Doing ourselves out of some cash here....

[Andy Hamilton]

Just found a little plug in for Firefox that blocks any ads on a page. It means that anyone (uhmpt Martin) that is fed up with the google ads at the top of the page can stop them from appearing. Seems to block most ads.

[Martin]

by golly, it works! - have to "teach it" first, but it does achieve it! Thanks!

[Thomzo]

Andy
Do we have to click on the ads for you to get paid or just allow them to be there? I really don't care if they are there or not. I just ignore them so no lost cash from my side.

Zoe

[Muddypause]

Maybe you can tell something about a person by the extensions they have on Firefox. I have to say that Adblock was about the first extension I installed several years ago. When you lot were grumbling about the GoogleAds a while back I was a bit puzzled, because I didn't even know the site carried them.

When you click on an ad, Adblock will suggest blocking that specific one - have a look at the URL which it is showing you and see if it can be reduced to a simple domain, thus blocking everything from that site. For example, if something starts off http://media.adrevolver.com it's a fair certainty that the whole site is dedicated to providing adverts, so foreshorten it to just that and all ads from that site will be blocked regardless of where they are. Sites that you don't want to block completely will often have a fairly obvious advert folder; eg http://www.tiscali.co.uk/banners/ - cut out everything after that bit, and all the banner ads on the Tiscali site will be blocked.

It's also jolly useful for getting rid of all those annoying emoticons that people litter their posts with, and (dare I say it) some of the less becoming avatars <hush, now> (not necessarily on this forum; possibly on this forum).

Nuke Anything is another useful one you might be interested in, for one-time removal of annoyances.

[Martin]

does "nuke anything" work on governments?...............

[Millymollymandy]

It's also jolly useful for getting rid of all those annoying emoticons that people litter their posts with, and (dare I say it) some of the less becoming avatars <hush, now> (not necessarily on this forum; possibly on this forum).

You wouldn't be talking about Martin would you? (that's a LOL emoticon but you can't see it!).

Mind you, if you block out the emoticons you won't know when people are being serious or not!!!

[wulf]

Smilies for Stew:

Happy: : - )

Sad: : - (

Block that! ; - )

Wulf

[hamster]

Maybe you can tell something about a person by the extensions they have on Firefox.

You can probably tell quite a lot about me from the fact that I didn't even know there were extensions on Firefox, let alone how to install them and use them....

[Martin]

what's wrong with smilies?
On a board like this, they're actually useful, and can emphasise meanings if something could be read "either way" - a little smiley confirms what you mean!

[Muddypause]

You wouldn't be talking about Martin would you?

Are you saying he uses a lot of emoticons? I didn't know that. But I'll try not to think any less of him because of it.

Mind you, if you block out the emoticons you won't know when people are being serious or not!!!

Now, you see, I can actually tell that there was a degree of irony in that comment, and I've no idea if you used emoticons to express that. The thing is, language is clever enough to convey that on its own, and I think we should make a stand against the idea that everyone on the internet is too illiterate to be able to understand this.

When you read a book which makes you laugh or cry, do you only know to express these emotions because it has emoticons telling you to? People have been able to communicate the entire gamut of human emotions through the written word without needing to add little graphics that tell us what to feel about it. Language is sophisticated enough to do this, and yet elegant enough for a three year old to use.

I suppose I find emoticons rather patronising. They presume the reader cannot otherwise understand something, and they thus absolve the writer from the responsibility of figuring out a form of words that conveys what they mean. An emoticon conveys someone else's idea of an emotion - you get them from a stock of ready-made feelings. I'd rather find out what you mean by the shape of the words you use.

[Martin]

I use it as shorthand....... I posted a reply to a post last night in four letters -
"A bit?" - further qualified by the "rolleyes" smiley, which added considerably to it's meaning - otherwise I'd have had to have been considerably more verbose to get my meaning over.....

[Muddypause]

I only saw the four letters and still had a chuckle. Why do you think we couldn't figure out your meaning from that? I'd say it was enhanced by its brevity.

Surely the only thing I missed by not seeing the smilies was what you think of the intellectual capacity of your reader(s).

[Martin]

A novel view.......I regard it more as a way to talk on an internet board very much as one does in "real life" - the expression on the speaker's face is very important to qualify what has been said (rolling one's eyes for instance) - and to save excess verbosity (of which I have at times been very guilty)
(I put in a smiley smiley there!) (and another!)

[Stonehead]

Now, you see, I can actually tell that there was a degree of irony in that comment, and I've no idea if you used emoticons to express that. The thing is, language is clever enough to convey that on its own, and I think we should make a stand against the idea that everyone on the internet is too illiterate to be able to understand this.

A kindred spirit! Did you ever think I'd say that?

I suppose I find emoticons rather patronising. They presume the reader cannot otherwise understand something.

Hmm, they were dreamt up by Americans...

Now that is sure to be taken the right way by some!

[wulf]

Language is a living thing, certainly in the case of English. It can only be a matter of time before some of the more common smilies start making it into dictionaries.

Wulf

ps. No punctuation was abused in the posting of this message.