Opera to Firefox

  • Thread starter Thread starter richk
  • Start date Start date
R

richk

Can I transfer my bookmarks from Opera to firefox...if I cant that
would be a pain in the tush to do it manually..
 
Can I transfer my bookmarks from Opera to firefox...if I cant that
would be a pain in the tush to do it manually..
Click to expand...
Yes. Save the opera bookmarks as a html file. At worst, you'll need a
bookmark convertor of which there are plenty.
 
richk said:
Can I transfer my bookmarks from Opera to firefox...if I cant that
would be a pain in the tush to do it manually..
Click to expand...

1. In Opera, go to Help > About, to see the location of the bookmarks file.

2. Go to this page to convert the file:
http://collingrady.com/2004/08/04/opera-to-firefox-bookmarks-converter/

3. In Firefox, go to Bookmarks > Manage Bookmarks > File > Import >
Import Bookmarks from: File.

You will loose the favicons in the conversion, but that's not so
important. :)

Regards
 
HAIR said:
It's "lose" not "loose".
Click to expand...
Learn some punctuation first. Then, try correcting mistakes witch are'nt
obvious even to the one's who make them.

Regards
 
It's "lose" not "loose".
Click to expand...
Learn some punctuation first.[/QUOTE]

?? There's no punctuation error in that sentence.

("It's" is correct, and if you think a comma is mandatory after "lose",
you're mistaken.)
 
Florestan said:
Learn some punctuation first. Then, try correcting mistakes witch are'nt
obvious even to the one's who make them.
Click to expand...

"...Then*,* try correcting mistakes _which_ _aren't_
obvious even to the _ones_ who make them."

The problem with that is that we have no way of knowing
what mistakes, if any, are obvious to you; all we see
is what you wind up posting.

And, by the way, using "loose" for "lose" is becoming
epidemic among the less-careful (or possibly the marginally-
literate) these days, joining apostrophe-abuse in the top
of the list of errors which degrade the message that a
poster is trying to deliver.

Correcting such egregious errors is a service to the community.
 
Florestan said:
Learn some punctuation first. Then, try correcting mistakes witch
are'nt obvious even to the one's who make them.
Click to expand...

"Are'nt" and "one's" above are incorrect punctuation.
The line with "lose" vs "loose" was correct punctuation.
 
Keyboard said:
"Are'nt" and "one's" above are incorrect punctuation.
The line with "lose" vs "loose" was correct punctuation.
Click to expand...

Oh, and you had "witch" instead of the correct "which" too.
 
Learn some punctuation first.
Click to expand...

?? There's no punctuation error in that sentence.

("It's" is correct, and if you think a comma is mandatory after
"lose", you're mistaken.)
[/QUOTE]
The period should come before the end quote marks. Just fyi.
 
On 24 Apr 2005, Mike Andrade wrote
The period should come before the end quote marks. Just fyi.
Click to expand...

That's only true if you're American: in BrEng, the full stop (AmEng
"period"} comes *after* the end quote marks.

Just fyi.
 
On 24 Apr 2005, Mike Andrade wrote


That's only true if you're American: in BrEng, the full stop
(AmEng "period"} comes *after* the end quote marks.

Just fyi.
Click to expand...

In American usage, more and more often I see the full stop placed
after the quote marks; IMO, that's a good thing.

OTOH, I'd prefer to see a comma after "lose", though it's not
mandatory.

Also, I like the sentence as it was originally posted. It's
grammatically correct, and in this case it's hard to argue against
it semantically. It evokes images of newly freed favicons,
scampering off to seek their way in the world (wide web).
 
On 24 Apr 2005, Mike Andrade wrote
Click to expand...
-snip-
That's only true if you're American: in BrEng, the full stop
(AmEng "period"} comes *after* the end quote marks.
Just fyi.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
In American usage, more and more often I see the full stop placed
after the quote marks; IMO, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

It makes sense to me, too -- but since the "outside" placement is
standard where I live, it's not up to me to judge somebody else's
standard practice as "wrong".
OTOH, I'd prefer to see a comma after "lose", though it's not
mandatory.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, too: if I'd written the 'lose-not-loose'
sentence, it would have had the comma. (It's a stylistic choice,
though, rather than an issue of right or wrong.)
Also, I like the sentence as it was originally posted. It's
grammatically correct, and in this case it's hard to argue against
it semantically. It evokes images of newly freed favicons,
scampering off to seek their way in the world (wide web).
Click to expand...

It does, but whilst the idea of "loosing one's favicons" upon the world
has its appeal, I prefer metaphors to be at least marginally
intentional rather than the result of a widely-seen error.
 
Also, I like the sentence as it was originally posted. It's
grammatically correct, and in this case it's hard to argue against
it semantically. It evokes images of newly freed favicons,
scampering off to seek their way in the world (wide web).
Click to expand...

Yup :) but when someone writes about "loosing their children" it calls
to mind "Let loose the dogs of war." and conjures up an image of
ill-mannered brats. . . at least it does for me. :)

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://google.ca/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
Marten said:
"...Then*,* try correcting mistakes _which_ _aren't_
obvious even to the _ones_ who make them."

The problem with that is that we have no way of knowing
what mistakes, if any, are obvious to you; all we see
is what you wind up posting.
Click to expand...

Obviously. It takes which powers to know that.

Now, seriously,

I consider slips like this trivial. By now, almost everyone knows they
are mistakes, even the most literate writers can commit them, while some
people feel that their self-importance is enhanced when they correct the
culprits.

I am slightly more worried by mistakes that go unnoticed, although, as I
see it, they betray an equally serious lack of understanding about how
language works. For example, you wrote "the marginally-illiterate".
Grammatically, nothing calls for this hyphen. It is perfect nonsense. An
adverb is not meant to be joined by a hyphen to an adjective (in this
case an adjective used absolutely as a collective noun) that it governs.
At the same time, one sees everywhere phrases like "open source
implementation" without a single hyphen. I you are not familiar with the
subject, as members of this NG are, this could also taken to mean: "open
implementation of source".

About a decade ago, when I started noticing, mainly in the web, mistakes
like "it's" for "its", "their" for "they're" etc. I was shocked. (I was
slightly embarassed when I saw my own "loose", but it was too late, and
IMO it would be pedantic to post again to correct it.) Then I realized
that this is unavoidable. Up to the very late 20th century, most, if not
all, people who communicated in writing had an education that was
adequate for this type of communication. Since the advent of internet
(and I don't mean usenet), this is not so any more. This may shock the
pedantic, but I see it as good. It helps, even forces, the "marginally
illiterate" to think and express themselves more clearly and coherently,
since written speech lacks the extratextual signals that facilitate
communication in person or, say, over the phone.

Language is live and changes. In a few decades, maybe "it's" and "its"
will be both spelled "its", and the distinction will be mentioned only
in histories of the English language. Will this be degradation? Is it
degradation that, in its historical course, English dropped grammatical
cases in the forms of pronouns? Is English poorer for this? Should we
start using "thou" and "thy" again, to enrich it? Are declensional
languages like German better than English just because of this? Only
dead languages do not "degrade" (beyond the point they had "degraded"
before they died).

One thing that made me realize how trivial all this is, and how little
it *e*ffects or "degrades" our ability to communicate verbally, is some
instances of the exact same errors in noticed some years ago in the
letters of Byron, and in some handwritten notes of his. Well, that was
shocking at first! The collected edition of his letters by L. Marchand
lets all these "errors" stand; obviously, it would be silly editorial
practice to correct them. Mind you, there are dozens of them! (I think
that I once saw one in Don Juan, a work that was printed in his
lifetime; I do not have the copy handy to check.)

Lord Byron, Detached Thoughts, no. 11
The Impression of Parliament upon me--was that it's members are not
formidable as Speakers

Lord Byron, Letter to Lady Byron, February 8th, 1816
I have not denied my state of mind--but you know it's causes; & were
those deviations from calmness never followed by acknowledgement &
repentance?

Lord Byron, Hand-written note on a copy of his satire English Bards and
Scotch Reviewers
The binding of this volume is considerably too valuable for the
Contents. B --- N.B. Nothing but the consideration of it’s being the
property of another [the copy was probably Shelley's] prevents me from
consigning this miserable record of misplace [sic] anger -- and
indiscriminate acrimony to the flames.

The third one is written above two lines by Shakespeare which serve as
an epigram to Byron's satiric poem.

I had rather be a kitten, and cry mew!
Than one of these same metre ballad-mongers.

My apologies to the NG for straying so much off topic, and for the tone
of my previous reply,

Regards to all

PS. Spotted a Byronic "it's" for "its" in a printed poem. Actually, it's
Don Juan, Canto Sixth, Stanza 88:

And that’s the Moral of this composition –
If people would but see it’s real drift –
But *that* they will not do without suspicion –
Because all gentle readers have the gift
Of closing ’gainst the light their orbs of Vision,
While Gentle writers also love to lift
Their voices ’gainst each other, which is natural –
The numbers are too great for them to flatter all. –
 
-snip-

Now, seriously,

I consider slips like this trivial. By now, almost everyone knows
they are mistakes, even the most literate writers can commit them,
while some people feel that their self-importance is enhanced when
they correct the culprits.[/QUOTE]

-snip an excellent commentary on the futility of pendantry-

Given that you've got a reasonable and balanced approach to the issue,
may I ask why your initial response was to flame about non-existent
errors in punctuation? Why not just write "It was a typo: these
things happen; get over it"? (That's an honest question,
incidentally; the difference in reasonableness of your two responses
was a bit startling.)

[FWIW, in the case of "lose/loose", I'd disagree that "almost everyone
knows they are mistakes": I think this one falls into the category you
discussed of "errors" which eventually become accepted precisely
because a sizeable majority does *not* see them as mistakes.]
 
Harvey said:
On 24 Apr 2005, Florestan wrote
-snip an excellent commentary on the futility of pendantry-

Given that you've got a reasonable and balanced approach to the issue,
may I ask why your initial response was to flame about non-existent
errors in punctuation? Why not just write "It was a typo: these
things happen; get over it"? (That's an honest question,
incidentally; the difference in reasonableness of your two responses
was a bit startling.)
Click to expand...
Thanks, Harvey.

To anwswer you question:

1. I was irritated by the tone. One should at least address the person
whose message one corrects, or at least mention their name. Personally,
if I was keen to correct such an error, I would post something like:
"Hello, Florestan. Just correcting a typo in your post: ...", or "Hello
there, just correcting a typo in Florestan's message".

2. The error I flamed about is very real, and objectively so, and more
serious IMO than "lose/loose". The sequence "It's 'lose' not 'loose'"
contains two *unrelated* clauses: a. "It's 'lose'" and, b. "not
'loose'". The second one is elliptical. In expanded form it would read:
"It's not 'loose'". Since the two clauses are unrelated grammatically,
it is imperative that they are separated by some kind of punctuation,
since, in a more complex construction, this could produce perfectly
ambiguous meaning.

The two clauses could be separated by a dash, a semicolon (but this
would be in earlier times; now the semicolon is dying, and not only in
English), or, what is most common today, a comma.

Now, this need for punctuation is not always clearly understood, since
the unrelated clauses in such phrases are often separated by the
insertion of a third, vocative clause. Vocative clauses still retain
their commas around them. For example:

"Hello, Peter, how are you?". Or:

"It's 'lose', moron, not 'loose'", to use a favourite word of a regular
poster here whose language is characterized by pithy expression. (I hope
he will excuse me for referring anonymously to him. :))

Regards
 
That's only true if you're American: in BrEng, the full stop (AmEng
"period"} comes *after* the end quote marks.
Click to expand...

Not for the Americans I know. The period is after the quote marks because
it is only a single word that is being emphasized, it is not actually a
quotation. It just happens to be the symbol we use to emphasize a
particular word or point.
 
Back
Top