Yea, this thing is on all the sites and forums now. It's a really big deal. Everywhere I go I see it. lol
Thanks for adding to those that block ads and making those that believe you shouldn't look like idiots.
Edit: It's on diggtoo.
whyfirefoxisblocked.com
-
jamieplucinski
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:42 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
This guy is obviously an idiot that got online with AOL back in the 90's and still thinks that his web browser is Windows. After discovering Microsoft FrontPage Express he made a beautiful web page using marquees and thousands of animated GIFs and uploaded it to geocities.
Fast forward 10 years and he's still an idiot, but, at least now he has free Wordpress templates a google search away to pass off as his own designs.
Let's all bow to the genius for showing us the error of our ways...
Oh and btw... has anyone seen a site that directed to that domain yet? Because I surf the web for countless hours and haven't seen one referral...
Fast forward 10 years and he's still an idiot, but, at least now he has free Wordpress templates a google search away to pass off as his own designs.
Let's all bow to the genius for showing us the error of our ways...
Oh and btw... has anyone seen a site that directed to that domain yet? Because I surf the web for countless hours and haven't seen one referral...
-
elvisthepelvis
The guy that put up the "whyisfirefoxblocked.com" site at first made me think - "ahhh this is a big organisation out to get firefox - we're all doomed" but then I thought hang on a minute if advertisers block firefox because firefox blocks advertising, well isnt that the best example of what it means to 'cut off your nose to spite your face'?
that site is a joke by some silly idiot that hasnt got the brains to realise advertising has to evolve or it dies - if it eats my bandwidth and diverts me to pages I dont want or need then that is theft by them. If I click one of their stupid adverts someone gets paid but its not me that gets paid, where is my share?
If they dont want the adverts blocked they neednt put in the adverts
that site is a joke by some silly idiot that hasnt got the brains to realise advertising has to evolve or it dies - if it eats my bandwidth and diverts me to pages I dont want or need then that is theft by them. If I click one of their stupid adverts someone gets paid but its not me that gets paid, where is my share?
If they dont want the adverts blocked they neednt put in the adverts
Food for thought-
A big gripe of mine about ads and other shady things on the web (beside the annoyances and the tracking factors) is that sites that host adservers take no responsibility for either the code or the company's product itself in the ad. If something goes wrong, they seem to just apologize, tell the user that they have no control over what is advertised on their site, and it is back to business as usual no matter what happens to a user 'victim'.
BUT, if someone got ripped off by a company that was serving an ad that a visitor was forced to see by the site's owner, I would think that in a case like this, the owner of the site would have to be responsible for any & all damages to the victim because he FORCED them to be exposed to the ad. Whereas normally ads are not forced and therefore there is a non-binding exclusion for the site owner whereas he is just passively displaying them. This may be one of the big reasons why larger sites have not pushed the adblocking issue. Most of those sites really have no idea what it is that they are selling in their site's ad spaces at any given time ..... or who is selling it, what kind of privacy rules the adserver is infringing on, and what kind of code is being fed to the user. They don't want to put themselves in a position of liability for the 'forcing' of something on a visitor that could make for a legal court case that I think the user would easily win.
One bad ad for Danny and he could be in ZDNet's rss feed setting a new legal precedent.
A big gripe of mine about ads and other shady things on the web (beside the annoyances and the tracking factors) is that sites that host adservers take no responsibility for either the code or the company's product itself in the ad. If something goes wrong, they seem to just apologize, tell the user that they have no control over what is advertised on their site, and it is back to business as usual no matter what happens to a user 'victim'.
BUT, if someone got ripped off by a company that was serving an ad that a visitor was forced to see by the site's owner, I would think that in a case like this, the owner of the site would have to be responsible for any & all damages to the victim because he FORCED them to be exposed to the ad. Whereas normally ads are not forced and therefore there is a non-binding exclusion for the site owner whereas he is just passively displaying them. This may be one of the big reasons why larger sites have not pushed the adblocking issue. Most of those sites really have no idea what it is that they are selling in their site's ad spaces at any given time ..... or who is selling it, what kind of privacy rules the adserver is infringing on, and what kind of code is being fed to the user. They don't want to put themselves in a position of liability for the 'forcing' of something on a visitor that could make for a legal court case that I think the user would easily win.
One bad ad for Danny and he could be in ZDNet's rss feed setting a new legal precedent.
I already did that for the "firefox is blocked" page, but others thought it was more "noble" of me not to do that, so I removed it a couple of days ago. Besides, if I block them, users won't be able to see what a fool this guy is being, what his weird self-righteous site material was about, and would not be able to email him or post comments on his sites.Guest wrote:Add their crummy websites to the block list hehe
Things are fine just the way they are. He is being hurt MORE by others seeing him like this than I could EVER do by blocking him
-
elvisthepelvis
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:50 am
Actually I believe Danny Carlton may rethink his position on all of this since I posted here as a user called 'thekingsmen'
http://www.adsensechat.com/showthread.p ... to=newpost
(see the last two or three pages of that conversation)
and basically challenged Danny Carlton to call Tim Berners Lee a thief since I know for a fact that TBL disables javascript and html in his email client as this, in his opinion, is the best way to safeguard against infection and advertising in mail
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/
- his advice to people with email is to use text only email and therefore follow the standards for email to the letter. It is not unimaginable to propose that he also prefers to disable adverts in a web browser by those who have annoying ads as well as the ability of sites such as those mentioned by Ben Edelman at http://www.benedelman.org His fight is against those who use adsense to commit fraud and to infect unsuspecting users.
Ben Edelman is rapidly becoming one of America's most respected lawyers and almost singularly concentrates on the law surrounding advertising and advertising fraud on the internet - his site is an absolute MUST VISIT for anyone seriously intrerested in browser security. Not only is he a top class lawyer but also a fairly decent programmer (though I believe he is modest about that).
Anyway Danny Carlton suddenly shut up when I suggested he contact these two and then publishh their replies for all to see - I told him I thought they would laugh in his face. I have corresponded a couple of times with Edelman and am 100% sure he would reply to Carlton and give his honest opinion.
Lets see shall we - does Carlton have the guts to question Edelman and Tim Berners Lee - I think Carlton should rise to this challenge or STFU.
http://www.adsensechat.com/showthread.p ... to=newpost
(see the last two or three pages of that conversation)
and basically challenged Danny Carlton to call Tim Berners Lee a thief since I know for a fact that TBL disables javascript and html in his email client as this, in his opinion, is the best way to safeguard against infection and advertising in mail
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/
- his advice to people with email is to use text only email and therefore follow the standards for email to the letter. It is not unimaginable to propose that he also prefers to disable adverts in a web browser by those who have annoying ads as well as the ability of sites such as those mentioned by Ben Edelman at http://www.benedelman.org His fight is against those who use adsense to commit fraud and to infect unsuspecting users.
Ben Edelman is rapidly becoming one of America's most respected lawyers and almost singularly concentrates on the law surrounding advertising and advertising fraud on the internet - his site is an absolute MUST VISIT for anyone seriously intrerested in browser security. Not only is he a top class lawyer but also a fairly decent programmer (though I believe he is modest about that).
Anyway Danny Carlton suddenly shut up when I suggested he contact these two and then publishh their replies for all to see - I told him I thought they would laugh in his face. I have corresponded a couple of times with Edelman and am 100% sure he would reply to Carlton and give his honest opinion.
Lets see shall we - does Carlton have the guts to question Edelman and Tim Berners Lee - I think Carlton should rise to this challenge or STFU.
Last edited by elvisthepelvis on Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.adsensechat.com/showpost.php ... stcount=41dannycarlton wrote:Sorry, but the latest work arounds used to defeat my blocks were part of the Ad Block Plus plug-in itself, not any filter. I can see the filter and see what it does.
Er, i dont't think that's possible, right?
Of course not, ABP hasn't changed for quite a whileMonztA wrote:Er, i dont't think that's possible, right?dannycarlton wrote:Sorry, but the latest work arounds used to defeat my blocks were part of the Ad Block Plus plug-in itself, not any filter. I can see the filter and see what it does.
Dannyboy still seems to think that filter subscriptions are a part
of the extension. I guess he means EasyList...
-
gobulus
He does! That is why I wrote this:chewey wrote: I guess he means EasyList...
http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1539
... to stop him (and others) from making that association.
-
elvisthepelvis
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:50 am
That guy called Danny Carlton is one prize winning idiot. He is basically slagging Adblock all over the web but because he has now dug a hole and embedded his claims on false evidence, he cannot now backtrack and admit he is wrong. He has been guilty of not understanding what he criticises. A scientist does not rubbish the claims of others without first understanding their claim. How are you going to dismiss properly the claims of those who say they have developed teleportation through quantum entanglement, if you dont understand the maths and physics behind quantum entanglement?
Same with Mr Carlton. He has misconstrued the concepts engaged in the technology called adblock plus and therefore his conclusion is wrong. His stubborn ability to believe the blatantly false can only be the start of him becoming a total legend in the world of online security. His blunder, if he persues this beyond a slander match and goes to the court, or brings in highly prominent authorities to the argument, will see his name go down in history as a fool, perhaps, on a magnitude hitherto unseen.
Same with Mr Carlton. He has misconstrued the concepts engaged in the technology called adblock plus and therefore his conclusion is wrong. His stubborn ability to believe the blatantly false can only be the start of him becoming a total legend in the world of online security. His blunder, if he persues this beyond a slander match and goes to the court, or brings in highly prominent authorities to the argument, will see his name go down in history as a fool, perhaps, on a magnitude hitherto unseen.
I can't believe this guy has flown under my radar for so long. Absolutely fantastic reading.elvisthepelvis wrote:[...] mentioned by Ben Edelman at http://www.benedelman.org [...] his site is an absolute MUST VISIT for anyone seriously interested in browser security. [...]
