Messages - CobbleHillGuy [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1] 2next
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
I am grateful to you for your intervention, mouser.

Pages: [1] 2next
Go to full version