Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Surprised it took the mail so long really
I use adblocker anyway. Theo's the istosty enforcer.
But I said I wasn;t getting involved in these sorts of threads anymore, and lasted less than a day, so I'm the real beast.
Funny how indie mifflers think it's bad to illegally download a Sonic Youth album, but ok to steal from journalists they don't agree with
I happily use adblocker. Is it supposed to make me a hypocrite? Is that the debate we're skirting around?
but whatever, I accept you're clearly a blameless, morally clean person, and there is no similarity whatsoever between using an adblocker and illegally downloading music. SO no chasing me around with links.
But let's just get one thing straight before we proceed, you have form for unnecessary needling. You love it, you cheeky chappie. Me too. Let's do this...
You, in the 'Spotify adblock' thread:
>"Will there ever be a Spotify thread where brightonb and TheWza don't wave their canes at the young people? I personally hope not."
But when Icarus-Smicarus pointed out how "it usually comes from the other direction first."
>"Let's ring old man Wza's doorbell and run away! The scamps, but boys will be boys."
>"It was just an amusing little image to illustrate an amusing little trait you have. Also I was calling you names because you're funny, I don;t care either way in this *debate*."
So, having established that you're 'just trollin guise', I'll get my copypaste on. No need for links, just some brief text.
Internet ads are junkmail by another name. If sites are so confident in the value of their offering they are completely free to self host ads. Third party adservers would be a thing of the past. Adblockers wouldn't work.
Or, they can limit what they *freely publish*, and put up a paywall to protect their special content.
In fact, they could block all users of Adblock if they wanted to. The fact they don't speaks volumes.
NONE of the above applies to music copyright infringement via piracy where artists aren't the ones hawking their work around and wedging adverts in amongst it. (NB:Adverts in Spotify are a different thing; Spotify is essentially broadcast media, rather than sale of media. And no-one suggests that your mum's a pirate for getting up to put the kettle on or pressing FFWD whilst the adverts are on when she's watching the Hollyoaks omnibus on 4oD.)
and yes, in this case I was trolling a bit, but I prefer to see it as keeping you on your toes. I never go ad hominem except clearly in jest for example, and I'm hardly CG.
You also really, really need to take being teased better, as I have said on numerous occasions.
I just tend towards daftness rather than glibness when it comes to call-outs. See also: people thinking that the very mention of wishpig in the vicinity of anything discussing a woman constitutes a joke.
Anyway, I can assure you I'm not sitting here with steam coming out of my ears, whilst bookmarking threads, and making plans of how I can dog on you in the future (I'd completely forgotten you'd weighed in in that Spotify thread until I tripped over it whilst looking for something else). I'm just avoiding work like everyone else on here innit. So why not do it by easily copypasting the same old truths that loads of people do genuinely fail to grasp.
I don't like the Daily Mail (fuck you, Ibzo) so I don't read it, online via any other web service or otherwise. It's working out pretty perfectly for me.
I want to avoid reading it, I hate myself after I do, but I can't help it. It's as if I want to get all angry and indignant
I thought the point was more to reduce the hits by people who were essentially rubbernecking at their utter crass gall and thus legitimising more stories along the lines of 'gay people die for being intrinsically wrong', or other rubbish.
"just don't look! just don't look!" song from the Simpsons. I hate the idea that my ineffectual outrage is encouraging them to make more stories that outrage me.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who use the Daily Mail's site are there because the content caters to them.
Isn't the Mail's online content managed separately from the print? The site seems to focus primarily on gossip/celeb stuff (possibly fishing for people to share their links around?).
but I don't think that necessarily contradicts what I posted.
but I reckon the print and web versions are different beasts. It's more in response to simon_t's post really; the ubiquity of the Mail in print is also a depressing thing, though a slightly different/removed depressing thing.
I'm just saying that I saw istyosty as a way to comment on despicable things without appearing to tacitly support them.
It's not a crusade, more a personal choice thing. Anyway, none of us are crying tears over this. It was fun while it lasted.
"Oh I don't care about this at all but I'm still going to stick my nose in an make a sarcastic comment."