Freddie Freeloader
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
like it, but I don't feel like coughing up money for it. Anyone want
to suggest a decent newsreader, preferably with a trial period or one
that's free?
Danny C
scrawled this in news:3udbntok7qfflrdj9...@4ax.com:
XNews.
Free.
Better than anything else.
http://xnews.3dnews.net
Danny C.
--
Promptness is its own reward, if one lives by the clock instead
of the sword.
DarkHand
> XNews.
> Free.
> Better than anything else.
> http://xnews.3dnews.net
Agreed. Fester suggested it to me and it == Rawk.
________
DarkHand
dark...@hotmail.com
"Official holder of the keys to the Bathroom of Infinity"
Milo
I used to use Free Agent years ago. Aside from the lack
of a kill-file, it's pretty good. Used in combination with
the free kill-file thing at http://www.nfilter.org/ you get
pretty much everything you need.
Currently I use Gravity (http://www.microplanet.com/), which
has everything I can think of needing in a newsreader. I think
it gives you a month to try.
--
milo
Flyhighplato
"DarkHand" <i.dont.like.g...@this.address> wrote in message
news:Xns90FABB50A8502id...@24.179.208.88...
I love OE for news too much for some reason... it's the only application I
am fiercly attached to.
The Shootist's Gnarled Fuschetti Dispenser
It took me an extremely long time to try something else (i.e. until
last month), but I figure, why the hell should I settle for what's
already conveniently on my parents' computer, when there might be
something that better suits my needs. Besides, Microsoft is counting
on its customers to blindly make use of their stuff, so that's another
point ta shop around...
Flyhighplato
"The Shootist's Gnarled Fuschetti Dispenser" <jazzf...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:7a7cb876.01081...@posting.google.com...
Well, fact is, I've tried other stuff and came back to this. It lacks the
functionality I seek. But I like how it's set up.
Fester
I vote for XNews, or failing that, FREE Agent, both of which have
already been suggested. I use slrn, but I don't think there's a
windows version. When I was on windows, I used XNews and loved it.
--
-- Fester
Idea: Stop drinking varnish.
==============================
Craig Myers
with the following:
> El Shooto Del Fuschetto <jazzf...@hotmail.com.ass> burped, and
> scrawled this in news:3udbntok7qfflrdj9...@4ax.com:
>
>> Well, my trial period of using Agent newsreader is almost over.
>> I like it, but I don't feel like coughing up money for it.
>> Anyone want to suggest a decent newsreader, preferably with a trial
>> period or one that's free?
>
> XNews.
> Free.
> Better than anything else.
> http://xnews.3dnews.net
>
> Danny C.
Xnews is good (I'm using it right now), but I also liked free agent a lot
(most of the features of agent, but its free). I tried agent but to be
honest I didn't use any of the extra features it has over free agent so I
went back. I've also heard good things about gravity so I guess what I'm
saying is try all 3. Damn I'm not helpful at all.
--
Still Winckler-Up The Un-Nerd of A.N.O.
www.geocities.com/genaldar
Craig Myers
with the following:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 22:35:55 GMT, in article
Gravity is now free because it is being discontinued. The only problem is
microplanet (I think thats the name of the maker) isn't advertising the
fact. In fact they don't even have the newest version on their site (the
site itself hasn't been updated for months). Go to news.software.readers
(using google groups) and do a search for downloading gravity, or go to
google and just do a search on gravity newsreader and one of the sites it
lists is called something like tom's gravity pages (or pete or bob or
something like that) and on there he has tips, tricks and links to the most
current (also the only free) version. I looked into trying gravity, but I'm
pretty happy with xnews so I didn't bother.
Craig Myers
with the following:
> I saw El Shooto Del Fuschetto rant about the following:
>>Well, my trial period of using Agent newsreader is almost over. I
>>like it, but I don't feel like coughing up money for it. Anyone want
>>to suggest a decent newsreader, preferably with a trial period or one
>>that's free?
>
> I vote for XNews, or failing that, FREE Agent, both of which have
> already been suggested. I use slrn, but I don't think there's a
> windows version. When I was on windows, I used XNews and loved it.
Slrn has a windows version.
Fester
>On 12 Aug 2001 Fester's computer became self aware and destroyed humanity
>with the following:
>
>> I saw El Shooto Del Fuschetto rant about the following:
>>>Well, my trial period of using Agent newsreader is almost over. I
>>>like it, but I don't feel like coughing up money for it. Anyone want
>>>to suggest a decent newsreader, preferably with a trial period or one
>>>that's free?
>>
>> I vote for XNews, or failing that, FREE Agent, both of which have
>> already been suggested. I use slrn, but I don't think there's a
>> windows version. When I was on windows, I used XNews and loved it.
>
>Slrn has a windows version.
Then I suggest that.
The Shootist's Gnarled Fuschetti Dispenser
Hrm. So many choices... Better than too few, that's for sure.
Any thoughts on other applications (word processing, browser, etc)?
T-Bone
album!
El Shooto Del Fuschetto wrote:
>
Milo
<Xns90FBCE668D7A9c...@10.0.0.1>, Craig Myers wrote:
>
>On 11 Aug 2001 Milo's computer became self aware and destroyed humanity
>with the following:
>
>> has everything I can think of needing in a newsreader. I think
>> it gives you a month to try.
>
>microplanet (I think thats the name of the maker) isn't advertising the
>fact. In fact they don't even have the newest version on their site (the
>site itself hasn't been updated for months). Go to news.software.readers
>(using google groups) and do a search for downloading gravity, or go to
>google and just do a search on gravity newsreader and one of the sites it
>lists is called something like tom's gravity pages (or pete or bob or
>something like that) and on there he has tips, tricks and links to the most
>current (also the only free) version. I looked into trying gravity, but I'm
>pretty happy with xnews so I didn't bother.
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to look into it myself.
I haven't upgraded in a while because I was happy with
the version I had, but if there's a newer one for free,
who am I to turn my nose up at that?
--
m i l o
Milo
> Hrm. So many choices... Better than too few, that's for sure.
>
> Any thoughts on other applications (word processing, browser, etc)?
Browser: Opera. Free version has an ad banner, but you can browse in
full-screen mode to avoid that. http://www.opera.com/
Word Processor: don't know. I don't use one except at work, where I
use Word. I use Notetab Light for most of my text-editing needs
(http://www.notetab.com/). It's free, and is very nearly as good as
their pay version. Does a great job on HTML.
Spreadsheet: Spread32. It's free, small, and covers all the basics.
Doesn't have graphing or other bells and whistles, but works great if
you just want a spreadsheet. I found it at download.com, I think.
Email: Pegasus or The Bat! Pegasus is free, and I've never had a
problem with it. The Bat! is shareware, handles multiple accounts with
ease, and has many cool features. Try download.com for either.
None of the above is associated with Microsoft in any way, as far as I
know.
Fester
>
>Hrm. So many choices... Better than too few, that's for sure.
>
>Any thoughts on other applications (word processing, browser, etc)?
On windows I always used IE as my browser. I've heard good things about
Opera though. (Although I think the free version has ads.)
As for office suites, try StarOffice (www.staroffice.com). It's free (beer)
and cross-platform. It's a little slow to load because it's written in Java,
but it can do just about anything that MS Office can, and it can read all
of the MS Office formats. (You might also want to look into OpenOffice,
which is a branch of StarOffice. It was created to continue StarOffice as
an Open Source project when Sun decided to close the source on StarOffice.
www.openoffice.org)
Etc? What else you looking for?
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
>Etc? What else you looking for?
I dunno, general purpose stuff you've found useful in the past. Milo
had the right idea.
Milo
Speaking of which, I forgot my favorite program:
the Proxomitron. It's an HTML filter you can use
to block banner ads, pop-up and -under ads, and
nearly anything else you want. It makes web-browsing
almost annoyance-free. Can be used to block web-bugs,
disable cookies selectively, re-format hard-to-read
web pages, etc.
It has a bit of a learning curve, though. It's fun
to fiddle with, if you're into that sort of thing.
An easier-to-use but less powerful ad-blocker is
WebWasher (http://www.webwasher.com/). Free for
personal use.
--
|\/| ! |_ []
DarkHand
> Speaking of which, I forgot my favorite program:
> the Proxomitron. It's an HTML filter you can use
> to block banner ads, pop-up and -under ads, and
> nearly anything else you want. It makes web-browsing
> almost annoyance-free. Can be used to block web-bugs,
> disable cookies selectively, re-format hard-to-read
> web pages, etc.
I use AdSubtract... Another ad-blocking proxy thats about 99% effective
right out of the box (the box being softseek.com) You can add to its list
to block any ads that it misses, but it rarely misses any. It's shareware,
but that's easily remedied... >:)
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
Exactly the sort of thing I want to have, but wasn't entirely sure if
there was anything like it out there. Thanks!
Danny C
news:vn0e7.404$2u.2...@www.newsranger.com:
> An easier-to-use but less powerful ad-blocker is
> WebWasher (http://www.webwasher.com/). Free for
> personal use.
Less powerful? No. I used Proximitron for about a year or so, but it
didn't have enough features. I went with Webwasher because I can add
specific image and URL filters (though certainly I can do the same
thing with my HOSTS file), I can add rules for cookies, scripts,
referrers, web bugs and so on and so forth.
All in all, I'd recommend WebWasher over Proximitron. It's simpler to
set up and while it doesn't come with as many options "out of the
box", it's got a much wider range of uses.
As for a browser, I use Opera, but the latest version has decided to
start crashing while I'm scrolling a long page with many graphics, no
matter what mouse drivers I'm using. Until a new version comes out,
I'm using IE (heavy modifications to the security, though).
For mail I use either PINE or Popcorn. A lot of people may be
familiar with PINE from unix, but it has a windows version as well.
Search for PC-PINE and you'll come across it. It's free.
Ultrafunk Popcorn is a lightweight mail client that doesn't save
anything to disk. It works with all the messages on the server, and
because of that, it runs fast and smooth.
Pegasus is also decent, I have it installed as well, and I've used
the adware version of Eudora extensively too. It tends to crash
occasionally, though, so I stay away from it. Both are free.
http://www.ultrafunk.com for Popcorn.
http://www.pmail.com/ for Pegasus.
For news, I use XNews as mentioned before. It's free, and the author
just plain kicks ass, and is an allaround nice guy. It supports
multiple news servers, multiple identities, scorefiles, killfiles, so
on, so forth. It's the most full-featured news client I've come
across, and I've tried _quite_ a few. http://xnews.3dnews.net
Uhh *digs*... for word processing I use Notepad++ or just plain ol'
Word '97 and Excel if I need them. I rarely use Word and its
associated apps, though, so I haven't taken the time to find freeware
equivilants.
Instead of Winzip, I use WinRAR (which also supports rar files). It's
not as annoying as Winzip, and supports a few more file types. It is
shareware. http://www.rarsoft.com/
Apollo recently replaced Winamp. I like the sound quality a lot
better, and it's just plain nifty all-around.
http://apollo.audiogalaxy.com/
Part of the fun of this stuff is downloading it and trying it out
yourself. Go explore.
Freeware sites:
http://www.nonags.com/nonags
http://www.webattack.com
Danny C.
--
See side panel for exciting recipe ideas.
Flyhighplato
"Danny C" <e...@joes.haw> wrote in message
news:Xns90FDC3383A...@65.82.44.7...
> Milo <mi...@stavromula.beta> burped, and scrawled this in
> news:vn0e7.404$2u.2...@www.newsranger.com:
>
> Pegasus is also decent, I have it installed as well, and I've used
> the adware version of Eudora extensively too. It tends to crash
> occasionally, though, so I stay away from it. Both are free.
>
> http://www.ultrafunk.com for Popcorn.
> http://www.pmail.com/ for Pegasus.
Pegasus has always been rock solid for me.
>
> Instead of Winzip, I use WinRAR (which also supports rar files). It's
> not as annoying as Winzip, and supports a few more file types. It is
> shareware. http://www.rarsoft.com/
I use Aladdin expander at work because it autounzips it into a folder when
you double-click on a zip file then...and that's what I do anyways.
Danny C
in news:ucje7.2903$MM.21...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com:
>
> "Danny C" <e...@joes.haw> wrote in message
> news:Xns90FDC3383A...@65.82.44.7...
>> Milo <mi...@stavromula.beta> burped, and scrawled this in
>> news:vn0e7.404$2u.2...@www.newsranger.com:
>>
>
>> Pegasus is also decent, I have it installed as well, and I've
>> used the adware version of Eudora extensively too. It tends to
>> crash occasionally, though, so I stay away from it. Both are
>> free.
>>
>> http://www.ultrafunk.com for Popcorn.
>> http://www.pmail.com/ for Pegasus.
>
> Pegasus has always been rock solid for me.
Yepyep. Pegasus is quality, and free to boot. I don't really like its
interface, though. I prefer the list of messages above a preview
pane, like it is in OE.
> I use Aladdin expander at work because it autounzips it into a
> folder when you double-click on a zip file then...and that's what
> I do anyways.
Ooh. URL?
Danny C.
--
The moral of the story is: Kill the parents kill the children.
Flyhighplato
"Danny C" <e...@joes.haw> wrote in message
> > I use Aladdin expander at work because it autounzips it into a
> > folder when you double-click on a zip file then...and that's what
> > I do anyways.
>
> Ooh. URL?
http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/
Danny C
Thanks.
After fucking around with Pegasus, I am in love. I <3 the regex
filters, and the autocomplete addressbook.
*swoon*
Danny C.
--
Bonzo the Demon Dog from Hell with Handlebars for Ears.
Milo
<Xns90FDC3383A...@65.82.44.7>, Danny C wrote:
>
>Milo <mi...@stavromula.beta> burped, and scrawled this in
>news:vn0e7.404$2u.2...@www.newsranger.com:
>
>> An easier-to-use but less powerful ad-blocker is
>> WebWasher (http://www.webwasher.com/). Free for
>> personal use.
>
>Less powerful? No. I used Proximitron for about a year or so, but it
>didn't have enough features. I went with Webwasher because I can add
>specific image and URL filters (though certainly I can do the same
>thing with my HOSTS file), I can add rules for cookies, scripts,
>referrers, web bugs and so on and so forth.
You can do all this and more with Proxomitron. I can block
specific pictures, specific urls, specific domains, or any
combination with an expression. I can block cookies, automatically
make cookies session-only, and do either of these with any url
or only selected urls. I can block specific features of javascript,
block java selectively, alter referrers by site or at random, alter
my user-agent, block web bugs, etc. When Hotmail tries
to direct me to MSN, I have a script that redirects me to a local
'links' page on my harddrive. Those url re-directors that some
sites use to track click-throughs? Another filter re-writes
them without the redirect.
Proxomitron allows you to edit any and all HTML sent to your
browser. Any, and I mean *any*, HTML that's sent to the browser,
you can alter with rules you write yourself. The latest Beta version
has even more features, and it's updated regularly.
Webwasher's good and powerful, but Proxomitron is more powerful. It's
also more complicated.
>All in all, I'd recommend WebWasher over Proximitron. It's simpler to
>set up and while it doesn't come with as many options "out of the
>box", it's got a much wider range of uses.
Webwasher is definitely easier to use, and for that reason I recommend
it to many people, especially if I know they're not at all technically
inclined. Even for the technically inclined, it's a good program and
especially worthwhile if you don't want to spend time fiddling with
the more complicated Proxomitron.
Danny C
news:bhle7.1693$2u.3...@www.newsranger.com:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:05:08 GMT, in article
> <Xns90FDC3383A...@65.82.44.7>, Danny C wrote:
>>
>>Milo <mi...@stavromula.beta> burped, and scrawled this in
>>news:vn0e7.404$2u.2...@www.newsranger.com:
>>
>>> An easier-to-use but less powerful ad-blocker is
>>> WebWasher (http://www.webwasher.com/). Free for personal use.
>>
>>Less powerful? No. I used Proximitron for about a year or so, but
>>it didn't have enough features. I went with Webwasher because I
>>can add specific image and URL filters (though certainly I can do
>>the same thing with my HOSTS file), I can add rules for cookies,
>>scripts, referrers, web bugs and so on and so forth.
>
> You can do all this and more with Proxomitron.
<snip>
Hm, true. Maybe I'll give Proximitron another try. I did use it for
about a year or so, but got hooked on WebWasher.
One thing I especially liked about Proximitron was the lack of
_bloat_. It never crashed, never slowed things down and ran
seamlessly in the background.
Danny C.
--
Bored people are boring people.
Danny C
news:Xns90FDE470BD...@65.82.44.7:
> One thing I especially liked about Proximitron was the lack of
> _bloat_. It never crashed, never slowed things down and ran
> seamlessly in the background.
It also appears I've forgotten how to spell Proxomitron. Sorry :)
Danny C.
--
For those of you without hope, we have rooms with color TV,
cable and air conditioning.
Flyhighplato
"Danny C" <e...@joes.haw> wrote in message
> "Flyhighplato" <flyhig...@techie.com> burped, and scrawled this
> in news:Ixje7.2919$MM.21...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com:
>
> >
> > "Danny C" <e...@joes.haw> wrote in message
> > news:Xns90FDC49FD7...@65.82.44.7...
> >> > I use Aladdin expander at work because it autounzips it into a
> >> > folder when you double-click on a zip file then...and that's
> >> > what I do anyways.
> >>
> >> Ooh. URL?
> >
> > http://www.aladdinsys.com/expander/
>
> Thanks.
>
> After fucking around with Pegasus, I am in love. I <3 the regex
> filters, and the autocomplete addressbook.
>
> *swoon*
Flying Horse Fucker
Danny C
Donkey-punching Flourescent Light
Danny C.
--
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.
Milo
<Xns90FDE470BD...@65.82.44.7>, Danny C wrote:
>
>Maybe I'll give Proximitron another try. I did use it for
>about a year or so, but got hooked on WebWasher.
A year or two ago I played around with every ad-blocker I could
find, including WebWasher, AdSubtract, and another one or two I can't
recall right now. WebWasher and Proxomitron were the best (IMO), and I'd
probably be using WebWasher if I didn't enjoy fiddling with Prox
so much.
>One thing I especially liked about Proximitron was the lack of
>_bloat_. It never crashed, never slowed things down and ran
>seamlessly in the background.
Yeah, I like that too. Although one of the beta versions I used
did crash occasionally, it was fixed right up in the next beta
release. The most recent beta is rock-solid.
I'm on the Prox mailing list, and the programmer contributes to
it regularly, offering advice on filters, taking suggestions for
the next version, and so on. It's pretty cool, and the list is
chock full of good ideas.
--
milo
Milo
>
>"Danny C" <e...@joes.haw> wrote in message
>news:Xns90FDC3383A...@65.82.44.7...
>
>> not as annoying as Winzip, and supports a few more file types. It is
>> shareware. http://www.rarsoft.com/
>
>I use Aladdin expander at work because it autounzips it into a folder when
>you double-click on a zip file then...and that's what I do anyways.
I use PowerArchiver for compressed files.
It supports ZIP, RAR, CAB, LHA (LZH), TAR, TAR.GZ,
TAR.BZ2, BH, ARJ, ARC, ACE, ZOO, GZ, BZIP2,
XXE, and UUE file formats.
And it's freeware. It looks and feels a lot
like WinZip, but without the nag screens.
It's even skin-able. I don't know why, though.
--
milo.zip
Fester
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:05:08 GMT, in article
><Xns90FDC3383A...@65.82.44.7>, Danny C wrote:
>>
>>Milo <mi...@stavromula.beta> burped, and scrawled this in
>>news:vn0e7.404$2u.2...@www.newsranger.com:
>>
>>> An easier-to-use but less powerful ad-blocker is
>>> WebWasher (http://www.webwasher.com/). Free for
>>> personal use.
>>
>>Less powerful? No. I used Proximitron for about a year or so, but it
>>didn't have enough features. I went with Webwasher because I can add
>>specific image and URL filters (though certainly I can do the same
>>thing with my HOSTS file), I can add rules for cookies, scripts,
>>referrers, web bugs and so on and so forth.
>
>You can do all this and more with Proxomitron. I can block
>specific pictures, specific urls, specific domains, or any
>combination with an expression. I can block cookies, automatically
>make cookies session-only, and do either of these with any url
>or only selected urls. I can block specific features of javascript,
>block java selectively, alter referrers by site or at random, alter
>my user-agent, block web bugs, etc. When Hotmail tries
>to direct me to MSN, I have a script that redirects me to a local
>'links' page on my harddrive. Those url re-directors that some
>sites use to track click-throughs? Another filter re-writes
>them without the redirect.
>
For anyone who uses linux (specifically KDE), I believe most of that
stuff was supposed to be built in to the new version of Konqueror that
was released today. I'm still downloading KDE 2.2, so I'll followup
when I've installed and explored.
Sunshine
>about a year or so, but got hooked on WebWasher.
>
I think you're all total brats and the reason why the Internet = bankrupt.
Sunshine
-----
And if you complain once more
You will meet an army of me
"All righty guv'nuh!" -Cliffy B.
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
wrote:
>>Hm, true. Maybe I'll give Proximitron another try. I did use it for
>>about a year or so, but got hooked on WebWasher.
>>
>
>I think you're all total brats and the reason why the Internet = bankrupt.
Please tell me you're not serious.
Fester
>>Hm, true. Maybe I'll give Proximitron another try. I did use it for
>>about a year or so, but got hooked on WebWasher.
>>
>
>I think you're all total brats and the reason why the Internet = bankrupt.
No, the Internet = bankrupt because too many sites were entirely dependant
on advertising that just plain didn't work. Eventually the advertisers
figured that out.
Releasing a program as freeware is the choice of its developer. It's not
like they're talking about pirating anything. ... and what does that have
to do with the internet anyway?
DarkHand
> Releasing a program as freeware is the choice of its developer. It's
> not like they're talking about pirating anything. ... and what does
> that have to do with the internet anyway?
I think she means that because we're not viewing ads, sites lose money. It
dosen't work that way, but I can see what she meant. :)
Sue the makers of Ad blocking software! Burn them! I'm sure the
advertisers can dream something up... Loss of profits, Infringement of
something or other, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, um... stuff.
Fester
>Fester wrote:
>
>> Releasing a program as freeware is the choice of its developer. It's
>> not like they're talking about pirating anything. ... and what does
>> that have to do with the internet anyway?
>
>I think she means that because we're not viewing ads, sites lose money. It
>dosen't work that way, but I can see what she meant. :)
>
>Sue the makers of Ad blocking software! Burn them! I'm sure the
>advertisers can dream something up... Loss of profits, Infringement of
>something or other, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, um... stuff.
Ah, I thought she was referring to the conversation as a whole. Silly me.
Honestly, I don't mind banner ads. Popups/unders == DEATH, though. Even
without ad-blockers, as I explained, the ad instustry still has gone to
hell.
IMO, the way to go is merchandising. Obviously sites that sell stuff make
money through selling stuff. And if it's good stuff, they survive. Content-
only sites are different. Bigtime sites (ex: slashdot, google) can still
make money off of ads. The little guys are the problem. Like I said,
merchandizing. Sell T-shirts, mugs, keychains, whatever little things you
can think of with your site or something about them written on it. Loyal
readers like buying stuff to show support. Even failing that, donations.
Look at the kind of money Penny Arcade gets just by asking nicely.
Danny C
news:slrn9nm2c2...@osric.nerdland.net:
> Ah, I thought she was referring to the conversation as a whole.
> Silly me.
>
> Honestly, I don't mind banner ads. Popups/unders == DEATH,
> though. Even without ad-blockers, as I explained, the ad
> instustry still has gone to hell.
I mind ads because I have a slow connection. At 56k, a few banner ads
can be the difference between loading in 5 seconds and loading in 60.
It really does make a difference.
Danny C.
--
I just walk right through the door...
Sunshine
>
>Please tell me you're not serious.
Not totally serious. But I do think y'all are spoiled.
Sunshine
>dosen't work that way, but I can see what she meant. :)
How does it not work that way? Unless you still count as a pageview when you're
using the adblocking software, it would seem that when sites make money by how
many times they serve ads, you are causing them to not make money when you use
the software.
Yes, I am aware that most advertisers don't pay for the mere display of ads
anymore, they require clickthroughs. By blocking out the ads, you nullify any
chance of seeing a good ad that you might actually be interested in enough to
click on, thus, again, causing the website not to make any money.
>Sue the makers of Ad blocking software! Burn them! I'm sure the
>advertisers can dream something up... Loss of profits, Infringement of
>something or other, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, um... stuff.
There's a shiny new penny in it for you if you can find anything I said
indicating that adblocking software should be removed, banned or censored. It's
a choice whether to use it and I think it's a crummy choice to view Internet
content without giving them any chance to get anything in return from you. It
doesn't matter how shitty you know their business model is, that's like saying
it's okay to steal from a store and it's their fault for not having a good
enough security system.
Milo
<20010815172141...@ng-cv1.aol.com>, Sunshine wrote:
>
>>Hm, true. Maybe I'll give Proximitron another try. I did use it for
>>about a year or so, but got hooked on WebWasher.
>>
>I think you're all total brats and the reason why the Internet = bankrupt.
I'll assume your comment refers to using ad-blocking
software while browsing, and you are talking about the
Internet becoming financially bankrupt, and not morally so.
If that's correct, it appears that even online ad companies
disagree with you.
Check out
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Y1-QGkhTIMY:www.iht.com/articles/23138.htm
(Google cache; the original article isn't available anymore).
Funny line: "People like ads," said Allie Shaw. Much of the
bottom of the article is about how advertisers aren't worried.
At http://www.jsonline.com/bym/tech/news/may99/0518blockers.asp
they say advertisers aren't worried, and add:
"Larry Chase, publisher of Web Digest for Marketers, an online
marketing newsletter, said that many people on the Internet
won't bother using software that blocks advertising
because it's extra work for them to set up and run."
NPR had an interview with Cathy Taylor, interactive editor at
Advertising Age on the show All Things Considered (Thursday,
May 17, 2001), where she said that advertisers aren't worried
about ad-blocking software. You can search for and listen to
the program at npr.org if you like.
Professional Jeweler.com's Your Business Online column (July 5):
http://www.professionaljeweler.com/archives/features/ybol/2001/070501ybol.html
Same basic story. Quote:"They don't think most people really want the ads
blocked or want to deal with the hassles of the software."
Note that the 'not worried' comments in all cases come from
people who work in the online ad industry. If ad-blockers were
part of the downfall of the Internet, they'd be screaming and
shouting and getting laws passed and such.
--
milo
Sunshine
Yeth, silly you.
>Honestly, I don't mind banner ads. Popups/unders == DEATH, though.
They're idiotic and horrible, but I don't see how it helps to block the less
obtrusive ads so that they're FORCED to use the more obtrusive ones.
>Even
>without ad-blockers, as I explained, the ad instustry still has gone to
>hell.
Nobody's denying that, but why should the ad industry bother trying to create
good ads when people like you either ignore or outright block them? That's the
essence of my argument: you owe them the CHANCE for them to launch a good
campaign.
>IMO, the way to go is merchandising. Obviously sites that sell stuff make
>money through selling stuff. And if it's good stuff, they survive. Content-
>only sites are different. Bigtime sites (ex: slashdot, google) can still
>make money off of ads. The little guys are the problem. Like I said,
>merchandizing. Sell T-shirts, mugs, keychains, whatever little things you
>can think of with your site or something about them written on it. Loyal
>readers like buying stuff to show support. Even failing that, donations.
>Look at the kind of money Penny Arcade gets just by asking nicely.
Again with the it's-their-fault stuff.
a) As I said before, I don't consider it to be alright to nullify a website's
source of profit, simply because it's a poorly-planned one.
b) Donations are usually NOT a steady source of income. I point you to
fark.com. It gets millions of hits, more than slashdot. They're trying to raise
money for a new server, so they ask for donations, and they've netted so far
$1500-$2000 (I haven't checked the donation page in awhile). That's a nice
chunk of change, but it's not a constant thing, and if the designers were
trying to live off it, they sure as hell couldn't.
On the other hand, MightyBigTV.com (another very very popular site that costs a
lot more to run than Fark) refuses to ask for outright donations. They ask for
support in the form of clicking on their ads (even though right now their ad
broker is really random and keeps running the same three ads over and over).
They sell merchandise, too, and they'll be starting a subscription program for
additional content. But right now their bread-and-butter are those ads and I
don't mind at all clicking on them because I care about the site and I care
about the people who run it. I consider it a very small price to pay in
exchange for all the work that goes into entertaining me. And I don't get why
you guys are so set against paying that price (ESPECIALLY you guys with the
fast connections).
Sunshine
>can be the difference between loading in 5 seconds and loading in 60.
>It really does make a difference.
Yeah, and I wouldn't know about that because I'm just zipping along. ON
A-FUCKING-OL. Come off it. A FEW banner ads. And if the site has any kind of
respect for its viewers they'll stop running the ads that take forever anyway.
Milo
<snip descriptions of some of Proxomitron's features>
> For anyone who uses linux (specifically KDE), I believe most of that
> stuff was supposed to be built in to the new version of Konqueror that
> was released today. I'm still downloading KDE 2.2, so I'll followup
> when I've installed and explored.
Ideally, the features that Prox and other local filters
have *should* be built into the browsers. But usually, when
it's even contemplated, corporate interests crush the idea.
I remember hearing that one browser (was it Mozilla or Netscape?)
was going to have vastly improved privacy controls and some
ad-blocking capabilities, but it didn't pan out.
So if this really has happened, more power to Linux! I may
yet take the plunge.
--
(m)(i)(l)(o)
Sunshine
>software while browsing, and you are talking about the
>Internet becoming financially bankrupt, and not morally so.
>If that's correct, it appears that even online ad companies
>disagree with you.
That was the exaggerating part of my post. Geez. Okay, restatement:
I think people who block ads are jerks and dorks, and they do not AID the
Internet economy, but they are not solely responsible for the technological
recession. Happy now?
Danny C
news:20010815234411...@ng-cc1.aol.com:
> How does it not work that way? Unless you still count as a
> pageview when you're using the adblocking software, it would seem
> that when sites make money by how many times they serve ads, you
> are causing them to not make money when you use the software.
>
> Yes, I am aware that most advertisers don't pay for the mere
> display of ads anymore, they require clickthroughs. By blocking
> out the ads, you nullify any chance of seeing a good ad that you
> might actually be interested in enough to click on, thus, again,
> causing the website not to make any money.
Good... ads? ALL the ads I've seen, with a few exceptions are
pointless and don't interest me.
So what if I'm making them lose money? OH NO THEY LOST THE 1/3 OF A
CENT THEY WOULD HAVE GAINED HAD I CLICKED!
Danny C.
--
Ignorance can be cured -- but stupid is forever.
Danny C
>>>I think you're all total brats and the reason why the Internet =
>>>bankrupt.
>>
>>Please tell me you're not serious.
>
> Not totally serious. But I do think y'all are spoiled.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Danny C.
--
No, no, you're not thinking, you're just being logical. (Niels
Bohr)
Fester
>corya...@aol.comIEatSpam (Sunshine) burped, and scrawled this in
>news:20010815233712...@ng-cc1.aol.com:
>
>>>>I think you're all total brats and the reason why the Internet =
>>>>bankrupt.
>>>
>>>Please tell me you're not serious.
>>
>> Not totally serious. But I do think y'all are spoiled.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA.
Fester
>>dosen't work that way, but I can see what she meant. :)
>
>How does it not work that way? Unless you still count as a pageview when you're
>using the adblocking software, it would seem that when sites make money by how
>many times they serve ads, you are causing them to not make money when you use
>the software.
>
>Yes, I am aware that most advertisers don't pay for the mere display of ads
>anymore, they require clickthroughs. By blocking out the ads, you nullify any
>chance of seeing a good ad that you might actually be interested in enough to
>click on, thus, again, causing the website not to make any money.
>
I have clicked on one (1) ad in my whole life. It was on Slashdot, for
Thinkgeek. I was going to go there anyway, I just didn't feel like moving my
mouse all the way down the page to the other thinkgeek link.
Of course, that doesn't count the time when I clicked on a bunch of ads on
SomethingAwful when Lowtax was being paid per click.
Fester
>obtrusive ads so that they're FORCED to use the more obtrusive ones.
Explain please. Any software that blocks banner ads can certainly block
popup ads. The reason they started using popups is because, even without
ad-blocking software, nobody clicks on banner ads to begin with. Heck, with
popups you have the chance of the ad being accidentally clicked while the
user is trying to close the window!
Sadly, the only kind of ad that really works frequently is the ones that
look like windows message boxes. ("Your connection is not optimized! Click
here!"). You have no idea how many times my dad has called from his office
to ask why his connection/ram/whatever wasn't optimized, and if he should
click OK.
>>IMO, the way to go is merchandising. Obviously sites that sell stuff make
>>money through selling stuff. And if it's good stuff, they survive. Content-
>>only sites are different. Bigtime sites (ex: slashdot, google) can still
>>make money off of ads. The little guys are the problem. Like I said,
>>merchandizing. Sell T-shirts, mugs, keychains, whatever little things you
>>can think of with your site or something about them written on it. Loyal
>>readers like buying stuff to show support. Even failing that, donations.
>>Look at the kind of money Penny Arcade gets just by asking nicely.
>
>Again with the it's-their-fault stuff.
>a) As I said before, I don't consider it to be alright to nullify a website's
>source of profit, simply because it's a poorly-planned one.
Where did I say poorly planned? If your site primarily sells stuff, there's your
income. If it primarily offers content, sell stuff anyway.
>b) Donations are usually NOT a steady source of income. I point you to
>fark.com. It gets millions of hits, more than slashdot. They're trying to raise
>money for a new server, so they ask for donations, and they've netted so far
>$1500-$2000 (I haven't checked the donation page in awhile). That's a nice
>chunk of change, but it's not a constant thing, and if the designers were
>trying to live off it, they sure as hell couldn't.
Yep, I didn't say they were. I said they're a supplement to whatever you might
make from selling merchandise. I also admit that it's rather sad but true that
you can't make a living off of content anymore.
>On the other hand, MightyBigTV.com (another very very popular site that costs a
>lot more to run than Fark) refuses to ask for outright donations. They ask for
>support in the form of clicking on their ads (even though right now their ad
>broker is really random and keeps running the same three ads over and over).
>They sell merchandise, too, and they'll be starting a subscription program for
>additional content. But right now their bread-and-butter are those ads and I
>don't mind at all clicking on them because I care about the site and I care
>about the people who run it. I consider it a very small price to pay in
>exchange for all the work that goes into entertaining me. And I don't get why
>you guys are so set against paying that price (ESPECIALLY you guys with the
>fast connections).
Read my other post where I mentioned doing essentially the same thing for SA.
Also, to note, I only block popup ads. I just ignore the rest.
Fester
They didn't quite do as much as it seemed like they would. From the
previews I read, it seemed like you could make site profiles which would
allow you to turn on and off javascript/flash/images/popups on a site-
by-site basis.
So far you can do javascript, java, and cookies on a site-by-site basis,
but the rest are still global (although now they've put buttons on the
toolbar so you can toggle them on the fly). Ah well, maybe Konqeror 3.0.
Still, konqueror is definitely the most versitile and customizable
browser I've ever used. The only thing it's still missing IMO, is
inline URL completion in the address bar.
DarkHand
> How does it not work that way?
Well it does, but so few people, when you look at everyone, uses ad-blocking
software, it makes little difference.
>>Sue the makers of Ad blocking software! Burn them! I'm sure the
>>advertisers can dream something up... Loss of profits, Infringement of
>>something or other, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, um... stuff.
>
> There's a shiny new penny in it for you if you can find anything I said
> indicating that adblocking software should be removed, banned or
> censored.
There wasn't... I just wanted to complain about how over-suing has become
so common. :)
Sunshine
>
>Well it does, but so few people, when you look at everyone, uses ad-blocking
>software, it makes little difference.
Which is why I was forced to amend my statement (because y'all are a bunch of
anal-retentive losers) to say that adblocking software is not solely
responsible for the entire advertising recession.
It ain't an economic choice, it's a moral choice.
Sunshine
>your
>income. If it primarily offers content, sell stuff anyway.
>
This is like the fourth time in the last 24 hours you've managed to completely
miss the point, hehe. Are you on teh pot?
You certainly seemed to be implying that it was a poorly-planned business plan
to rely on ADVERTISING. I am saying that poor planning is not an excuse to
nullify something.
>Read my other post where I mentioned doing essentially the same thing for SA.
Or you could have just said again, "I do the same thing for SA." *shrug*
>Also, to note, I only block popup ads. I just ignore the rest.
>
Heh, well why didn't you say so? THAT I don't mind! Popup ads are evil, go
ahead, ignore the hell out of them. What I mind is blatant attempts to avoid
having your viewership of content count as any sort of ad income for the
content's provider.
Zonganonymous
>Are you on teh pot?
FESTAR SMOKES TEH DURGS!!
Zonga, "Look out! He's got a nug!"
Milo
<20010816081709...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, Sunshine wrote:
>
>>Also, to note, I only block popup ads. I just ignore the rest.
>>
>Heh, well why didn't you say so? THAT I don't mind! Popup ads are evil, go
>ahead, ignore the hell out of them. What I mind is blatant attempts to avoid
>having your viewership of content count as any sort of ad income for the
>content's provider.
Your statement above is inconsistent. If you block a
pop-up, the ad isn't served, and doesn't count as income
for the site. You seem to say that blocking some ads is
okay, if they're evil. How do you draw the line?
--
milo
Milo
<20010816081133...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, Sunshine wrote:
>
>>Well it does, but so few people, when you look at everyone, uses ad-blocking
>>software, it makes little difference.
>
>Which is why I was forced to amend my statement (because y'all are a bunch of
>anal-retentive losers) to say that adblocking software is not solely
>responsible for the entire advertising recession.
>It ain't an economic choice, it's a moral choice.
Here you seem to suggest that if one views the content
of a website, and do not view the ads, you are making
a morally incorrect choice. Do you seriously want to
suggest that looking at adverts is now a moral imperative?
Do you sit still and watch all the commercials when you're
watching TV? If you tape a TV show, do you fast-forward the
commercials?
--
milo
Milo
<20010815235511...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, Sunshine wrote:
>
>They're idiotic and horrible, but I don't see how it helps to block the less
>obtrusive ads so that they're FORCED to use the more obtrusive ones.
Irrelevant. Ad-blocking doesn't force more obtrusive ads;
the obtrusive ads don't get through either. I didn't see
a single X-10 pop-under until I used a friends computer.
Ads are more obtrusive because non-blocking folks *still*
don't click on them. Who's fault is that?
By the way, the type of ad that doesn't get blocked by
any of the ad-blockers? Plain text ads, like the ones
Google uses. If your theory above was correct, more and
more sites would be using less obtrusive ads.
>Nobody's denying that, but why should the ad industry bother trying to create
>good ads when people like you either ignore or outright block them? That's the
>essence of my argument: you owe them the CHANCE for them to launch a good
>campaign.
You're a good citizen, Sunshine. The type every major
corporation likes.
>On the other hand, MightyBigTV.com (another very very popular site that costs a
>lot more to run than Fark) refuses to ask for outright donations. They ask for
>support in the form of clicking on their ads (even though right now their ad
>broker is really random and keeps running the same three ads over and over).
Here's something you might like then. Every ad-blocking
program I've used blocks the ad from appearing, but keeps
the link in place. If you wish, you can click on a site's
ads all you like, but without having to see the ad first.
Having an ad-blocker doesn't prevent you from clicking
on the ads. If that's your sole complaint, it's handled.
>I consider it a very small price to pay in
>exchange for all the work that goes into entertaining me. And I don't get why
>you guys are so set against paying that price (ESPECIALLY you guys with the
>fast connections).
Personally, I see the way advertising works in our society
today as another symptom of cultural decline. The price of
constant ad bombardment is not merely annoyance, the cost is
a lot higher than that. You see a moral obligation to financially
support the providers of content no matter what their methods
of getting financial support are. I don't.
Back in 1994, when I started using the 'net, everything aside
from your connection was free. Content was available because
people wanted to share it. That was part of what made it great.
Now it's being turned into a mall.
--
milo
Milo
<20010816000344...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, Sunshine wrote:
>
>>I'll assume your comment refers to using ad-blocking
>>software while browsing, and you are talking about the
>>Internet becoming financially bankrupt, and not morally so.
>>If that's correct, it appears that even online ad companies
>>disagree with you.
>
>That was the exaggerating part of my post. Geez. Okay, restatement:
>
>I think people who block ads are jerks and dorks, and they do not AID the
>Internet economy, but they are not solely responsible for the technological
>recession. Happy now?
No, not happy. You called me a name. That hurts my feelings.
Besides, you didn't address my point. Online ad companies have
repeatedly stated that they are not concerned with ad-blocking
software. One article I read even mentioned that since people
who block ads, by and large, wouldn't click on them anyway, there
was no real loss for the advertisers. That statement was made by
an ad exec.
As for the "Internet economy", I suggest reading
_Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the
Madness of Crowds_ by Charles Mackay, LL. D. You can
find it online at http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macExtoc.html
or probably at your local library. The reason for the Internet's
financial situation is in there.
--
milo
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
news:20010815233712...@ng-cc1.aol.com:
>>>I think you're all total brats and the reason why the Internet =
>>>bankrupt.
>>
>>Please tell me you're not serious.
>
> Not totally serious. But I do think y'all are spoiled.
Spoiled? Elucidate.
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
> I consider it a very small price to pay in
> exchange for all the work that goes into entertaining me. And I don't
> get why you guys are so set against paying that price (ESPECIALLY you
> guys with the fast connections).
That'll teach me to post without reading the whole thread.
My parents' computer is on a cable modem, and the computer I use at work is
hooked up to a stupid fast LAN, so the technical side is moot in my case.
My concern is an ethical and aesthetic one.
I hate consumer capitalism. HATE HATE HATE HATE. You may have noticed
this underlying theme in my posts, as of late. So I take every opportunity
I can to thumb my nose at the system. I rip the tags off my clothes. On
the occasions I watch TV, I turn off the sound and listen to music during
the commercials. I say fuck the automobile, my legs and the bus work just
fine. And I say fuck advertisements. There's already so much mental
pollution that I can't filter out (billboards, rampant logos, etc) that I
damn well will filter out what I can.
Advertising, at its heart, is an industry of manipulation and brainwashing.
As such, I have zero tolerance for it.
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
>>> How does it not work that way?
>>
>>Well it does, but so few people, when you look at everyone, uses
>>ad-blocking software, it makes little difference.
>
> Which is why I was forced to amend my statement (because y'all are a
> bunch of anal-retentive losers)
There's really no need for namecalling.
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
> A hellalotta stuff that makes sense to me.
Damn, Milo. I feel utterly redundant in this thread.
Thanks! I probably wouldn't have the patience to present the points as
clearly or to do the legwork to back it up. Good job, good man.
Fester
>>your
>>income. If it primarily offers content, sell stuff anyway.
>>
>
>This is like the fourth time in the last 24 hours you've managed to completely
>miss the point, hehe. Are you on teh pot?
No, just very tired. Spending the better part of each day marching around on a
field with entirely too much sun and entirely too little water does not assist
with reading comprehension.
>You certainly seemed to be implying that it was a poorly-planned business plan
>to rely on ADVERTISING. I am saying that poor planning is not an excuse to
>nullify something.
No, I was simply offering suggestions on what to do now that advertising doesn't
work anymore.
>>Also, to note, I only block popup ads. I just ignore the rest.
>>
>
>Heh, well why didn't you say so? THAT I don't mind! Popup ads are evil, go
>ahead, ignore the hell out of them. What I mind is blatant attempts to avoid
>having your viewership of content count as any sort of ad income for the
>content's provider.
While I don't personally use ad-blockers, I find nothing wrong with them, and
am therefore defending them in this thread.
Fester
>Sunny wrote:
>>Are you on teh pot?
>
>FESTAR SMOKES TEH DURGS!!
>
No, that's you, dear. Now get back to selling your babies
for draino, or whatever I said in that email.
Fester
>from your connection was free. Content was available because
>people wanted to share it. That was part of what made it great.
>Now it's being turned into a mall.
The main issue here is the cost of bandwidth. Back in 1994, most stuff
was text and a few images. Also, the net population was only a fraction
of what it is today. Currently, everyone likes flash, java, video, lots
of images, because more and more people are getting broadband. Also,
like I said, the net population as a whole has drastically increased.
So now, to keep a popular noncommercial site running, the bandwidth
costs are astronomical. That's why even the pure-content people have
to turn to advertising - unfortunate as it is.
And, of course, the mall-ish sites are a necessary evil to provide the
advertising for said content sites (well, up until recently, when
everything collapsed on itself).
Personally, I visit only 6 commercial sites regularly. They're not my
favorite places to spend time, but I'd be inconvenienced if they
weren't there. They are: TCWO, ThinkGeek, Buy.com, CDW, EBWorld, and
CompUSA.
Fester
>I say fuck the automobile, my legs and the bus work just fine.
I find this funny, as every bus I've seen is plastered all over
with advertisements.
El Shooto Del Fuschetto
news:slrn9nojs6...@osric.nerdland.net:
> I saw El Shooto Del Fuschetto rant about the following:
>>I say fuck the automobile, my legs and the bus work just fine.
>
> I find this funny, as every bus I've seen is plastered all over
> with advertisements.
You better believe that bothers me.
But it beats the hell out of paying for a car. I spend around $50 a month
on bus fares, while I used to spend something like $70 a month on gas
alone. Factor in maintenance, insurance, parking, etc. and it gets kind of
messy. Personal automobiles are among the most wasteful aspects of our
society.
Sunshine
>of a website, and do not view the ads, you are making
>a morally incorrect choice. Do you seriously want to
>suggest that looking at adverts is now a moral imperative?
I'm saying that supporting your favored websites in the most effortless way
possible should be a moral imperative.
>
>Do you sit still and watch all the commercials when you're
>watching TV? If you tape a TV show, do you fast-forward the
>commercials?
Difference: nobody can tell whether or not I'm watching TV commercials.
Sunshine
>the obtrusive ads don't get through either.
That wasn't exactly what I was saying, but what I was saying didn't make much
sense now that I think about it, so I'll just withdraw that point.
>Ads are more obtrusive because non-blocking folks *still*
>don't click on them. Who's fault is that?
THA MAN. damn their capitalist hides.
*eyeroll*
>You're a good citizen, Sunshine. The type every major
>corporation likes.
>
Thank you so much for painting me as a tool because I'm willing to _accept_
that things are the way they are rather than wrapping myself in "the world is
oh so awful and depraved and I am oh so noble for seeing the truth and pining
for a long-obsolete society"ness. I think excessive advertising SUCKS. But it's
what's making the world go round.
>Having an ad-blocker doesn't prevent you from clicking
>on the ads. If that's your sole complaint, it's handled.
>
Well it'd be pretty damn stupid if it wouldn't LET you click on the ads. That'd
be the suckiest product that ever sucked. Don't patronize me because you think
you're better than me, please.
>Personally, I see the way advertising works in our society
>today as another symptom of cultural decline.
Heh, well until you wrote that I thought you considered it a BONUS to our great
world! Because you know I'm blind and deaf and have never been to this
newsgroup before in my life.
>Back in 1994, when I started using the 'net, everything aside
>from your connection was free. Content was available because
>people wanted to share it. That was part of what made it great.
>Now it's being turned into a mall.
Back in 1994, the Internet was microscopic compared to what it is now. I think
back to then, and I don't even remember having any favorite websites. None of
the ones I love now existed back then. And when more people put content on the
web, that means they need income. I ain't talking about sears.com or some shit
set up solely to buy the CEO another mansion, I'm talking about the numerous
PEOPLE who spend their lives providing entertainment, and in return they try to
make enough money to, you know, live. And I'm SORRY if you consider that to be
too much to ask, but if it weren't for advertising, and for charges for
content, there'd BE much fucking less content.
Fester
>>pop-up, the ad isn't served, and doesn't count as income
>>for the site. You seem to say that blocking some ads is
>>okay, if they're evil. How do you draw the line?
>
>Pop-up ads = horridly intrusive.
>So I suppose my stance is to humor advertising until it becomes an actual
>nuisance, at which point, thwart it all you want.
So do you consider waiting for ads to load over a 56k enough of a nuisance
to warrant an ad-blocker? "Nuisance" is a rather subjective term.
Sunshine
>No, not happy. You called me a name. That hurts my feelings.
>
You treat me like a twit for not being into freeloading. Why am I so evil just
for putting the contempt into noun form?
>Besides, you didn't address my point. Online ad companies have
>repeatedly stated that they are not concerned with ad-blocking
>software.
And I said they're right, ad-blocking software will not ruin the world or the
economy, that doesn't nullify whether it's nice or moral or fair.
>As for the "Internet economy", I suggest reading
>_Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the
>Madness of Crowds_ by Charles Mackay, LL. D.
I assumed the reason for the Internet's financial situation was that nobody had
a business plan and they all overestimated the actual impact of advertising.
That's not to say I'm not interested in the book, it sounds interesting. It
doesn't classify religion as a delusion, does it?
Sunshine
>> bunch of anal-retentive losers)
>
>There's really no need for namecalling.
Only an attempt at lightening the mood, dearie, because you see, I REALLY don't
want to get in a weeklong debate about this. I think if you read a site's
content you should at least let their ads load. That's it. That is my position.
You're not gonna say anything to change my position, I'm not going to say
anything to change your position, but inevitably, we'll spend the next several
days bitching at each other because neither of us will want the other to get
the last word in because of course, the person with the most patience for
restating their views over and over is superior and 0wning.
Sunshine
>pop-up, the ad isn't served, and doesn't count as income
>for the site. You seem to say that blocking some ads is
>okay, if they're evil. How do you draw the line?
Banner ads = negligible irritation to the user.
Pop-up ads = horridly intrusive.
So I suppose my stance is to humor advertising until it becomes an actual
nuisance, at which point, thwart it all you want.
Sunshine
Sunshine
>to warrant an ad-blocker?
Why do you keep acting like I DON'T have a 56k? Hi. AOLer here. I 0WN the land
of crappy connections.
Fester
>>to warrant an ad-blocker?
>
>Why do you keep acting like I DON'T have a 56k? Hi. AOLer here. I 0WN the land
>of crappy connections.
Now YOU are missing the point. That was an example. You don't consider it an
adequate nuisance. Danny does. Thus, "nuisance" is a very vague way of defining
your stance on the issue.
jason
2001 20:45, Sunshine at corya...@aol.comIEatSpam took its finger out of
its ass and typed:
> I think excessive advertising SUCKS. But it's what's making the world go
> round.
um, no.
--
word.
jason
Fester
>back to then, and I don't even remember having any favorite websites. None of
>the ones I love now existed back then.
Not to hijack the thread or anything, but Hecklers Online!! (Though that was
an AOL Area, and more like 95/96, but eh) Too bad they turned to shit after
playboy bought them. :(
jason
2001 20:51, Sunshine at corya...@aol.comIEatSpam took its finger out of
its ass and typed:
>>Besides, you didn't address my point. Online ad companies have
>>repeatedly stated that they are not concerned with ad-blocking
>>software.
>
> And I said they're right, ad-blocking software will not ruin the world or
> the economy, that doesn't nullify whether it's nice or moral or fair.
please expound on the use of the terms "moral" and "fair" when applied to
the world of advertising.
--
word.
jason
Sunshine
Now I am the one that is it?
>That was an example. You don't consider it an
>adequate nuisance. Danny does. Thus, "nuisance" is a very vague way of
>defining
>your stance on the issue.
K. Well I don't know how to phrase it more exactly. Danny has much lower
standards over what is a nuisance than I do. Since we get the same ads, at the
same connection speed, and I can deal with them and he can't, I suppose my
conclusion is that Danny's a pussy.* (Or maybe that I think he should learn to
deal, whatever.)
*waits to see if Danny posts about how awful she is for namecalling except he
won't*
Sunshine
>its ass and typed:
>> I think excessive advertising SUCKS. But it's what's making the world go
>> round.
>
>um, no.
heh, yes. if it were not for advertising, the world would stop spinning on its
axis and we'd all go flying out into oblivion.
or maybe if it weren't for advertising our economy would just fall down. I DO
believe that, since I can't think of a single industry that's completely
unreliant on advertising in some form.
Fester
>
>Now I am the one that is it?
>
>>That was an example. You don't consider it an
>>adequate nuisance. Danny does. Thus, "nuisance" is a very vague way of
>>defining
>>your stance on the issue.
>
>K. Well I don't know how to phrase it more exactly. Danny has much lower
>standards over what is a nuisance than I do. Since we get the same ads, at the
>same connection speed, and I can deal with them and he can't, I suppose my
>conclusion is that Danny's a pussy.* (Or maybe that I think he should learn to
>deal, whatever.)
NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO IMPOSE YOUR MORAL STANDARDS ON EVERYONE ELSE. YOU MONSTER!
Anyway, my point was that it's rather hypocritical of you to say that it's OK
for you to block popups because you consider them a nuisance, but it's not OK
for Danny to block banners because he consers them a nuisance.
Sunshine
>> the economy, that doesn't nullify whether it's nice or moral or fair.
>
>please expound on the use of the terms "moral" and "fair" when applied to
>the world of advertising.
>
The website gives you content.
You read the content.
You tax the resources of the website while gaining amusement from it.
The website attempts to gain something from you through advertising.
You not only ignore the ad, you refuse to even let it appear on your screen.
This != fair.
Sunshine
>for you to block popups because you consider them a nuisance, but it's not OK
>for Danny to block banners because he consers them a nuisance.
*ponders*
I suppose all I can say is that in my opinion, banners are stomachable. Pop-ups
are ridiculous. It's not as if this argument was ever anything but subjective.
Fester
>>for you to block popups because you consider them a nuisance, but it's not OK
>>for Danny to block banners because he consers them a nuisance.
>
>*ponders*
>I suppose all I can say is that in my opinion, banners are stomachable. Pop-ups
>are ridiculous. It's not as if this argument was ever anything but subjective.
And so, you should stop condemning others for their differing opinions on this
issue, since you seem to be saying that this is a matter of personal preference.
Now let us celebrate this agreement witht the adding of chocolate to milk.
Sunshine
>this
>issue, since you seem to be saying that this is a matter of personal
>preference.
Yes and other people's preferences are wrong ;)
Just 'cause this is subjective don't mean I ain't gonna SUPPORT my viewpoint.
>Now let us celebrate this agreement witht the adding of chocolate to milk.
Yay. Dude, I haven't had chocolate milk in forever, I really want some now.
Damn you.
jason
2001 21:21, Sunshine at corya...@aol.comIEatSpam took its finger out of
its ass and typed:
>>Now YOU are missing the point.
>
> Now I am the one that is it?
>
>>That was an example. You don't consider it an
>>adequate nuisance. Danny does. Thus, "nuisance" is a very vague way of
>>defining
>>your stance on the issue.
>
> K. Well I don't know how to phrase it more exactly. Danny has much lower
> standards over what is a nuisance than I do. Since we get the same ads, at
> the same connection speed, and I can deal with them and he can't, I
> suppose my conclusion is that Danny's a pussy.* (Or maybe that I think he
> should learn to deal, whatever.)
>
> *waits to see if Danny posts about how awful she is for namecalling except
> he won't*
nah, that's cuz danny is an ASSFACE PUSSY
--
word.
jason
Fester
>>this
>>issue, since you seem to be saying that this is a matter of personal
>>preference.
>
>Yes and other people's preferences are wrong ;)
>Just 'cause this is subjective don't mean I ain't gonna SUPPORT my viewpoint.
But your viewpoint, as you've stated it, is that you will stick to your own
opinions for your own use. By that definition, others should do the same.
Arguing with others is in direct violation of your viewpoint.
... but then again I may just be picking nits. ;)
>>Now let us celebrate this agreement witht the adding of chocolate to milk.
>
>Yay. Dude, I haven't had chocolate milk in forever, I really want some now.
>Damn you.
Hm, same here. Eh, I'm going to bed now and I'll forget about it by the time
I wake up.
Sunshine
>opinions for your own use. By that definition, others should do the same.
>Arguing with others is in direct violation of your viewpoint.
I would love nothing more than to say "k, I'm done arguing," except that it
would be perceived as me giving up and thus losing. because that is how
internet arguments always end up working.
Fester
>>opinions for your own use. By that definition, others should do the same.
>>Arguing with others is in direct violation of your viewpoint.
>
>I would love nothing more than to say "k, I'm done arguing," except that it
>would be perceived as me giving up and thus losing. because that is how
>internet arguments always end up working.
YOU'RE A FUCKING NAZI*
* I hereby invoke Godwin's law on myself, thus officially ending the argument.
Sunshine
>
>* I hereby invoke Godwin's law on myself, thus officially ending the
>argument.
If that works I really will scan my bobs.
Fester
>>
>>* I hereby invoke Godwin's law on myself, thus officially ending the
>>argument.
>
>If that works I really will scan my bobs.
Unfortunately, I think it only ends the argument between me and you.
... can I get one bob?
Sunshine
>
>
>... can I get one bob?
No. :P I wouldn't have said it if I expected it to work.
Milo
<slrn9nojq3...@osric.nerdland.net>, Fester wrote:
>
>I saw Milo rant about the following:
>>Back in 1994, when I started using the 'net, everything aside
>>from your connection was free. Content was available because
>>people wanted to share it. That was part of what made it great.
>>Now it's being turned into a mall.
>
>was text and a few images. Also, the net population was only a fraction
>of what it is today.
And I liked it that way. For a long time, I kept images turned
off in my browser because I didn't care about them. But too many
sites used them poorly, so you could hardly navigate without
graphics. That's unnecessary bloat.
>Currently, everyone likes flash, java, video, lots
>of images, because more and more people are getting broadband.
No, not everyone likes them. Another thing that Proxomitron
filters for me is flash, java, video, and sound. I turn them
into links on the off chance I'll want to use them. More
bloat. Too many web designers rely on flash*bang* rather than
decent content.
>Also,
>like I said, the net population as a whole has drastically increased.
>So now, to keep a popular noncommercial site running, the bandwidth
>costs are astronomical. That's why even the pure-content people have
>to turn to advertising - unfortunate as it is.
I don't mind if they use advertising, since I can block it. As
long as that choice is available, I'm okay.
>And, of course, the mall-ish sites are a necessary evil to provide the
>advertising for said content sites (well, up until recently, when
>everything collapsed on itself).
No, the mall-ish sites are there because a lot of people
thought they could get rich quick by hanging on to the latest
trend. Generally, they guessed wrong.
>Personally, I visit only 6 commercial sites regularly. They're not my
>favorite places to spend time, but I'd be inconvenienced if they
>weren't there. They are: TCWO, ThinkGeek, Buy.com, CDW, EBWorld, and
>CompUSA.
Personally, I visit commercial sites occasionally. As long as
they're there, and freely available, I'll use them if it's
convenient to me. If they change their model and go subscription
(which seems reasonable to me), I'll probably not use most
of them. And that's fine. I don't need them, and they don't
need me.
They all have their place, and my personal decisions and beliefs
won't change them, nor should they.
--
milo
Danny C
news:20010816212123...@ng-cc1.aol.com:
>>Now YOU are missing the point.
>
> Now I am the one that is it?
>
>>That was an example. You don't consider it an
>>adequate nuisance. Danny does. Thus, "nuisance" is a very vague
>>way of defining your stance on the issue.
>
> K. Well I don't know how to phrase it more exactly. Danny has
> much lower standards over what is a nuisance than I do. Since we
> get the same ads, at the same connection speed, and I can deal
> with them and he can't, I suppose my conclusion is that Danny's a
> pussy.*
Whorebag.
Danny C.
--
We don't take no shit from a machine.
Danny C
news:9lhsma$p4k$1...@badtz-maru.databasix.com:
FUCK DA WORLD
Danny C.
--
We should build an Intel processor out of penguins.
Danny C
scrawled this in news:Xns90FFD132B5...@24.24.0.22:
> Ty...@Nerdland.Net (Fester) wrote in
> news:slrn9nojs6...@osric.nerdland.net:
>
>> I saw El Shooto Del Fuschetto rant about the following:
>>>I say fuck the automobile, my legs and the bus work just fine.
>>
>> I find this funny, as every bus I've seen is plastered all over
>> with advertisements.
>
> You better believe that bothers me.
>
> But it beats the hell out of paying for a car. I spend around
> $50 a month on bus fares, while I used to spend something like
> $70 a month on gas alone. Factor in maintenance, insurance,
> parking, etc. and it gets kind of messy. Personal automobiles
> are among the most wasteful aspects of our society.
>
FUCK DA WORLD
Danny C.
--
When we talk about property, state, masters, government, laws,
courts, and police, we say only that we don't want any of them.
Danny C
news:20010816205136...@ng-cc1.aol.com:
>>
>>No, not happy. You called me a name. That hurts my feelings.
>>
>
> You treat me like a twit for not being into freeloading. Why am I
> so evil just for putting the contempt into noun form?
Actually, no. You're losing the argument and are resorting to
namecalling to make it seem like you aren't.
Danny C.
--
If you are sitting, just sit. If you are walking, just walk.
Above all, don't wobble.