Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Adblock Plus Letting Ads By
mouser:
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.
wraith808:
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 :)
CobbleHillGuy:
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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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.
CobbleHillGuy:
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)
--- End quote ---
I am grateful to you for your intervention, mouser.
CobbleHillGuy:
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)
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version