for a very long time, and with IE, also for a very long time. Many people tend to bias towards alternatives, just because they are there, and just for the sake of it. And they persuade themselves of compelling reasons to be against <the main things> That bias has nothing to do with which is best. It has everything to do with being different, just for the sake of it. I believe that that applies to the anti-LL-viewer bias - just to be different. That doesn't apply to everyone, of course. There are some people who find a particular viewer suits their needs the best - photography, building, and inventory management have been mentioned in this thread, for instance. But I believe it does apply to most non-LL-viewer users. That my opinion, anyway
  16. @Coby Foden The LL viewer does not have a "pitch black" UI. It has exactly what you suggest is much nicer - dark grey (exactly the same as Firestorm) - and that's only in very small parts, much the same as in this Firefox browser I'm using. It has small dark grey bits too. You even showed that yourself in the local chat floaters. It doesn't have a dark feel to it all, let alone a pitch black feel. The idea that the LL viewer is dark is completely wrong. The V2 was because the darker parts took up way too much of the screen, but not since then.
  17. Theresa's experience does seem to be a very good exmple of what I've said - that the best viewer for each individual is the one that each person gets used to. It's definitely not ugly - except in your eyes, of course, but so is Firestorm in your eyes. I know that becuase they are both the same by default. At its edges, it's probably darker than the V1 was, but it's darkness is identical to Firestorm, and neither of them have a 'dark feel' about them (like the V2 had) because the darker bits are only on the narrow edges. I don't know what you mean by "kludgy", but, imo, it's definitely not what I think of as kludgy. Anyway, it's each to his/her own. What I think about each viewer is absolutely correct ....... for me! And the same applies to everyone else. There is no "best viewer", as such. There are viewers that are best for individuals, for a variety of reasons, but that's as far as it goes. The best for being bang up to date is the LL viewer. The best for extra features are TPVs, and those are broken down into which features an individual wants. From what I've read here, there are best viewers in terms of graphics, FPS, etc. etc. Someone suggested trying them all to see which suits you (whoever you are ), and I agree.
  18. You can't click on the ground when you're a few thousand meters in the sky On the ground, that's what I normally do - click on the ground.
  19. Alright, but changing the words from 'About Land' to 'Parcel Details' in the World menu, was daft, especially as that menu has become quite cluttered. Your graphic highlights exactly what I said - the best UI for each of us is the one that we are used to. None is better than the other. Even the V2 was good IF it was the first one you used and got used to. I remember some people actually posting that they liked it.
  20. I was thinking exactly the same as you when I read your post. I have both the LL viewer and Firestorm open right now, and there's precious little difference between the look and feel of the UIs. There is one bit where Firestorm is significantly worse, imo - it uses buttons for on-screen one-click TP favourites. LL's viewer is better for that, but that's just a small bit. Where Firestorm is different in its UI is that it has a load of extras, most of which aren't used by everyone, of course, and many of which clutter the menus. Firestorm is undoubtedly better with features, but features are not the UI. @Coby Foden Sorry, Coby, but I don't agree with you that Firestorm's chat line-spacing is better. For you, no doubt it is, but for me, I don't mind either of them, and I'm perfectly happy with the official viewer's line-spacing. I suspect that the UI is often stated by people who have seen others say it, and so they repeat it without giving it any particular thought. In other words, it's more of an assumption. That's what I suspect. Or perhaps they mean that there is much more in Firestorm's menus, most of which they don't even use. The best UI for each of us is the one that we're used to. For me, it's the official viewer because that's what I'm used to. For others it's whatever viewer they are used to. E.g. who had the daft idea to replace 'About Land' in the World menu with 'Parcel Details'? I wasn't used to 'Parcel Details' yesterday so it took a little bit to find what I was looking for in Firestorm's cluttered World menu. What was the point of changing it? It certainly wasn't a change for the better. It was a change 'just because I can'.
  21. I rarely buy anything in SL - incredibly rarely. So how much of a shopaholic am I? Absolute zero.
  22. In reply to both the previous posts... In that case, there is absolutely no reason to treat the OP as wanting revenge, and the idea ought never to have come up - not without the OP giving that sort of impression. It's downright wrong, imo, and shows the nature of some of this forum's users up no end. Words actually fail me.
  23. That's fine. She can do option 1, plus sit on something and carry on whilst totally ignoring him. I asked, though, because there's been a fair amount of talk about revenge, as though the OP wants revenge, so I asked if she'd said that that's what she wants. If she didn't, why is even being mentioned?
  24. Has the OP said that she wants revenge? If not, why all the talk about revenge? I thought she said that she wanted to know how to deal with it in a way that doesn't mean having to leave that particular location.
  25. Yes, we all know that. What Pussycat described doesn't exist. Alright now?
  • Create New...