I don't quite get why everyone is getting all bent out of shape about this. If the man has a private website - paid for by himself - he has every right to dictate visitors and their "experience" on the site.

If the site is to include ads, that is a choice made by the webmaster.

The internet is not free. The internet is based on millions or billions of people making payments to keep the infrastructure running. This webmaster pays for his site. Visitors get free content. Having ads on a webpage does not cost the visitors anything (excepting pay-per-bandwidth plans). But it does defray the cost of running a page.

If the webmaster would rather not allow some people to the visit the page, that is his choice; again, no user is entitled to view the page.

Blocking all Firefox users is using an axe when a scalpel should be used, but unfortunately, there is no scalpel available. Perhaps the "AdBlock Plus" developers should be contacted about this?

Nice, I respect the developers right to deliver whatever content they would like, Including redirects for specific browsers. I do not want to change their content, like some on the comments I have seen on this issue. Where people seem to think that they should have some control over developers and force them to not block their preferred browser. I'm all for it, it's the developers right! Just like it is the right of the user to control what their browser displays or does not display, or what it identifies itself as for that matter. AdBlock is like getting a free newspaper and marking all the ads out with a sharpie. Now if the guy handing out the free papers sees the sharpie in my pocket and decides not to give me a paper because the publisher told him to do so, thats the publisher's right. If I decide to hide my sharpie the next time I see him, that's my right too. Hiding my sharpie in this case just happens to be using a script blocker and a User Agent switcher. The developers content was delivered to my computer intact, and as he/she designed it. My data stored in the memory of my computer was modified not to contain ads.

Heads up man but you can change the way firefox identifies itself when requesting pages. (I used to do it A LOT, to ba able to use it in the early days.)

I am behind you in saying that adblock is indiscriminate and loses people money but that's not a reason to attack ff as a browser for doing this.

I am not trying to sway your opinion on adblock users I have a complex view on this one anyway, but the ff community or browser is not to blame.
(btw you peobably just invoked the wrath of the slashdot community sorry mate)

It is a bit bizarre to block users who 'steal' as you put it rather than to encourage users to click on the links to support you as most other sites do.

I am not after changing your views or getting you to broaden your horizons at all I am merely mentioning things like this to have it said, would be boring if everyone agreed with me :)

No conspiracy here, Danny. The first time you post a comment on a Gawker Media site (Lifehacker, Consumerist, etc) it has to be manually reviewed by a moderator. After that your comments will appear as posted. Same thing happened to me the first time I posted on LH.

No conspiracy here, Danny. The first time you post a comment on a Gawker Media site (Lifehacker, Consumerist, etc) it has to be manually reviewed by a moderator. After that your comments will appear as posted. Same thing happened to me the first time I posted on LH.

Thanks for the info. When you spend days seeing literally thousands upon thousands of people unashamedly saying outright lies about you, it's very easy to assume the worst. My apologies for the rush to judgement.

Where to begin...

I'm no Firefox fanboy (I rarely even use it, although I did change my user agent and install Ad Block Plus JUST for you ;) ), but I'm not quite sure what logic you used to decide to block every Firefox user just because a small percentage of Firefox users block ads. Because Firefox "endorses" it? Please, Firefox hosts hundreds of plugins.

You do realize you can also get ad blocking software for most other browsers?

Also, what exactly is illegal about repeatedly requesting pages from your server? If someone visits your site twice within a minute is that illegal? If I repeatedly press "refresh" to reload your site, is that illegal? If I write a script that does the same thing automatically, is that illegal? Where do you draw the line... you can't. Block the offending users and get over yourself.

Where to begin...

I'm no Firefox fanboy (I rarely even use it, although I did change my user agent and install Ad Block Plus JUST for you ;) ), but I'm not quite sure what logic you used to decide to block every Firefox user just because a small percentage of Firefox users block ads. Because Firefox "endorses" it? Please, Firefox hosts hundreds of plugins.

You do realize you can also get ad blocking software for most other browsers?

Also, what exactly is illegal about repeatedly requesting pages from your server? If someone visits your site twice within a minute is that illegal? If I repeatedly press "refresh" to reload your site, is that illegal? If I write a script that does the same thing automatically, is that illegal? Where do you draw the line... you can't. Block the offending users and get over yourself.

This is exactly the kind of moronic garbage I've had to put up with for days now. I used to have a lot more respect for FireFox before all these looney tunes crawled out of their mothers' basement and decided to attacked me for insulting their browser god. 

All this, and this idiot still misses the point. He wants to take the time to lecture me, but not the time to actually read anything.

I tried to block AdBlockPlus users. In fact the test I used did nothing more the detect the presence of Google AdSense on the page, and they rewrote their plug-in to stop me from doing that. I know that you crackpots feel you have something invested now that you made the effort to scream your lies all over the internet, but the plain simple truth is that all I wanted was to block people from my sites who were blocking the ads that appeared on it. But you want to now preach at me to tell me I should do the very thing I was prevented from doing in the first place. 

And seriously, you're no FireFox fanboy, but you want to take the lime to rag on me for blocking FireFox. Right.

I agree that the arguments about the DOS not being a DOS are stupid, but I have a couple questions about your stance that maybe you could clarify for me.

In the back-and-forth with "Firefox Fanboy", you used an analogy that although there are pedophiles in the US, not all US citizens are pedophiles...a line of reasoning whth which I agree.

Extending that analogy, if blocking firefox users because some use adblock plus (as opposed to custom hosts files, etc) is reasonable (assuming that blocking users is a normal recourse for using adblock), would that not make the analogy one where all US citizens were jailed for pedophelia? In that context, and regardless of the crime involved, it seems a harsh reaction by analogy.

Maybe it was just a bad analogy (I've used bad analogies, too...I know how easily that can happen), and I'd like to offer you the opportunity to give a better comparison.

Second point of clarification; I don't presume to know if you think that fast-forwarding through commercials while watching TV is okay, but I would assume that you do not, based on your views about blocking web advertisements. Is that a valid assumption?

Third (and last) point of clarification; since other companies make browsers with built-in ad-blocking (Opera, in particular), are they blocked as well, and if ad-blocking becomes an integral feature of other browsers will they then be blocked?

I don't use AdBlock, although I do use Firefox sometimes (I can't upgrade IE6 on my work PC, and I hate how transparent PNGs render in that browser), so I don't really have an issue with your decision, I just want to understand the nuances of your position.

Thanks in advance.

Danny, get ready for much worse. They will slander you and continually harass you relentlessly. These fanboys are absolutely crazy. Trust me I know. The lies they are begining to spread are only the tip of the iceberg. Get legal counsel for any libel and contact the FBI for all threats to your person and family. If they follow you around online just remember that Internet Stalking (cyberstalking) is also a crime. Just don't back down, they are in reality weak little children playing on their daddy's computer and when daddy gets a call from the FBI their fun and games are over.

In the back-and-forth with "Firefox Fanboy", you used an analogy that although there are pedophiles in the US, not all US citizens are pedophiles...a line of reasoning whth which I agree.

Extending that analogy, if blocking firefox users because some use adblock plus (as opposed to custom hosts files, etc) is reasonable (assuming that blocking users is a normal recourse for using adblock), would that not make the analogy one where all US citizens were jailed for pedophelia?

A more apt analogy would be if 20% of visitors from a certain country were diagnosed with tuberculosis, would a temporary ban on all visitors from that country be inappropriate, or expected.

Or if a handful of people in the government of a country (say Afghanistan) aided a terrorist (let's call him Osama Bin Laden) in murdering 2,000+ people in American soil in a group of bombings, would invading that country and replacing its government be overkill or an appropriate response.

I don't presume to know if you think that fast-forwarding through commercials while watching TV is okay, but I would assume that you do not, based on your views about blocking web advertisements. Is that a valid assumption?

When I watch live TV I leave the commercials untouched unless the volume is higher than the actual program, in which I then mute all commercials, rather than having to turn each one down individually. Increasing the volume of commercials is an unethical business practice, and there's nothing wrong with muting commercials on stations that do that.

As for fast forwarding commercials, while I don't do it, I also don't make a stink if someone else does it. It's like cigarette smoking or homosexuality. If asked, I'll tell you why I think they are bad, but I won't do it, and I don't get "all up" in someone's face who does it, because there's really no point to doing that. If I haven't earned your respect enough for you to ask me, I doubt you'd care what I thought. In this case, though, we're dealing with my site, my content, my bandwidth, my time in producing the content. I have a personal interest in having it seen "as is". 

...since other companies make browsers with built-in ad-blocking (Opera, in particular), are they blocked as well, and if ad-blocking becomes an integral feature of other browsers will they then be blocked?

I'm allowing this because you've been polite, but I've answered this over and over again. I can block people using ad blocking software, unless it's AdBlockPlus. Since I can't block them, and since Mozilla endorses ABP, I began blocking FireFox. As long as ad blocking software doesn't deny site owners the right to block people using it, I see it as a problem that takes care of itself. Any site owner that doesn't want people blocking their ads could simply block those using ad blockign software. End of problem. Simple and fair.

Danny, get ready for much worse. They will slander you and continually harass you relentlessly. These fanboys are absolutely crazy. Trust me I know. The lies they are begining to spread are only the tip of the iceberg. Get legal counsel for any libel and contact the FBI for all threats to your person and family. If they follow you around online just remember that Internet Stalking (cyberstalking) is also a crime. Just don't back down, they are in reality weak little children playing on their daddy's computer and when daddy gets a call from the FBI their fun and games are over.

Andrew, thanks for commenting. I know what they've put you through, and it means a lot that you took the time to visit.

When I first stumbled across your site, I thought it was just another pro-FireFox site. You approached every item fairly an honestly, and I was several items down before it dawned on me, that unlike all the other sites, you were actually basing your conclusions on the facts rather than obsessive devotion to the "browser god". That's why I linked to it. I hope it brought you some good traffic, although I imagine it brought you a lot more nut cases.

Hi, I'd like to say first of all it is absolutely your choice what content you serve and who you serve content to. The site is not a public service with an obligation to be available to all people, but a private and (hopefully!) profit-making site.

But also, since you sound like someone who respects freedom of choice, should a user not have the right to run whatever software they want on a computer they own and display the content they get in whatever form they like? And if they manage to display a page without the appropriate ads, why should they not be allowed to do that?

It's like TV advertising: Advertising isn't inherent in the design in the TV, it just happened to work well as a 'bolt-on' as a way of getting TV funded. But does that mean advertisers should get some sort of legal privilege? No, they should be on a par with the rest of us: They have the freedom to blurt out intrusive messages and we have the freedom to try to ignore them if we want.

That works in TV, why shouldn't it work on the web?

I read your opinion with interest. I'm hoping you can clarify one thing...

I quote from your manifesto: "Since the makers of Ad Block Plus as well as the filter subscriptions that accompany it refuse to allow website owners control over their own intellectual property..."

But isn't the issue that web browser users have the right to control what reaches their eyeballs?

In other words, "My eyeballs, my rules"

Myself, I don't mind ads unless they blink. If all ads were static images, I would have no need for ad blocking software. I am certainly no fanboy, but your business ethics are very similar to bulk email marketers who complain that their email is blocked. They believe they have a right to make money on the internet just as you do.

In the lexicon that I'm familiar with, those people are known as "ethikul bidnesmen".

PS: I'm here with Firefox/NoScript/AdblockPlus/User-Agent-Switcher

Hi, I'd like to say first of all it is absolutely your choice what content you serve and who you serve content to. The site is not a public service with an obligation to be available to all people, but a private and (hopefully!) profit-making site.

But also, since you sound like someone who respects freedom of choice, should a user not have the right to run whatever software they want on a computer they own and display the content they get in whatever form they like? And if they manage to display a page without the appropriate ads, why should they not be allowed to do that?

A. I make sure no inappropriate ads are shown. B. It's my site, and if I want to insist on the ads being included, then I should have that right.

It's like TV advertising: Advertising isn't inherent in the design in the TV, it just happened to work well as a 'bolt-on' as a way of getting TV funded. But does that mean advertisers should get some sort of legal privilege? No, they should be on a par with the rest of us: They have the freedom to blurt out intrusive messages and we have the freedom to try to ignore them if we want.

You have the freedom to ignore ads on my site. You shouldn't have the freedom to block them, when I specifically don't want that, and have attempted to prevent it. The courts have agreed that the mechanized blocking of television ads is illegal. the only reason they haven't done so with the internet is because no one has taken the matter to court. The reason for that is because few publishers have the resources to wage that kind of legal battle, and the ones who do know it would be a PR nightmare, because they are big companies going after "little" ad blocking software producers.

I read your opinion with interest. I'm hoping you can clarify one thing...

I quote from your manifesto:

Manifesto?!? You people take things waaaay too seriously.

 "Since the makers of Ad Block Plus as well as the filter subscriptions that accompany it refuse to allow website owners control over their own intellectual property..."

But isn't the issue that web browser users have the right to control what reaches their eyeballs?

You do that by not visiting my sites.

In other words, "My eyeballs, my rules"

Then don't visit my sites.

Myself, I don't mind ads unless they blink. If all ads were static images, I would have no need for ad blocking software.

I don't use those kind of ads, but my ads are still blocked.

 I am certainly no fanboy, but your business ethics are very similar to bulk email marketers who complain that their email is blocked. They believe they have a right to make money on the internet just as you do.

How exactly have I forced anyone to come here? I pay to host the site. I spent the time building it. You, voluntarily, request to look at it, then demand that it's changed before it reaches your precious eyes. If your eyes are so sensitive that they can't risk the exposure to advertisement, then stay away. If I were allowed to block people using ad blocking software, you wouldn't see those "deadly" ads anyway, so problem solved. Go whine to the AdBlockPlus people who refuse to allow site owners to detect who's using their plug-in. In the end, you don't risk exposing your delicate eyes to those toxic ads.

In the lexicon that I'm familiar with, those people are known as "ethikul bidnesmen".

Bulk emailers? Get a new lexicon.

PS: I'm here with Firefox/NoScript/AdblockPlus/User-Agent-Switcher

And you had to go out of your way to do that--that's the point.

Danny, I came across the story when it broke, but had no idea it was you. Your logic is impeccable and you have the absolute right to serve up or not serve up your site in any manner you wish. Over the years, I've seen so many no-IE messages preventing me from loading a site (I either hit backspace or clicked on FF in the quick launch bar, no big deal) and I never read about FFF (FireFoxFanboys) saying the tactic was wrong. Keep up the great work and serve it however you want.

Aside: Why is it some people think that all notions of theft, vandalism, etc., don't apply to computers, digital media and the web?

Danny,

Please have a look at this exchange:

http://www.bamahome.com/discus/messages/334/79781.html?1102735895

"Drew" is your anti-Firefox buddy Andrew K.

Can you honestly look at that and say that "Drew" isn't exhibiting all the signs of a fanboy? Or are fanboys OK if they're Microsoft fanboys?

I just read about your site on the Yahoo! News site, and I thought that I'd drop by and take a look. Sure enough, my Firefox is blocked. I had to borrow a friend's computer to look at the site, since I'm running Linux, and Internet Explorer just isn't an option for me. More than likely, this will be my last visit. I've read your argument about why it is that you're blocking Firefox, and I have to say I disagree with you.

As much as you want to have control of how people view your site, I also want to have control of my experience. Advertisements such as the ones that appear on your site are using my bandwidth in a way that I don't approve of, and so, I block them. This is my choice to make.

I realize that nothing I say is going to reverse your opinion. You've probably gotten many more visits with the media spectacle this has caused than you've lost with your blocking.

There is one thing that I'd like to point out that you may want to rectify. You're blocking Firefox so that users won't view your page in a way that costs you ad revenue or compromises your design decisions, but you're still offering the blog with an RSS feed. I was able to view your content using Google Reader with no advertisements and in Firefox. Seems kind of silly to block one way in and not the other doesn't it? It's kind of like locking the front door, but leaving the back door and all the windows open. Just saying.

Again, good luck in the future.

Mike

Can you honestly look at that and say that "Drew" isn't exhibiting all the signs of a fanboy? Or are fanboys OK if they're Microsoft fanboys?

Exhibiting all the signs of a Fanboy? He's not using profanity. He's not making claims he's unwilling to support. He's not claiming IE is absolutely the only browser anyone should ever have to use. So what's he doing that's even remotely like FF fanboys? If he were a IE fanboy in the same caliber of the FF fanboys stinking up the web, he'd be claiming FF is written by amateurs, antiquated and can't to anything. He's simply pointing out that based on market demands, IE renders pages better than FF. I'm still wondering why W3C is automatically assumed to be the dictators of HTML rendering? I didn't vote for them. did you?

I'm still wondering why W3C is automatically assumed to be the dictators of HTML rendering? I didn't vote for them. did you?

The W3C was founded by Tim Berners-Lee in 1994. The W3C is automatically assumed to be the dictators of HTML rendering because Tim Berners-Lee is basically the man who invented HTML. I'm sure you can identify with an individual that just wants to have his creation represented in a way that he approves of, or does that just apply when you're speaking of your own creations?

Exhibiting all the signs of a Fanboy? He's not using profanity. He's not making claims he's unwilling to support. He's not claiming IE is absolutely the only browser anyone should ever have to use. So what's he doing that's even remotely like FF fanboys? If he were a IE fanboy in the same caliber of the FF fanboys stinking up the web, he'd be claiming FF is written by amateurs, antiquated and can't to anything. He's simply pointing out that based on market demands, IE renders pages better than FF. I'm still wondering why W3C is automatically assumed to be the dictators of HTML rendering? I didn't vote for them. did you?

He quickly moves from bashing FF to bashing Linux. This reveals much about his agenda and worldview. Danny, I'm trying really hard to have some respect for your intellect, but I think a reasonable person who reads some of your postings in the adsensechat forum would have doubts about how reasonable or objective you really are. Polite people can disagree on the merits of an argument. Many intelligent and reasonable people have made what I believe are solid, intellectually-based rebuttals to your basic premise. You have avoided addressing those rebuttals and have not offered a reasonable explanation for your avoidance.

Please read this post:
http://www.adsensechat.com/showpost.php?p=34377&postcount=88
...and respond. Just because someone doesn't share your worldview does not automatically make their argument "incoherent".

Thanks

He quickly moves from bashing FF to bashing Linux. 

But what you're calling "bashing" is nothing more than pointing out flaws. I've done as much with IE, but I'm still called a FireFox hater. Your reasoning is flawed in that you want to call any criticism of FF, bashing. There are positives and negatives to every software, FF is not exception.

This reveals much about his agenda and worldview. 

Yes, that he's willing to give each software an honest analysis.

Danny, I'm trying really hard to have some respect for your intellect, but I think a reasonable person who reads some of your postings in the adsensechat forum would have doubts about how reasonable or objective you really are. 

I don't. I think someone that has developed an irrational bond with FF or Mozilla would, but not a reasonable person.

Polite people can disagree on the merits of an argument. Many intelligent and reasonable people have made what I believe are solid, intellectually-based rebuttals to your basic premise. 

Really, where?

You have avoided addressing those rebuttals and have not offered a reasonable explanation for your avoidance.

No, delusional fanboys refuse to listen to logic and trash anyone who dares not worship their browser god.

The W3C was founded by Tim Berners-Lee in 1994. The W3C is automatically assumed to be the dictators of HTML rendering because Tim Berners-Lee is basically the man who invented HTML. I'm sure you can identify with an individual that just wants to have his creation represented in a way that he approves of, or does that just apply when you're speaking of your own creations?

He didn't invent CSS, DHTML, Javascript, Java, Flash or any of the other things that web pages can use, that W3C attempts to pretend to regulate. 

Interesting that you demand strict obedience to Berners-Lee's proclamations regarding HTML, but have no problem trashing people web sites with software that alters the content. Had Berners-Lee wanted HTML to remain static and completely under his control, he would have patented it, and forced people to follow his dictations about it's use. But he recognized the dynamic aspect of any computer language and therefore didn't' demand that it remain static.

How many Microsoft innovations has W3C adopted into HTML? Criticizing some browsers for not strictly following W3C rules stifles creativity. That Mozilla was unable to keep up with the changes made in IE, is not Microsoft's fault, it's Mozilla's.

No, delusional fanboys refuse to listen to logic and trash anyone who dares not worship their browser god.

So this is about your worldview. You're saying anyone who likes Firefox worships it? Perhaps you're projecting just a little?

I'm sorry to hear about the harassment you have been getting. Don't attach it to Firefox users in general, though. I'm sure if you banned IE/Opera/Netscape/Safari users from the site, you would get the same reaction.

I am not posting here to tell you that your actions here were right or wrong. It doesn't matter because your method simply doesn't work. I can view your site w/ Firefox & ABP just fine as well as IE7 w/ Adblock Pro. Attempting to block Firefox is fruitless because it doesn't stop it like you say it will.

Also, telling "Firefox Fanboy" that you can 'detect' weather or not your visitors are viewing the ads sounds like a bluff to me. You complain that you deal with liars here, and then you say something like that.

I am not posting here to tell you that your actions here were right or wrong. It doesn't matter because your method simply doesn't work. I can view your site w/ Firefox & ABP just fine as well as IE7 w/ Adblock Pro. Attempting to block Firefox is fruitless because it doesn't stop it like you say it will.

That was never the point, as if you'd actually read any of the stuff written, you'd know that. The point was to bring awareness to the unethical practices Mozilla is endorsing. With the help of all the gullible FF fanboys, that's exactly what's happened, and it's been a great success. Mozilla myrmidons are incredibly easy to manipulate.

Also, telling "Firefox Fanboy" that you can 'detect' weather or not your visitors are viewing the ads sounds like a bluff to me. You complain that you deal with liars here, and then you say something like that.

I use only three types of ads on my sites, Google AdSense, and two of my own ad servers. I can detect when my own ads are being requested and shown. It's also easy to detect whether (not weather) an AdSense ad is being shown.

That was never the point, as if you'd actually read any of the stuff written, you'd know that. The point was to bring awareness to the unethical practices Mozilla is endorsing. With the help of all the gullible FF fanboys, that's exactly what's happened, and it's been a great success. Mozilla myrmidons are incredibly easy to manipulate.

So you've made people aware that FF can block ads. Big deal - so can IE and any other browser. The fact that you associate ad blocking to FF is completly ignorant.

You keep saying that Mozilla is 'endorsing' this, and you are in error. The extensions are maintained by the community. On my blog post, I quote Mozilla's disclaimer on how they "make no representations regarding the applications or any information related there to".

You have clearly formed a negative bias towards FF users, and that's a real shame.

So you've made people aware that FF can block ads. Big deal - so can IE and any other browser. The fact that you associate ad blocking to FF is completly ignorant.

What is with you fanboys and reading comprehension? All ad blocking software can be detected except for AdBlockPlus, which is endorsed by Mozilla. How many hundreds of times does that have to be repeated before it finally sinks in?

You keep saying that Mozilla is 'endorsing' this, and you are in error. The extensions are maintained by the community. On my blog post, I quote Mozilla's disclaimer on how they "make no representations regarding the applications or any information related there to".

It's listed for download on Mozilla's site. If Mozilla offered a KKK or a "beat up the Homo" plug-in on their site, do you think anyone would not hold them accountable? Inclusion is endorsement.

You have clearly formed a negative bias towards FF users, and that's a real shame.

You're falling right in line with my latest post....

If you consider anyone who doesn't think FireFox is the absolute best browser ever, an anti-FireFox hatemonger...
    ...you might be a FF Fanboy.

He didn't invent CSS, DHTML, Javascript, Java, Flash or any of the other things that web pages can use, that W3C attempts to pretend to regulate.

You're right, he didn't invent CSS, DHTML, Javascript, Java, or Flash. I never claimed that he did, and your original statement specifically asked why the W3C was the "dictators of HTML rendering", not any of those. In all actuality, Java, Javascript, and flash are all objects that exist within HTML, not along side of it. I'll give you the list here anyway, even though I'm sure you don't care.

CSS was invented by Håkon Wium Lie, who worked for the W3C, which is why CSS is regulated by the W3C. Would you like to argue against their right to do so?

DHTML was invented by a man named Adam Bosworth, who currently works for Google.

Javascript was invented by a man named Brendan Eich, who is currently the CTO at the Mozilla Corporation. They're the ones that make that nasty Firefox thing.

Java was invented by Sun.

Flash was invented by a man named Jeremy Allaire while he worked at Macromedia.

For what it's worth, and to you I'm sure that's not much, the W3C doesn't claim to regulate any of those other than HTML and CSS. I've seen nothing to substanciate your claim that they do.

Interesting that you demand strict obedience to Berners-Lee's proclamations regarding HTML, but have no problem trashing people web sites with software that alters the content. Had Berners-Lee wanted HTML to remain static and completely under his control, he would have patented it, and forced people to follow his dictations about it's use. But he recognized the dynamic aspect of any computer language and therefore didn't' demand that it remain static.

Interesting that you have no problems demanding people live up to your specifications but openly support people and companies that do just the opposite.

How many Microsoft innovations has W3C adopted into HTML? Criticizing some browsers for not strictly following W3C rules stifles creativity. That Mozilla was unable to keep up with the changes made in IE, is not Microsoft's fault, it's Mozilla's.

How many Microsoft innovations has W3C adopted into HTML? I don't know. None? I'd wager than you dont' know either. Of course, you can prove me wrong by backing your claim. Firefox's feature set actually exceeds that of Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer remained dormant from the release of Internet Explorer 6 on August 27, 2001 till it's release of Internet Explorer 7 on October 18th, 2006. Only security fixes were published during that time (and a popup blocker). I find your phrasing "unable to keep up with the changes made in IE" extremely humorous since the 1.0 version of Firefox was released on November 9th, 2004. Pretty much any review you can find (other than Microsoft's own or that Andrew character's) puts Firefox in a better position than Internet Explorer. Saying that Mozilla was unable to keep up with Microsoft is either disingenuous or just plain ignorant.

What is with you fanboys and reading comprehension? All ad blocking software can be detected except for AdBlockPlus, which is endorsed by Mozilla. How many hundreds of times does that have to be repeated before it finally sinks in?

The reason I said that was because I can view your site using other ad block software just to see if you were making that up before. If you can detect it, why aren't you blocking this, too? This was made possible by IE 7.0 with AdBlock Plus as a proof of concept.

It's listed for download on Mozilla's site. If Mozilla offered a KKK or a "beat up the Homo" plug-in on their site, do you think anyone would not hold them accountable? Inclusion is endorsement.

Inclusion != Endorsement. You could search Google for stuff that shouldn't be available to the public. Does that make them liable? No. You could search YouTube for a videos on basically on how to hurt yourself (dry ice bombs, thermite, etc.) Does that make them liable? No. Just because it's on their site doesn't mean they endorse it.

I might be a 'FF Fanboy'...but I'm not (at least not by your standards). I use FF by default because I run Ubuntu by default, and I like the add ons that are available, not because I am a part of a cult or something. You are making the mistake of assuming that I am right down there with the others that are attacking your servers.

Also, that last flaming post you made does not make your blog look good. Your regular blog visitors will see that and not be impressed. I know I'm not.s