Messages

1

Living Room / Re: Adblock Plus Letting Ads By

« on: July 09, 2013, 07:29 PM »

Well, Tinman57, you did say that I posted a rant, which I didn't, and you did suggest that I posted it either because I had an undisclosed interest or because I was simply a troll. The former suggestion was simply not true, and as for the latter, it was certainly not true at the time that I posted my first comment, though I'll leave it to the judgment of others whether or not it is becoming true. On the other hand, I confess that I said that an entire class of people must be either intellectually lazy or hopelessly churlish, a class of which I rudely implied you were a member. I apologize. So, what to think? Shall we call it quits now?

mouser, is it possible for me to change my display name to "Hopeless Churl" (or "HopelessChurl" if one can't have spaces)? It's kind of grown on me. I can't see a way to accomplish that from my end.

2

Living Room / Re: Adblock Plus Letting Ads By

« on: July 09, 2013, 06:40 PM »

We could take a lesson from the ad companies and pay to have the ads blocked. Choose a software with an actual business model that doesn't include accepting bribes from ad companies...perhaps Ad Muncher, which will work with any browser (without a plugin), any desktop RSS reader, any non-browser software that pulls in ad banners from an external source.

-app103 (July 09, 2013, 06:13 PM)

It's more than a little unfair, to characterize your remarks very leniently, to insinuate that the developer of Adblock Plus is taking bribes from ad companies. A bribe is something of value given to a person with the intention of inducing him to act contrary to his moral obligations or to refrain from acting in a way that he is morally obliged to act. Please explain to us how it can be justly suggested that the developer of Adblock Plus is accepting bribes.

3

Living Room / Re: Adblock Plus Letting Ads By

« on: July 09, 2013, 05:53 PM »

I would also call for a bit of respect from the other side.  The post was written with pejoratives (hopeless churl) in it also, which could have prompted the response, even if two wrongs don't make a right

fair enough -- i stand guilty of skimming Cobble's post and should have called him to task as well for not being respectful and arguably starting the insults.

on this forum we expect everyone to be treated with respect.

-mouser (July 09, 2013, 05:46 PM)

It is more than arguable that I started it. Still, I can't understand the attitude of entitlement that some users of free software seem to exhibit, not to mention the cynicism they appear to display with regard to the motives of someone who might come to the developer's defense.

4

Living Room / Re: Adblock Plus Letting Ads By

« on: July 09, 2013, 05:24 PM »

I would also call for a bit of respect from the other side.  The post was written with pejoratives (hopeless churl) in it also, which could have prompted the response, even if two wrongs don't make a right

-wraith808 (July 09, 2013, 05:18 PM)

I thought that the expression "hopeless churl" was rather funny. If someone should call me that, I'm sure it would make me at least smile, but if it struck a nerve with Tinman57 and so offended him, I regret it.

5

Living Room / Re: Adblock Plus Letting Ads By

« on: July 09, 2013, 05:19 PM »

Tinman, please don't attack people because of their views.

In this world full of companies paying people to post on their behalf, it's fair to ask people if they are affiliated with a company.  But this is a diverse forum and people are entitled to hold different views and shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable for posting them.

This is especially true when a poster takes the trouble to post links and facts that explain and justify their position.

Even if CobbleHillGuy was affiliated with Adblock, he would be entitled to post his views on this thread -- though we would ask him to make clear his relationship with the company.

-mouser (July 09, 2013, 05:11 PM)

I am grateful to you for your intervention, mouser.

6

Living Room / Re: Adblock Plus Letting Ads By

« on: July 09, 2013, 05:18 PM »

It's hard to see how any user can reasonably complain. All the ads that Adblock Plus permits have to meet the criteria here, even the companies that pay. Moreover, if you don't want to see any ads, you can still block all of then, even the whitelisted ones, as explained here. Only someone who hasn't bothered to inform himself of the facts, or a hopeless churl, would complain that free software isn't made exactly as he would make it. Perhaps such people should rechannel all the energy they expend on expressing their unjustified pique into producing something that suits them. Or else perhaps they should just....

-CobbleHillGuy (July 09, 2013, 04:36 PM)

  Spoken by a true adblock fanboy, ad company or adblock associate?  I find it hard to believe that anyone would make such a rant unless they have either personal association with the software, or are just trolling.

-Tinman57 (July 09, 2013, 04:58 PM)

Sir, I am neither a "fanboy" of Adblock Plus nor am I an ad company (nor an employee of one) nor an associate of its author. Rather I have used it for some years now with complete satisfaction and, grateful to its author for providing it, I see no reason why he should not make a little money off it from the ad companies. The post of mine to which you object is not a rant; rather it proposes reasons why users ought not to find the developer's action in whitelisting some ads objectionable, reasons that you either cannot, or can't be bothered to, refute. I ask who, then, is the ranter.

7

Living Room / Re: Adblock Plus Letting Ads By

« on: July 09, 2013, 04:36 PM »

It's hard to see how any user can reasonably complain. All the ads that Adblock Plus permits have to meet the criteria here, even the companies that pay. Moreover, if you don't want to see any ads, you can still block all of them, even the whitelisted ones, as explained here. Only someone who hasn't bothered to inform himself of the facts, or a hopeless churl, would complain that free software isn't made exactly as he would make it. Perhaps such people should rechannel all the energy they expend on expressing their unjustified pique into producing something that suits them. Or else perhaps they should just....

8

General Software Discussion / Re: Your favorite Registry Viewer + Editor?

« on: March 23, 2007, 11:34 PM »

Yes, Registrar Lite's download page has been pulled, but only because it's been replaced by Registrar Registry Manager, which has a free Lite Edition. Here's the URL: http://www.resplendence.com/registrar.

This is what I use and I agree with the assessment below.

"41 Best Free Registry Editor
I've used the full version of Resplendent Registry Editor for years and have never had any reason to look for an alternative. Recently a subscriber asked me what was the best free registry editor and that made me realize I've never looked at that particular product category. The first product I checked out was Registrar Lite [1], the free version of Resplendent Registry Editor and I'd have to say it's an impressive freebie. To start with, it works totally reliably - an essential feature for any registry editor. On top of that, the user interface is simple, the functionality excellent and, perhaps most importantly, it has a really fast search. I did, however, miss a "search and delete" option - that's unfortunately only available on the full product. That said, it leaves Regedit for dead. If you know a better free registry editor, drop me an email. NOTE:  It looks like Resplendent have pulled the Lite download page from their site. You can still get it though from various download sites including MajorGeeks [2].

=>index

[1] http://www.resplendence.com/reglite  Freeware, All Windows versions, 2.0MB.
[2] http://www.majorgeek...com/download469.html"
http://www.techsuppo...ree_utilities.htm#41

-patteo (March 16, 2007, 08:45 PM)