Absolutely not. 
And yes, I'd prefer not be a Facebok Slut.
FaceBok: the shoes for your face.
Anyway, back on topic (somewhat) I find it interesting how all numbers of people can state that "IE is insecure" and yet they cannot name a single security bug that can be exploited. Instead they post links to Anti-MS sites that provide charts and so forth about bug ratios, which is even more interesting since the actual Bug counts and bug reports that MS receives are only announced when they are patched. Some of the other Browsers issue "advisories" about such bugs
before they are fixed I mean, sure, now everybody knows about the bug, but then again, now everybody knows about the bug- that means people can exploit it before it is patched.
People say that the MS policy of only announcing the security bugs in detail after they are patched is "bad" but they forget that announcing such bugs before they are fixed means that anybody can exploit them before they are patched.
Another "statistic" that people like to throw up is the bug-fixing ratio between the browsers- often IE is touted as having the most problems based on the fact that they fix the most bugs, which seems a tad skewed, on account of the fact that the metric is measuring the number of bugs that were fixed. essentially, that means that netscape is the most secure browser, since it hasn't had a single bug-fix in years! The fact is that the number of bugs fixed does not correspond to the number of bugs present, and even those charts that compare the number of fixed bugs don't weigh the importance of those bugs, and really provide no data on what the bugs were. Does the PNG rendering bug in IE6 get counted? Why? It has nothing to do with security! So the real problem is people trusting their sources to not do such things, while at the same time using Anti-MS and Anti-IE sites as a source, under the mistaken belief that such sources might not skew the numbers to be even more against IE, or, in some cases, IE actually can come out on top, so they choose some other metric.
"Metric" is the problem here. you cannot measure anything by a simple metric, or by even a combination of metrics. it's like trying to judge a persons character simply by their favourite TV show or the number of addition questions they can answer in an hour. They are just numbers and they are only meaningful if they are relevant. In this case those two values have absolutely nothing to do with a persons character, just as the various metrics used to measure browsers are completely irrelevant to measuring the browsers against each other.
This brings up another important point, which is why people have this innate need to measure things. I mean, instead of looking at various measurements and benchmarks for browser programs, just try out the *censored* things, as was stated before they don't take up enough space to be relevant and first-hand experience always outweighs even the most weighted measurements. You don't see people doing things like comparing the performance of, say, Fallout 3 versus Call of Duty. Sure, they use the games to measure Video performance (which in some cases is far more relevant a measurement) but you don't have people saying "well, fallout 3 is a little faster I think I'll buy that" basically, you dont choose a game based on performance considerations aside from "can I run it" just as you shouldn't choose a browser based on some weighted, biased chart, but rather on how much YOU like the browser. For example, it wouldn't matter if, say, Firefox was faster then chrome if people liked the "feel" of chrome- and it wouldn't matter if chromes javascript engine was 30 times faster the that of Firefoxes if people liked the feel of firefox. It's yet another meaningless metric that geek wannabe's like to pore over but is simply a redundant value when it comes to real-world use.
