Why oh why..

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:45 pm

well; its just stupid people use a crappy service like that.

chromaX · Post by **chromaX** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:27 pm

thefool wrote:No matter if people get popups or not; there are still ADS. The service i recommended has 0 ads for people looking at the images.

Nay. Prove:

http://img15.imgspot.com/?u=/u/06/332/1 ... 834842.jpg

Either I'm seeing things or these are ads. The ads are SFW/C tho.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:55 pm

1) the ads are family friendly
2) no popups
3) apprerently you are too dumb to use it correctly:

I didn't mean the dumb thing but it just fit in

lexvictory · Post by **lexvictory** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:42 am

i guess this i just a case of each to their own, and put up, or shut up...
(no offense to anyone intended)

1) the ads are family friendly

on the imageshack main page the ads that come up (not the popups) are localised - today it was for citysearch.com.au ...

2) no popups

no popups in firefox either.... (for me

)

i know that this will probably start more of a flame war.... but im not trying to start one, nor am i meaning to offend ANYONE; i just dont see the point of complaining about ads - almost the whole internet is based around ads; if there were no ads, u would have to pay for everything....

FihmpenRouk · Post by **FihmpenRouk** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:29 am

lexvictory wrote:i know that this will probably start more of a flame war.... but im not trying to start one, nor am i meaning to offend ANYONE; i just dont see the point of complaining about ads - almost the whole internet is based around ads; if there were no ads, u would have to pay for everything....

I think we concluded that in the beginning of page two, allready.

Is this debate leading anywhere? Some of us like ads, others don't. Even though services are paid by ads, it doesn't mean that I nescessarly have to like them. Even though I hate my work, it doesn't have to mean that I don't like money and so on.

The way they do ads is not so very appealing for me. I could perhaps like ads if they weren't made to stick onto my eyes all the time. Tasteful discrete ads could very well be okay.

So I would like to say that bad advertising is the reason why browsers use different methods of adblocking. What's acceptable for one person isn't allways acceptable for another person, etc.

lexvictory · Post by **lexvictory** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:38 am

FihmpenRouk wrote:I think we concluded that in the beginning of page two, allready.

hehe, i know, but thefool was being a fool

remember its just a joke!

and its not like too many people actually post imageshack images.... (here anyway), so i dont end up going on it very often...
and i just put up with ads... (except those find girls in your area, those image hosts get put on the block list straight away...)

maybe there should be another forum under off topic; 'whining and/or ranting' that gets pruned every now and then

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:21 am

I don't care if they are localized or not. If i can't thrust imageshack to be family-friendly with GOOD ads, its no use at all for any human. Users should be put inside a gigant microwave and toasted..

you keep squabbing about that you can remove ads, i don't see why it should be nessecarry to remove them. If they'd use appropriate ads, or no ads at all there would be no trouble!

And it sure is a hoax that nothing is free & ad-free at the same time. Openoffice is a good example, and its possible to show images directly with no ads on the page i just refered...

Its not whining, its a good suggestion. I do end on imageshack often enough to make it a pain. Now i won't ever click an image from them anymore... If everyone could just stick to appropriate ads then i would be happy. Otherwise i see only 2 solutions: pay for adfree services(not those pay-to-remove-ads ones of course) or find an adfree/GOOD ad service.

Its not me that are whining, lexvictory. FihmpenRouk has a point, i do too. you come with suggestions about how i can remove the ads and spending my insanely valuable time on that! I don't have time to do it. And if i still refuse to fall so deep that i have to remove them, i am called a whiner and a fool.... :roll:

lexvictory · Post by **lexvictory** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:26 am

i was trying to make a joke, yeah, i know some people cant tolerate ads, or ads of a certain type, but they dont bother me..... so i got a bit carried away....

chromaX · Post by **chromaX** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:32 am

thefool wrote:3) apprerently you are too dumb to use it correctly:

thefool wrote:i am called a whiner and a fool

Hypocrit?

Well, whaddaya expect, you named yourself thefool.

Anyway, I meant the direct display of the picture, meaning sending the link via e-mail. A possible and intended application of the service. Then you have ads. Which are, as I stated, Suitable for Work and/or Children.

But fortunately I don't need all this ImageShack mumbo-jumbo. If I have to display an Image, I use my own webspace. 100% ad free. Happy?

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:23 pm

Yes if you use your own webspace, im fine.

d***head (hey, you called me a hypocrite

)

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:21 pm

I think someone needs to learn what single means:

Which is ONE of the reasons Firefox is not my primary browser.

PB · Post by PB » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:03 pm

> Which is ONE of the reasons Firefox is not my primary browser

Um, you do realise that Tab Mix Plus is NOT Firefox, but a third-party extension?
So blaming Firefox for allowing multiple open windows that a third-party "fix"
is supposed to stop, isn't a valid argument. That's like saying you don't use
PureBasic as your primary language because Gnozal's SMTP library won't
send an e-mail (no offense to Gnozal, it was just an example).

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:47 pm

Yes, TabMixPlus is not Firefox. And firefox lacks ad blocking, mouse gestures, single-window mode, white-listing for javascript/flash (separate) blocking, resume download after restart, translate selected text, sane handling of tabs, notes, wysiwyg editing of the current page, true fullscreen (can you even get that with an extension?), go to url in right-click menu for selected url text, page zoom (can you even get that with an extension?), batch downloading of links, +++.
My OTHER reason for not using firefox is that it lacks all those features and many more.

FihmpenRouk · Post by **FihmpenRouk** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:37 am

Okay, before this ends up in some fight what browswer is the best, I would just like to say that I like a browser were I can include stuff i want. With most other software i just get hundreds of functions I never use, that only take resources on my computer.

Everone doesn't value that either and therefore other browsers are better. Hopefully there is one browser for each taste, and if so, there is no best browser - only a best browser for a personal taste.

GeoTrail · Post by **GeoTrail** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:43 am

Mouse gestures, who really uses that?

And single window mode? What's the point? I though multi tabbed windows was the big thing