Posted by: Steve Hugli at August 4, 2007 5:45 PM
Danny, I am disappointed in you. I understand you are ticked off by AdlockPlus, and while I think it is foolish to block users that use it, it is absolutely childish of you to block anyone that uses Firefox.
Especially since with the IE Tab plugin we can get in anyway. You were on my list of sites to visit daily, but even though it just means going into ie mode I will not be visiting nearly as often, and hence will not be exposed to your ads at all.
You are wrong about why we use IE Tab. It is not because we are ashamed of Firefox, it is because I develop web pages and want to see how they look in both browsers without n=hving to fire up IE.
Are you really foolish enough to think this will mean Mozilla will stop supporting Ad Block Plus? It just means that you will lose visitors.
Posted by: Don Singleton at August 4, 2007 9:16 PM
Steve, Mozilla doesn't just allow it, they endorse it.
Don, I have been left with no choice in the matter. The ad block people could have simply allowed sites to block people using ad block software, but they work to make that impossible. I don't kow-tow to thieves, and the ad block people are thieves pure and simple.
IE tab not only allows FireFox users to view the page, but disables AdBlock. I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it. That seems an easy enough way of accessing the site while still using FireFox. The fact still remains, the AdBlock people are the ones who have pushed the matter this far by refusing to allow site owners to block access to people using ad blockers.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 4, 2007 10:08 PM
You've cut nose off to spite your face.
I'm running firefox and all I did was change my user agent. I'll change it back when I leave your site.
I supposed asking people to whitelist your site never occurred to you?
A shame too. I came here originally because of your mutterings on the Adblockplus forum. After 2 minutes of searching/download/install/restarting firefox to bypass your agent sniffer, I actually got to read your other (non-APB rant) content.
I live in Florida, my fiancee is a teacher, and we agree with you about the FDOE.
I also happen to agree with you in spirit about many of the things you blog about.
But this "You're a thief" bit for using ABP and Firefox means you lost a potential reader, mostly before you had a chance to gain one.
Posted by: Firefox User at August 6, 2007 9:26 AM
So you think that all Firefox users block ads.
Posted by: J. at August 6, 2007 2:11 PM
"Using ad blocking software to block all ads is stealing, no ifs, ands or buts."
That's just silly. If you produce a product, and I make a competitive product and sell it at a lower cost, am I stealing from you? How much do you want to redefine stealing. Users have a right to control their browsing experience. If you don't want readers, by all means block them.
I also modified my user css file to set the Google ad iframe to display:none;, rendering it invisible on the page. The code still loaded in the browser, it just wasn't visible. Since it was present, your ad block checking script was defeated.
Don't worry, I don't do that as a matter of general practice.
Also, your dieAdBlockPlusDie function is only included on item pages, not your homepage, which kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think?
Posted by: Steve at August 6, 2007 6:55 PM
first of all, ignoring the fact that people who use adblock wouldn't click ads anyway, and the fact that you're able to detect when ads are blocked with adblock, AND the fact that people not running Windows only really have the option of firefox...
Posted by: shawnz at August 7, 2007 1:40 AM
Installing IE Tab would be even easier. The point is FireFox is endorsing resource theft, and as long as they do that I will force FireFox users to find work arounds to visit my sites. That you can isn't the point. That you have to is.
I shouldn't have to.
So I made you have to waste time. Seems to me I made my point.
I never said people who use FireFox are thieves. People who block all ads are.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 7, 2007 6:02 PM
No, I think the taxpayers got royally screwed when they were forced to pay for your education. You seem to be barely literate. Try actually reading things next time.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 7, 2007 6:06 PM
Which is the whole friggin point!! Ad Block Plus will not allow site owners to block browsers which block ads. If I could simply do that, the whole mess would have ended weeks ago. But they have made sure that site owners have no choice in allowing freeloaders who want to take resources but block all ads.
So why make a big stink about blocking people? Seems fairly hypocritical for you to tell me I can simply block people who block ads, then brag about how easy you can keep me from doing just that. That kind of moral relativism is exactly the problem. This sociopathic attitude that whatever benefits you must be good, regardless how others suffer, is an evil thing. that you can't comprehend that is really sad.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 7, 2007 6:13 PM
>>>>So you think that all Firefox users block ads.
But still you block all Firefox users because some users block ads.
IE tab uses IE, and IE's security sucks, so it's better to use User Agent Switcher.
Posted by: J. at August 8, 2007 3:29 AM
Wrong. People block ads because they find some annoying and have decided to steal content rather than avoid going to those sites with annoying ads. People who block ads do click on ads when they appear.
Wrong. Ad Block Plus has made sure web site owners are unable to detect it. FireFox actively endorses Ad Block Plus.
Safari, Conqueror, Netscape.
A. Privoxy can be detected.
You didn't make my sites, I did, and if I want to block you, then I should have the right. But I offer ways for you to get around it--IE Tab. But the point it FireFox is endorsing resource theft, and until they stop, I will block FireFox users.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 8, 2007 4:24 PM
The point is on every ad blocker software out there I can detect when ads are blocks=ed, and block that users--except Ad Block Plus which denies me that ability. Simce FireFox actively endorses Ad Block Plus, all FireFox users are blocked.
FireFox spreads a lot of misinformation about IE security. I've been using IE extensively for over a decade with few problems. I'm really surprised there hasn't been a tin-foil-hat plugin for FireFox users, because it seems many would grab it and pop it on without even asking any questions.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 8, 2007 4:31 PM
The biggest problem with IE security is their support for Active X
It is true that IE tab lets me access your site, but it is an extra step, and so this is the first time I have been back since my post earlier in this thread, and I used to check you daily.
I still think you are making a mistake blocking all firefox users, whether they use Ad Block or not, and I have seen posts urging people to launch attacks against your site. I hope your secuty posts are up to date.
Also FYI I had to change resolutions just to be able to move the scroll bar to the bottom to post this. If I did not think you were worth it, I would not have bothered.
Posted by: Don Singleton at August 8, 2007 9:58 PM
I'm just another person who saw your ridiculous rant about adblock plus and came over to see why someone would be so bent out of shape about it. Now, after seeing your uhm..."content" I understand completely.
I wonder what you'll do when Microsoft starts recommending IE7pro to all its users, or when Firefox gains 50% marketshare?
Posted by: FSM Minister at August 9, 2007 8:41 AM
Danny, I'm a home schooling Christian gun owning dad. I'm as conservative as it gets and I use Firefox. I have to ask, what is stolen from you when I view your site with ads blocked? Quite frankly your notion of "theft" is ridiculous. You lose nothing.
The funny thing is, you don't seem to realize how Mozilla works. It's a non-profit and it's open source. Firefox and all the other gecko based tools are FREE. No charge. Download the source code and modify it to suit your own needs.
And hey! guess what? Did you know that you can download the source code for adblockplus?
So feel free to download the source, modify it to allow blocking people who use it, and then publish your modified version somewhere. Let me know how that works out for you.
I haven't contributed to Mozilla/Firefox or AdblockPlus, but I do support open source software and I am planning an open source project. We give away our work for free, to help others. It's very Christian. You should try it sometime.
I won't be back because your content really isn't worth seeing.
Posted by: Rob K at August 9, 2007 1:43 PM
That's controlled if you set your security correctly. I program my site primarily toward IE, because it allows more freedom and consistency. I've still not figured out how to get the functionality from FireFox or Opera that I can from IE on my site http://BytheFirePlace.com.
I'm not really worried. The people who use Ad Block to do blanket ad blocking are typically lazy. They're all bark and little bite.
I think we were trying to work on that before. It's another FireFox incompatibility issue.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 9, 2007 2:52 PM
So you don't mind Linux forcing you to use only one browser? My how meek and timid you must be.
Won't happen. The internet is basically divided into three camps: The open-source/freeware/get-every-thing-for-free/quasi-socialist camp, the honest people who pay for things and also charge for things/capitalists, and the sea of clueless people who don't pay enough attention to really belong to either camp—they just want their porn.
People in the first camp can't understand why someone would object to having their resources and hard work taken from them, because they think that that's how the world works. They use FireFox because they think if they use IE, Bill Gates will send subliminal message to them to trigger the microchip the CIA put in their head one night while they were sleeping.
People in the second camp understand that the real world revolves around commerce, and when you stifle commerce, you stifle freedom and progress. Microsoft, for all their faults, belongs in the second camp, and would never endorse ad blocking, since it's theft.
Still—won't happen. In all honesty, from all I can tell, FireFox's single, selling factor is, it's not IE. There's just not that many people out there that are afraid of Microsoft.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 9, 2007 3:16 PM
I always wonder when someone attempts to portray theirself as "Christian" and "Conservative" but doesn't grasp simple moral concepts.
Mozilla Corporation is a for profit corporation, not a non-profit organization. FireFox is open-source, with traps. Several parts of it actually are protected by law, so to use it, you have to figure out what's free to use, and what's protected. FireFox's development is no longer open-source. SeaMonkey is Mozilla's open-source browser, since FireFox's development is now under the Mozilla Corporation, and therefore not being developed via open-source contributions as before.
Numerous other companies have used the open-source scam to get free labor from gullible programmer in initial development, only to change to closed-source commercial products once the product reached profitability.
For now, they're free.
Still wouldn't stop people stealing my resources. If thieves give away their tools, it hardly means they are no longer thieves.
Stealing is not Christian, and that's what this is about.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 9, 2007 3:39 PM
This is hilarious; you don't have a clue what you're talking about do you?
FireFox is open source. SeaMonkey is a separate project altogether that includes an email client, news reader, etc.
You say you develop for IE because it allows you more consistency? The only thing consistent about IE is it's inconsistency! Design a website for IE and look at it in any other browser, chances are it won't look right. Design a website for FireFox, Opera, or any other standards compliant web browser, chances are it will look fine in all but IE- thus IE is the trouble maker, not the others.
The whole corporation bit, I'll just give you a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not-for-profit_corporation. Maybe you should try looking something up before you speak.. although I guess it's immoral to use WikiPedia since its free so obviously its a front for socialism.
Finally, you complain that a previous poster wasted public money spent on his/her education, yet you don't even know what theft is. The definition of theft (from Websters) is: "1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". A user with AdBlockPlus enabled may be taking your content against your terms, but s/he is certainly not removing it from you, nor depriving you of it. What you are complaining about is piracy, not theft. The two are only associated because the failing music industry wants us to feel bad for them.
(BTW, I'm using FireFox and did not even have to change my UserAgent to view your site. Did you come to your senses or am I using some Ultra-Immoral edition which "blocks the UserAgent" or does some other silliness like that?)
Posted by: Ken at August 10, 2007 7:33 AM
Non Sequiter. FireFox is partially open source. You still have to figure out which parts you aren't allowed to copy.
As for SeaMonkey, this is from Mozilla...
Mozilla began as an open-source development, but shifted Firefox from open-source development when the launched the Mozilla Corporation to exploit the for profit potential of Firefox. The open-source development of Mozilla continues in SeaMonkey.
Since you obviously do little web designing, you are spouting nonsense. I designed http://BytheFireplace.com to use the right click to open bookmark choices. Except Firefox does nothing, and there's not enough documentation from Mozilla to figure out how to do it. I developed BytheFireplace.com in 2004. You'd think Firefox would have at least tried to keep up with IE, but they spent their time bad mouthing IE in order to attract more tin-foil hat wearers.
Firefox has incomplete support for W3C standards. When FireFox continued to fail the acid2 test, it seems the solution was to remove the acid2 test, and pretend it never existed. More and more it's looking like FireFox is more of a religion than a browser. Here's a surprise for you. Type "about:mozilla" in the FireFox address bar and hit enter.
Michell Baker, president of Mozilla Foundation on the for-profit status of the Mozilla Corporation...
Wikipedia is socialist. Seriously, you didn't know that?
You need to get a new dictionary. That definition is archaic. Theft of services has been recognized as theft for decades now.
So you like stealing music, too.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 10, 2007 6:07 PM
I love Firefox and I hate annoying ads. I think your action to block Firefox is really funny (not to mention really stupid): It'll only cost you visitors...
Posted by: michieltje at August 10, 2007 8:10 PM
I designed http://BytheFireplace.com to use the right click to open bookmark choices. Except Firefox does nothing, and there's not enough documentation from Mozilla to figure out how to do it.
Are you refering to right click open in new window? That works in Firefox as well as IE, and I did not even have to use IEtab in firefox
The internet is basically divided into three camps: The open-source/freeware/get-every-thing-for-free/quasi-socialist camp, the honest people who pay for things and also charge for things/capitalists, and the sea of clueless people who don't pay enough attention to really belong to either camp—they just want their porn.
Which camp am I in? I use Firefox, because I think it is a better browser than others, that are also free. If Firefox charged for their browser, I might or might not use it; it would deoend on the price and whether the amount it was better would be worth it. I use other free software, and pay for some that has free competitors out there.
The Mozilla Corporation pays its employees from the revenues we receive from our product. We are very fortunate in that the search feature in Firefox is both appreciated by our users and generates revenue in the tens of millions of dollars.
They make money from the search feature, but does anyone pay for Firefox (or IE)?
I program my site primarily toward IE, because it allows more freedom and consistency.
What consistency? IE6 support for CSS had many problems vs the standard, and IE7 still has a poorer implementation than even Firefox 1.5, much less 2.0
Posted by: Don Singleton at August 10, 2007 10:24 PM
Go to http://Bythefireplace.com with IE. Register if you don't already have an account. Make sure you're logged in, then go to a book. This one's a good one. Right-click on any paragraph and you'll see a bookmark menu. This was the easiest way of using DHTML to manage bookmarks for the individual books, but try as I might, I could never get FireFox to cooperate and allow it.
IE and Opera are also free. Opera outperforms FireFox on most tests; IE in pretty much all of the others. IE loads quickly in Windows because the core rendering engine is built into the system, therefore already loaded. I think your Libertarian leanings are showing. Opera had ads until recently and IE is "the Man" so anyone consciously or unconsciously applying populism or general anti-establishmentarianism to their browser choice would lean toward FireFox. In all honesty, Firefox is only marginally more secure than IE, a margin not really worth all the hoopla, especially given that Firefox continues to have security issues.
That's not the point. The point is that people keep trying to imply some sort of Firefox moral superiority because it's "not for profit" when it actually is a for-profit venture.
It seems to work fine for me. In fact I'm finding more and more that I have to work twice as hard to get a page to look right in FireFox than I do for IE. I'm not all that convinced that the "standards" are all that helpful. Whenever I test a page using a validator, I get 99% errors of trivial syntax which have no effect on IE. What I fond more often is that IE will render in a rather forgiving nature (accepting understandable syntax) while FF and others demand a more strict syntax, rather than making their rendering engine more intuitive.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 11, 2007 6:40 AM
Traffic remains stable and revenues are up. So far you're wrong. It's been well over a week, and I'd think the "hordes" of Firefox users would have had ample time to "let their feet vote", but there's no significant change in my traffic. It's following the patterns it always has.
Here's some more interesting info about Firefox...
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 11, 2007 7:11 AM
You deserve to get blocked from digg. By the way, I am currently viewing this page with Firefox 220.127.116.11. You can check the useragent of this post if you want.
Posted by: Andy Shen at August 11, 2007 9:28 AM
This was the easiest way of using DHTML to manage bookmarks for the individual books, but try as I might, I could never get FireFox to cooperate and allow it.
OK it does not do that? Still works fine to me. Why not just bookmark? http://bythefireplace.com/read/3-Fiction----Children/5977-Bound-to-Rise/1/ gets a Warning: file(/home/bythefir/public_html/catalog/toc/.dat): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/bythefir/public_html/read/index.php on line 1092 but http://bythefireplace.com/thebible/_daily_reading.php?day=227&plan=3 works
Opera had ads until recently and IE is "the Man" so anyone consciously or unconsciously applying populism or general anti-establishmentarianism to their browser choice would lean toward FireFox.>
Opera had ads because they were still trying to make money from it, but with IE and Firefox both free that did not work. I go with Firefox because of the security and because I like all of the plugins. I don't use Ad Block Plus, because I don't see a need for it, but I like some of the others I have.
In all honesty, Firefox is only marginally more secure than IE, a margin not really worth all the hoopla, especially given that Firefox continues to have security issues.
IE's support for Active X is a real security hole, IMHO.
I'm not all that convinced that the "standards" are all that helpful.
If you bought a Betamax unit and then saw VHS bury it you might not feel that way. Or 8 track vs cassete tape.
Whenever I test a page using a validator, I get 99% errors of trivial syntax which have no effect on IE. What I fond more often is that IE will render in a rather forgiving nature (accepting understandable syntax) while FF and others demand a more strict syntax, rather than making their rendering engine more intuitive.
FF and others implement the standard. IE just does whatecer Microsoft programmers decided they wanted to do, and to heck with the rules. That sounds a lot like viewers that would block ads they don't want to be bothered with seeing.
I guess it depends on whether you are the goerer or the goeree.
Posted by: Don Singleton at August 11, 2007 2:34 PM
One of the basic teachings of true Christianity is that all men are endowed with free will.
So, yes, you have the right to block users of Firefox.
HOWEVER, you are seriously flawed in saying that using ad blocking software is theft. That's like the Pharisees in Jesus day criticizing the disciples for plucking wheat on the sabbath for a quick snack, saying that they were "harvesting and threshing."
You "strain out the gnat and gulp down the camel."
You talk about your rights as a content developer. What about the rights of the people looking at your content?
Someone refusing to load an advertisement does not equate with someone taking your wallet. It's the equivilant of waiting to go to the bathroom during a commercial break on TV.
Here's an idea: Why not create ads that aren't gaudy and annoying? Write a "sponsored" blog entry.
When people stop responding to an advertisers approach on TV or in print, the advertiser doesn't throw up their hands and say, "THEY'RE THIEVES!"
Rather, what they do, and what you should do, is re-think their approach to advertising.
How would you like it if someone compared you to Hitler? I don't think you would. But comparing users of ad blocking software to thieves is the same logic. You ostracize a group of people because of the browser they're using. Hitler ostracized people because of their religion and race. Even that is a better comparison than adblocking=theft.
I'm not calling you Hitler, but I'm using that example to show you how faulty your logic is in this case.
TV content producers were very upset when VCRs and the later TiVo and other DVRs came out. But you know what? Instead of blocking the users of such service, they went a different route. We now know it as "product placement."
That's called innovation. What you're doing is reactionary, inflammatory and discriminatory.
Think about that before you start dragging Christian morals through the mud.
Posted by: Sean McGee at August 17, 2007 9:27 AM
I find it funny that you tell your visitors you are clearly a better web designer than they are, given that your home page generates runtime errors, and your personal sites are developed on WordPress templates or FrontPage. Your visitors can see these bits of evidence showing your level of skill, but you can see nothing of ours.
I code my sites using a text editor. My sites are accessible in text browsers like Lynx. I run accessibility checks (WCAG Level 1). They are as identical as possible in IE versions 5.5+, Firefox, Safari, and Opera. I test on three operating systems before going live. In every single case, this means making the site work in modern browsers using a single CSS file, and then using ifIE tags to feed version-specific CSS to different IE builds just to trick them into rendering the code in a semi-standard way. If you honestly believe that IE does a better job of rendering HTML+CSS code than other browsers, well, I don't know what to say. You must clearly know more about the inner workings of the web than any other person in the entire universe, which would explain why you run this site instead of heading the W3C.
You should also be willing to disclose your interests in the "whyfirefoxisblocked" site. It is after all registered by you according to the WhoIs data. Please don't pretend that it is a "movement" you are just getting on board. It is something you started.
For the record, the most hateful, spiteful, ungodly persons I have ever met have been Christians, every one. The current brand of fundamentalist end-times fanatacism just breeds intolerance and hate. It amazes me that people who pretend to follow the teachings of the New Testament seem to completely miss the point of the book to begin with.
You want an easy out on this one? Sure. I'm a neuroscientist. PhD. I teach college. Wholeheartedly believe nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. I'm a lapsed Catholic. I support gay rights. I support the military but think we need to get the hell out of the Middle East. I think it's sick to "support Israel" when that just means "if there are no Jews the rapture won't come". Take your pick there, buddy. Any derisive way you can use those to respond to me personally rather than actually responding to real criticism is fair game. From your posts, that's how you operate.
I imagine you'll just delete this comment as spam, of course. Why would you want my point of view on your website? That would be theft, you know. My using your comments section to advertise my point of view, against your wishes. Of course you allow me to do so by posting a comment form. Does this mean I can block you from using a comment form in the future if you do not honor your end of the agreement, to allow me to post?
Posted by: fornix at August 17, 2007 10:42 AM
I did comment on my own blog, but since I can't see a way to send a trackback, I figured I'd post here as well.
First of all, please cut out the righteous indignation. It's not big, it's not clever, and it's not going to make me switch off an adblocker.
Second, are you aware of AdBlocker Pro? It's an adblock add-in for IE7. It's promoted on windowsmarketplace.com, an official Microsoft site. Should you not also be blocking IE7? In fact, is there any modern browser that doesn't have an adblocker of some form?
Third, I'm posting this from Linux. Pop quiz: what's my browser? Hint: it was blocked, it's not Firefox. It also has an adblocker built in, and it's active right now.
I guess my point is this: you can play whack-a-blocker as much as you like; it's your server, your rules. Best of luck. Just don't expect anyone to take kindly to being called a thief for exercising control over their own computer.
One final question: in an ideal world, how would you expect to be told that an adblocker was blocking content on your site?
Posted by: Alex Young at August 17, 2007 11:17 AM
Ad Block Plus denies web site owners the freedom to block AdBlockPlus users. They deny us that freedom.
No, it is theft. When there are ads on a website, it is understood that the presence of the ads is the price of viewing the page. Pretending it isn't is just crass rationalization.
A complete non sequitor. The Pharisees didn't own the wheat. they hadn't labored to produce it. They were merely over interpreting Jewish law regarding when work was to be done. The rest of your comment is the same, inane, meaningless rationalizations other have made to try to pretend stealing isn't stealing.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 17, 2007 8:52 PM
I've never really thought about this before, but I think Jack Lewis is probably right. If someone invented software which downloaded TV to your screen without the adverts, would anyone even try to argue that it was legal? Would the TV companies sit back and do nothing? I doubt it. Providing a means to access web content in anything other than its original form is no different really. It's just because it's the good old interweb, everyone expects it to be copyright-flexible. Most copyright notices read something like 'You may not re-sell or reproduce this content in any form'. Well re-packaging web content in a different form (ie. removing whatever you deem to be advertising) is essentially breach of copyright is it not?
Posted by: Toby at August 21, 2007 12:48 PM
Anything inconvenient to you is "criminal", which must come in handy, since you are so incompetent that you can't even detect Firefox correctly. It isn't hard - the string's in the HTTP GET request for pities sake! You are a model of the disease which has brought your once great nation to its knees. But I won't use any more bandwidth - your Chinese masters might have some more orders for you. Ha Ha!
Posted by: European Engineer at August 22, 2007 9:34 AM
Normally, I'd delete such idiotic blathering, but I wanted to allow it to remain to illustrate the incredible stupidity I have had to deal with...
Inconvenient. Has Socialism riddled Europe so much that they now have defined theft as "inconvenient". Perhaps that's the only way o truly rationalize Socialism, since it cannot exist without an attempt to moralize theft.
Then why is everyone complaining? Why, then, do other of your dimwitted, fellow whiners brag that they FINALLY got through after installing several different plug-ins?
Right, in the HTTP GET request. Right next to the HTTP ELVIS request and just before the HTTP CIA-MIND-CONTROL request.
The HTTP GET request would be the data in the URL following any '?', and rarely would it contain any browser information, unless that was already detected by another method and sent in the URL.
The useragent info in the header is the normal way, but there are also other methods, since FireFox follows W3C standards and won't adopt standards based on market use, and other browser engines do.
Oooh, we're on our knees. Tell me, which European nation would be able to handle a war without the US bailing them out? Do you really think Belgium, your nation, could? The per capita GPD in Belgium is about $33,000 in US dollars. In the US it's about $44,000. The net migration rate for Belgium is 1.22/1000 for the US, 3.05/1000, more than twice as many people want to come to the US than Belgium. The unemployment rate in Belgium is twice that of the US. If we're on our knees, you guys are face down in the dust.
Chinese masters? Where did that come from?
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 22, 2007 10:20 AM
Frankly I think the webmaster has the freedom and right to block anyone they wish. Equally, people browsing the web have the right to only view the content wish, with any browser they want. And I think it's silly for anyone to be angry at this webmaster for blocking Firefox, because their reasoning is that they should have the right to block things, but that right is completely equivalent to the webmasters right to block browser. In the end I think It doesn't really matter, and the percent of webmasters who block Firefox is significantly smaller than Firefox's user base so for now at least, this isn't a big problem at all. And I will continue to use Firefox, with all my wonderful plug-ins and add-ons and built in features and themes, including, but not limited to, Ad Block Plus.
Posted by: Alex at August 24, 2007 8:44 PM
Hello, I use something called Ubuntu. I don't have any way to run IE, and am not quite sure how to install any browser other than Firefox for that matter. This was set up for me when I started having issues with my PC. I'd really like to be able to read your site again, and someone pointed me here. Is there any way I can read the rest of your excellent site again please? Thank you. I'm not really that techie by the way, so nothing too complicated.
Posted by: Lucy at August 26, 2007 9:29 PM
Twice on the WhyFireFoxisBlocked site the plug-in IETab ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419 ) is referenced and linked. That will allow you to view this site.
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 27, 2007 10:06 AM
I wouldn't block ads except I have an older computer and often animated ads cause it to slow to a crawl. If ad makers allowed you to use the flash "stop" command on a right click I wouldn't block ads, I'd just stop the animation when it stopped me from browsing the internet further.
Posted by: Jason at September 14, 2007 1:21 PM
[Deleted because the commenter is a moron who apparently doesn't know how to read]
Posted by: David at March 8, 2008 9:09 AM
[Deleted because the commenter is a moron who apparently doesn't know how to read]
Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2008 6:33 AM
[Deleted because the commenter is a moron who apparently doesn't know how to read]
Posted by: Adrian at September 15, 2008 9:10 PM
My site got blocked, i do photography and graphic design. I do not have any pop up add or such on my site, just photos and few graphics.
I escaped installing a new version of Firefox for a week or two simply because i was adding images and changing design of my site for few days in a row and was not ready to restart Firefox. NOW I KNOW WHY. Upon completion of my newly tweaked site i finally updated and restarted Firefox and what i saw was a NIGHTMARE that scared the shit out of my pants! Instead of my site i saw a red alert message that my site is 'Reported Attack Site!' I am Still in Shock... Now, i rely on my site for various freelance business and this kind of message is like a 'Shark in the water' scream on the middle of the sunny beach resort, you get the idea...
I've searched online frantically trying to find out what is the issue, while Firefox doesn't provide you with clear answer and it takes eternity for them to get back to you i am stock with a label on my site and i do not know why or how it happened losing time and much needed money at this time of economical crisis.
Just wanted to give my story. I support internet security, only my site has been targeted unfairly without any explanation what so ever, and i would like one, since i can't seem to figure out how to fix it, i wish Firefox would sent me some kind of warning if the are scanning my site and let me know before turning of my traffic and labeling my site as 'flea nest'.
also, confused about what does subject of Firefox has to do with Christianity or any religion for that matter??? But if you insist then i would say - Internet is a binary religion
Posted by: Binary at September 20, 2008 2:18 AM
[Deleted because the commenter is a moron who apparently doesn't know how to read]
Posted by: Collin at January 17, 2009 3:42 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)