Aardvark wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:09:14 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>> news:jpqt74$m5e$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:21:15 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other
>>>>>>>>>> browsers I have installed here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and
>>>>>>>>> see if you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possible but unlikely IMO, FTR. I enter sites with NoScript
>>>>>>> running, so that shouldn't hold up loading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>>>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></
>>>>> script>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NS would take care of that too, Shirley. I remember when aweber
>>>>>>> sold autoresponders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed. Somewhat of a mystery, thus far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I run with scripting enabled, and sometimes those larger scripts
>>>>>> (Fake AV come-ons) take a long time to load and execute - selectors
>>>>>> take even longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thirty or so seconds I allowed should be enough, don't you think?
>>>>> I actually went off to the kitchen to make a cuppa tea after clicking
>>>>> the link once. Still hadn't loaded when I got back.
>>>>>
>>>> That's more time than I gave it. D
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a clue as to what might be causing you to not get that
>>>> page. I only tried it in IE that once - maybe I'll try again and go
>>>> for a cuppa coffee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I just clicked the link again. It came up in under 10 seconds; whole
>>> page. And this was done on a dual p3/800mhz (coppermine mated
>>> processors). It's the slowest machine that's still online here.
>>>
>>> I'm not a gamer tho, so it still meets my needs.. Albeit a bit slow
>>> these days. [g]
>>>
>> I tried it again with IE - in less than a second it was loaded.
>
> Just clicked the link again. Rolled a ciggie, sparked it up. Looked at my
> browser. Nothing.

Someting wrong with your computer, eh?

Yet you purport to be a guru. <shakes head>

Nope! :-)