D
Dick_Hazeleger
Thanks Vic,
But I would love to see more people's opinion in this matter, after all
this concerns the basics of what we understand as being "freeware"!
Regards
Dick
Thanks Vic,
But I would love to see more people's opinion in this matter, after all
this concerns the basics of what we understand as being "freeware"!
Regards
Dick
J
John Corliss
Vic said:
Most of us know your feelings about the definition of freeware, Vic.
From your viewpoint it includes just about anything.
B
burnr
There's the rub Dick. "What we understand as being Freeware". I'm
assuming *we* being the collective of regular and not so regular
visitors/contributors to acf. There are so many flavors of freeware to
begin with that there can never truely be a consensus without dispute as
to what the word really means. That's why I generally avoid
participating in these types of discussions.
Speaking selectively of "adware" the same holds true. Various degrees of
adware also will prevent general agreement. JC represents the very
strict, hardline to the right
He's entitled to his opinion as are weall. Others will be more skewed to the left...and several in between.
What attracts me to this group is the excellent freeware that can be
gleaned from the posts, the spirited discussions, and healthy attitudes
of respect for others as you and John have exhibited in this thread.
acf rocks!
I'm afraid though that we'll never see the day that there is an
overwhelming majority opinion of what is and isn't acceptable freeware
or adware, except for the obvious foulware that's out there where
everybody agrees. Those are easy to agree on
Me personally...I'm somewhat towards the center of the curve, maybe
slightly leftish. lol But then again, it's only my opinion and what
satifies me certainly wouldn't others and I'm ok with that.
V
Vic Dura
I take a simplistic view of it Dick. If I can use it legally with out
having to pay $$ for it then it's freeware. If it has an ad-banner,
then it's freeware with an ad-banner, or freeware with advertising, or
freeware with whatever. I am mostly interested in free software that
performs a task. The best is totally free and pure as John Corliss
likes it, but there are other variations and that doesn't change the
fact that the are free and perform a function.
Of course I too consider it very poor from to recommend a freeware
variant without specifying what the variation is, e.g. lite, banner,
post-card, etc.
That's just my opinion, but this being an unmoderated group, it's not
worth more or less than anyone else's opinion
That's what I likeabout unmoderated groups. By their nature all opinions must be
tolerated.
Regards,
Vic Dura
J
John Corliss
I can keep this up as long as you can.
No idea what you mean by this. Unlike you, I differentiate between a
menu item and an actual ad.
Yes, because the name of this group is alt.comp.FREEWARE, not
alt.comp.ADWARE. Adware is NOT freeware. And you yourself have just now
called the software adware. Which it is.
Not true. If I'm looking for something, then I will go to a place where
such items are advertised. In that case, I'm asking for information
about something I'm interested in rather than having information about
something-in-which-I-have-no-interest shoved down my throat.
When it takes up roughly 1/7th of the program window and continually
changes almost to the point of being a flashing ad, it's hard to ignore.
I don't think that's what the link says, but I don't like it being there
at all. It should be listed as a menu item under the Help button only.
Regardless, we're talking about something that's mission critical.
Despite this, you may not have noticed that I don't recommend it here
any longer.
Any more than you like it that I am a voice for the opposite way of YOUR
thinking. Duh. However, the real issue here is: who's way of thinking is
in the majority? I have proof that mine is:
http://tinyurl.com/csqkc
If you want, I can repeat this vote too.
You keep skirting away from the fact that the advertising in Opanda's
program is *graphical* and and is the full advertisement. It is NOT an
invitation to view the advertising (which in itself can be bad enough),
but is rather the advertising itself. Anybody who runs the program will
see that this is the case.
Of course I do once in a while. ONCE AGAIN I never said (even though
you're insinuating that I did) that I am 100% successful in avoiding
advertising. I only claim that I hate it and do what I can to avoid it.
Besides, whether or not I'm 100% successful in avoiding advertising is
totally irrelavent to this discussion. Only you believe that it makes
any point. In fact, in essence what you're basically arguing is that
since advertising is unavoidable in its entirety, a person should just
cave in and not do anything to avoid it. And again, I say that's showing
them your soft underbelly like an omega dog.
Simply calling a spade a spade.
Of COURSE you did. You're engaging in classical debate tactics (one of
which is denial, as you've just done) with which I am more than
familiar. Insinuations are by design, difficult to prove. That's why you
did it and now deny it.
Then (giving you the benefit of the doubt) it would appear to me that
the reason you did this was to imply that since advertising is so
prevalent, everybody should accept advertising in their software
whenever it rears its ugly head.
Get real.
And just what is so dishonest about "venting" (or as *I* say,
"EXPRESSING") my opinion? If it wasn't my opinion, then that would be
dishonest. However since it is in fact my opinion, there's nothing
dishonest about it.
"we will have to live with it, whether you and I like it or not!" (below).
Since you insist: I'm talking about the soft underbelly a dog shows when
it displays submission to a more alpha dog. Do you then honestly believe
that advertisers are more alpha than you are? Quote: "we will have to
live with it, whether you and I like it or not!"
Now, why the hell would I forget that? And besides, you're as guilty of
sidetracking in this thread as I am.
Oh? And now you're telepathic? Or are you simply trying to tell me what
I'm thinking?
And let's not forget that (by your own admission above) we're talking
about adware, not spyware. Opanda Photo Filter is adware. Adware is any
software that displays advertising. Privacy was never an issue that I
complained about when I posted about Opanda Photo Filter.
And it would seem that you're trying to do the same thing by attempting
to confuse the term spyware with adware. The two are not the same and
neither is freeware.
I would say that this more applies to your side of the argument.
Come on Dick, why would you make a non-derivative and obviously trollish
remark like that? It doesn't deserve a response and I won't give one.
What makes you believe that I want ANYBODY to follow me "blindly"?
People who read my post can and obviously will do what they like.
However, I said nothing in that post which was untrue. The program DOES
display advertising:
NOT a link
NOT a button
NOT a menu item
but REAL solid, changing (bordering on FLASHING), obnoxious advertising.
And I totally disagree. I DO believe that it is the majority. To state
that you think otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme. Obviously not
everybody has those values. However, condemnation of a trade becomes
justified when the MAJORITY of the people in that trade exibit those
values. This is the case with advertising. Besides, advertisers are
about as loved as lawyers.
It was not a list of advertisers though, you understand.
Respect isn't in the equation, neither is disrespect. I understand your
way of thinking perfectly; it's what I've been fighting since I arrived
in this group. That is to say, the diminishing effectiveness and
continual watering down of the definition of freeware. A line HAS to be
drawn and I have done that the best I could.
I certainly hope you're not referring to that piece of adware that they
have listed there.
Whatever in the world makes you think that such a basic concept as that
would elude me? I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
That's what I call PROmotionware. It's not freeware either, IMO.
Indeed I do.
Not the one I use.
As I say, I don't see such spaces usually.
Look Dick, that tactic isn't going to work with me and I think you know
it. So give it up.
Gee, I didn't notice.
That's right. But you did, I hope, notice the inclusion in that remark
of the acronym "IMO".
I certainly do.
I have *always* considered adware to be a type of malware. That's my
personal opinion and it's not going to change.
You are inured to advertising. I'm not, nor will I ever be.
Mine and the majority of the group. If you don't believe me, then I
refer you to the follwing vote, which I'm sure is easily repeatable:
http://tinyurl.com/csqkc
A. How did you derive the belief that I want to stop people from
thinking differently from my simply expressing my opinions? I would say
that this kind of thing more applies to YOU trying to stifle what I'm
saying.
B. <sarcasm>Gee, I didn't know it was an unmoderated group.</sarcasm>
Tell you what then, Dick.... this means that the group should do nothing
to discourage discussion of the following:
1. shareware
2. warez
3. commercial software
I will continue to express my opinions. YOU are the person who has
converted this thread into a discussion about freedom of speech in this
group, NOT me. And the irony is that in spite of all your talk about how
this thread is unmoderated, you are trying your hardest to censor ME.
Again, I refer you to this link:
http://tinyurl.com/csqkc (a Googled thread in this group about a vote
on discussing adware here.)
If you want, you're free to hold another vote. However, frankly I think
you're engaging in wishful thinking.
*Ahem* I believe that's what I just said?
So what's your point? Obviously this is the case.
There is nothing static about them. They change continuously.
They are indeed intrusive in that I am forced to view them each time I
start the program.
Simple. Because I am not interested in such programs and didn't download
and try them. What, do you honestly believe that I read this entire
group? GET A GRIP! I'm not a moderator and this is not a moderated
group. How you shifted to implying that this is the case from my simple
post:
________________________________________________________________________
All right. So I installed this program on my system just now, and here's
my opinion.
It's obnoxious adware for the company's other $ware programs. There is a
flashing section in the lower right 1/7 of the program window.
Remember, adware doesn't have to call home to be considered adware. All
a program has to do is to obnoxiously advertise something and this
program fits the bill to a "T".
And the software author has the nerve to ask for donations.
Off of my system this POS goes. I don't care if it works or not, I don't
do adware. Period.
________________________________________________________________________
I haven't the slightest idea. As for my description of adware, I can now
see where it diverges from the latest chess move made by programmers.
That is, their attempt to redefine adware as always calling out for ads.
What total bullshit. Adware is software that displays ads - it's as
simple as that! It doesn't matter where the ads come from, they're still
ads! If a program displays ads, IT'S ADWARE!!!
With Opanda Photo Filter, I did indeed download and install the program.
I was unhappy with it being adware and stated that feeling as well as
the end result (removal of the program).
That you trivialize advertising borders on encouraging it IMO. Do you
honestly want your entire desktop covered with advertising? Because
that's what's going to happen if you allow a toe in the door.
Dick_Hazeleger said:
No idea what you mean by this. Unlike you, I differentiate between a
menu item and an actual ad.
Yes, because the name of this group is alt.comp.FREEWARE, not
alt.comp.ADWARE. Adware is NOT freeware. And you yourself have just now
called the software adware. Which it is.
Not true. If I'm looking for something, then I will go to a place where
such items are advertised. In that case, I'm asking for information
about something I'm interested in rather than having information about
something-in-which-I-have-no-interest shoved down my throat.
When it takes up roughly 1/7th of the program window and continually
changes almost to the point of being a flashing ad, it's hard to ignore.
I don't think that's what the link says, but I don't like it being there
at all. It should be listed as a menu item under the Help button only.
Regardless, we're talking about something that's mission critical.
Despite this, you may not have noticed that I don't recommend it here
any longer.
Any more than you like it that I am a voice for the opposite way of YOUR
thinking. Duh. However, the real issue here is: who's way of thinking is
in the majority? I have proof that mine is:
http://tinyurl.com/csqkc
If you want, I can repeat this vote too.
You keep skirting away from the fact that the advertising in Opanda's
program is *graphical* and and is the full advertisement. It is NOT an
invitation to view the advertising (which in itself can be bad enough),
but is rather the advertising itself. Anybody who runs the program will
see that this is the case.
Of course I do once in a while. ONCE AGAIN I never said (even though
you're insinuating that I did) that I am 100% successful in avoiding
advertising. I only claim that I hate it and do what I can to avoid it.
Besides, whether or not I'm 100% successful in avoiding advertising is
totally irrelavent to this discussion. Only you believe that it makes
any point. In fact, in essence what you're basically arguing is that
since advertising is unavoidable in its entirety, a person should just
cave in and not do anything to avoid it. And again, I say that's showing
them your soft underbelly like an omega dog.
Simply calling a spade a spade.
Of COURSE you did. You're engaging in classical debate tactics (one of
which is denial, as you've just done) with which I am more than
familiar. Insinuations are by design, difficult to prove. That's why you
did it and now deny it.
Then (giving you the benefit of the doubt) it would appear to me that
the reason you did this was to imply that since advertising is so
prevalent, everybody should accept advertising in their software
whenever it rears its ugly head.
Get real.
And just what is so dishonest about "venting" (or as *I* say,
"EXPRESSING") my opinion? If it wasn't my opinion, then that would be
dishonest. However since it is in fact my opinion, there's nothing
dishonest about it.
"we will have to live with it, whether you and I like it or not!" (below).
Since you insist: I'm talking about the soft underbelly a dog shows when
it displays submission to a more alpha dog. Do you then honestly believe
that advertisers are more alpha than you are? Quote: "we will have to
live with it, whether you and I like it or not!"
Now, why the hell would I forget that? And besides, you're as guilty of
sidetracking in this thread as I am.
Oh? And now you're telepathic? Or are you simply trying to tell me what
I'm thinking?
And let's not forget that (by your own admission above) we're talking
about adware, not spyware. Opanda Photo Filter is adware. Adware is any
software that displays advertising. Privacy was never an issue that I
complained about when I posted about Opanda Photo Filter.
And it would seem that you're trying to do the same thing by attempting
to confuse the term spyware with adware. The two are not the same and
neither is freeware.
I would say that this more applies to your side of the argument.
Come on Dick, why would you make a non-derivative and obviously trollish
remark like that? It doesn't deserve a response and I won't give one.
What makes you believe that I want ANYBODY to follow me "blindly"?
People who read my post can and obviously will do what they like.
However, I said nothing in that post which was untrue. The program DOES
display advertising:
NOT a link
NOT a button
NOT a menu item
but REAL solid, changing (bordering on FLASHING), obnoxious advertising.
And I totally disagree. I DO believe that it is the majority. To state
that you think otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme. Obviously not
everybody has those values. However, condemnation of a trade becomes
justified when the MAJORITY of the people in that trade exibit those
values. This is the case with advertising. Besides, advertisers are
about as loved as lawyers.
It was not a list of advertisers though, you understand.
Respect isn't in the equation, neither is disrespect. I understand your
way of thinking perfectly; it's what I've been fighting since I arrived
in this group. That is to say, the diminishing effectiveness and
continual watering down of the definition of freeware. A line HAS to be
drawn and I have done that the best I could.
I certainly hope you're not referring to that piece of adware that they
have listed there.
Whatever in the world makes you think that such a basic concept as that
would elude me? I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
That's what I call PROmotionware. It's not freeware either, IMO.
Indeed I do.
Not the one I use.
As I say, I don't see such spaces usually.
Look Dick, that tactic isn't going to work with me and I think you know
it. So give it up.
Gee, I didn't notice.
That's right. But you did, I hope, notice the inclusion in that remark
of the acronym "IMO".
I certainly do.
I have *always* considered adware to be a type of malware. That's my
personal opinion and it's not going to change.
You are inured to advertising. I'm not, nor will I ever be.
Mine and the majority of the group. If you don't believe me, then I
refer you to the follwing vote, which I'm sure is easily repeatable:
http://tinyurl.com/csqkc
A. How did you derive the belief that I want to stop people from
thinking differently from my simply expressing my opinions? I would say
that this kind of thing more applies to YOU trying to stifle what I'm
saying.
B. <sarcasm>Gee, I didn't know it was an unmoderated group.</sarcasm>
Tell you what then, Dick.... this means that the group should do nothing
to discourage discussion of the following:
1. shareware
2. warez
3. commercial software
I will continue to express my opinions. YOU are the person who has
converted this thread into a discussion about freedom of speech in this
group, NOT me. And the irony is that in spite of all your talk about how
this thread is unmoderated, you are trying your hardest to censor ME.
Again, I refer you to this link:
http://tinyurl.com/csqkc (a Googled thread in this group about a vote
on discussing adware here.)
If you want, you're free to hold another vote. However, frankly I think
you're engaging in wishful thinking.
*Ahem* I believe that's what I just said?
So what's your point? Obviously this is the case.
There is nothing static about them. They change continuously.
They are indeed intrusive in that I am forced to view them each time I
start the program.
Simple. Because I am not interested in such programs and didn't download
and try them. What, do you honestly believe that I read this entire
group? GET A GRIP! I'm not a moderator and this is not a moderated
group. How you shifted to implying that this is the case from my simple
post:
________________________________________________________________________
All right. So I installed this program on my system just now, and here's
my opinion.
It's obnoxious adware for the company's other $ware programs. There is a
flashing section in the lower right 1/7 of the program window.
Remember, adware doesn't have to call home to be considered adware. All
a program has to do is to obnoxiously advertise something and this
program fits the bill to a "T".
And the software author has the nerve to ask for donations.
Off of my system this POS goes. I don't care if it works or not, I don't
do adware. Period.
________________________________________________________________________
I haven't the slightest idea. As for my description of adware, I can now
see where it diverges from the latest chess move made by programmers.
That is, their attempt to redefine adware as always calling out for ads.
What total bullshit. Adware is software that displays ads - it's as
simple as that! It doesn't matter where the ads come from, they're still
ads! If a program displays ads, IT'S ADWARE!!!
With Opanda Photo Filter, I did indeed download and install the program.
I was unhappy with it being adware and stated that feeling as well as
the end result (removal of the program).
That you trivialize advertising borders on encouraging it IMO. Do you
honestly want your entire desktop covered with advertising? Because
that's what's going to happen if you allow a toe in the door.
R
Richard Steinfeld
I've been following this dialogue with interest.
I'm a person who tries like hell to keep intrusive advertising out of my
consciousness -- and that's because I tend to pay attention to things
that other people block out. I'm careful to tell store managers that
they can either play ads (and obnoxious music)in their stores, or they
can have my money, but not both. I'm extensively trained in the world of
sound, and I'm very attentive to it -- it's all foreground to me. And
that's exactly the way that I want it. Although some people tune it out,
I believe that if I get to ignore the intrusions, I'll also be ignoring
the details that I listen for.
So, I hardly ever shop at Sears; I almost never enter a supermarket.
I'll have to buy hearing protectors for Best Buy and CompUSA. I do very
nicely buying things at Costco (it's mostly quiet), Trader Joe (no ads)
Target (no audio noise except one greeting card display), and small
produce stores.
I am not alone.
At the computer, I won't stand for push advertising because it yanks at
my mind and interrupts my work. And payware can do this, too. Quicken,
for example, interrupts my work to sell me stuff; conversely, I can't
interrupt Quicken because I've yet to find a way to reach them on the
phone (in fact, I can't even reach them via email). I bought this
shrinkwrapped crap from Goodwill for $2. Otherwise, I'd be interested in
the free/share program we've seen here.
And, look, there's a dilemma here.
Just as you and I want to be paid for our work, there's got to be
something in it for the programmer, who has to feed his children too.
Some of our wonderful freeware has been cobbled by college students and
even high schoolers (Irfanview, Spybot S&D, EasyCleaner). These guys
don't have to pay their own way. Yet. They can do donationware. And I
think that we'll all agree that their stuff is rather carefully crafted
(even if SS&D overextends itself at times) -- really good work, don't
you think?
But there's other people, too -- people who must put bread on the table.
I think we should allow them the liberty to put a little blurb for
themselves into their stuff without condemnation. After all, free
programming that they do is also an advertisement for other stuff that
they may offer, and their custom services, too. For example, I enjoy
Karenware, and if I needed to hire a programmer, I'd think of Karen
because she's gotten her stuff out there and she does good interfaces (a
rare skill among programmers).
Perhaps there's a different limit for each of us. Yes, I'm pissed at
intrusion. Blinking and moving banners are off-limits to me. Boxes that
I have to close by moving the cursor just so (Yahoo -- you're History,
man). And The Proxomitron is a staple and a godsend on my box.
I appreciate both positions here. And I feel that there has to be some
way for people who want to maintain their sanity to screen out the
advertising bedlam. I think that it's an issue of mental health.
We have aggressive cell phone cacophony in our public spaces (I'd outlaw
ring tones), car alarm hell in our streets -- and very obnoxious
"polite" beeps, screeches, and frightening sound effects -- all of which
to serve only to interrupt everyone on the block to inform them loudly
that you have locked or unlocked your car.
It's all mind pollution. Some feel that, "Hey, what's wrong with you?
Get a life!" That attitude is wrong because it justifies the abuse of
others.
However, here in the freeware forum, we can explore the ways in which we
can achieve our own comfort level with this software. It's not simple.
Richard
I'm a person who tries like hell to keep intrusive advertising out of my
consciousness -- and that's because I tend to pay attention to things
that other people block out. I'm careful to tell store managers that
they can either play ads (and obnoxious music)in their stores, or they
can have my money, but not both. I'm extensively trained in the world of
sound, and I'm very attentive to it -- it's all foreground to me. And
that's exactly the way that I want it. Although some people tune it out,
I believe that if I get to ignore the intrusions, I'll also be ignoring
the details that I listen for.
So, I hardly ever shop at Sears; I almost never enter a supermarket.
I'll have to buy hearing protectors for Best Buy and CompUSA. I do very
nicely buying things at Costco (it's mostly quiet), Trader Joe (no ads)
Target (no audio noise except one greeting card display), and small
produce stores.
I am not alone.
At the computer, I won't stand for push advertising because it yanks at
my mind and interrupts my work. And payware can do this, too. Quicken,
for example, interrupts my work to sell me stuff; conversely, I can't
interrupt Quicken because I've yet to find a way to reach them on the
phone (in fact, I can't even reach them via email). I bought this
shrinkwrapped crap from Goodwill for $2. Otherwise, I'd be interested in
the free/share program we've seen here.
And, look, there's a dilemma here.
Just as you and I want to be paid for our work, there's got to be
something in it for the programmer, who has to feed his children too.
Some of our wonderful freeware has been cobbled by college students and
even high schoolers (Irfanview, Spybot S&D, EasyCleaner). These guys
don't have to pay their own way. Yet. They can do donationware. And I
think that we'll all agree that their stuff is rather carefully crafted
(even if SS&D overextends itself at times) -- really good work, don't
you think?
But there's other people, too -- people who must put bread on the table.
I think we should allow them the liberty to put a little blurb for
themselves into their stuff without condemnation. After all, free
programming that they do is also an advertisement for other stuff that
they may offer, and their custom services, too. For example, I enjoy
Karenware, and if I needed to hire a programmer, I'd think of Karen
because she's gotten her stuff out there and she does good interfaces (a
rare skill among programmers).
Perhaps there's a different limit for each of us. Yes, I'm pissed at
intrusion. Blinking and moving banners are off-limits to me. Boxes that
I have to close by moving the cursor just so (Yahoo -- you're History,
man). And The Proxomitron is a staple and a godsend on my box.
I appreciate both positions here. And I feel that there has to be some
way for people who want to maintain their sanity to screen out the
advertising bedlam. I think that it's an issue of mental health.
We have aggressive cell phone cacophony in our public spaces (I'd outlaw
ring tones), car alarm hell in our streets -- and very obnoxious
"polite" beeps, screeches, and frightening sound effects -- all of which
to serve only to interrupt everyone on the block to inform them loudly
that you have locked or unlocked your car.
It's all mind pollution. Some feel that, "Hey, what's wrong with you?
Get a life!" That attitude is wrong because it justifies the abuse of
others.
However, here in the freeware forum, we can explore the ways in which we
can achieve our own comfort level with this software. It's not simple.
Richard
J
John Corliss
Richard said:
This is pretty much how I feel about it.
I go to stores that have the obnoxious background advertising if I
really need what they're selling. Gritting my teeth the whole time, the
trip is always short, to the point and often withstood via the use of
earplugs. IMO Walmart is the absolute worst for this kind of noise
pollution.
Since I can remember how little advertising there was back in the '50s,
it's easy to see the idiotic trend towards advertising knowing no
bounds. Literally, if advertisers could force you to view and listen to
300 decibel, flashing, 1,000,000 lumen advertising 24/7, they would do
so. Since they can't though, they push the limits continuously and it's
gotten ludicrously obscene at this point.
The current state has been achieved by what could be called
"socio-generational creep": each new generation is born into an
environment which is worse than the last one was brought into. The new
generation at first accepts the environment as being unchangeable, the
natural order of things and something which they must simply tolerate.
As they grow older, they start to notice that the trend for many things
to get worse is logarithmic. They often become outspoken (like you and
me) and then find themselves up against either members of the *next*
generation, or those of their own who are passive aggressive.
That is definitely a fact.
Exactly how I feel. As soon as the fight against advertising in software
stops, your desktop will be flooded with it. Remember Microsoft's
"Active Desktop"? Think about the possibilities for abuse with that
crappy idea.
You'll be continually fighting with advertising in order to simply get
things done as it grows to be pervasive and unavoidable. I've reposted a
message to this group which says that many, many times. People can scoff
all they like but unless something changes radically, time will bear me
out when the fight ends.
You must mean AceMoney Lite:
http://www.mechcad.net/products/acemoney/index_lite.shtml
Have you looked at this one instead?
http://gnucash.org/
Of course I understand that, Richard. However this group, because of the
very nature of the subject it was created to discuss, is not the place
for programmers to try to make a buck. That's just just the way it is.
However, they continually try to do so and that's what I object to.
I would definitely agree.
You are referring to PROmotionware, not freeware then. I don't have a
problem with a menu entry under the help menu that leads to "More info",
"Upgrade to the PRO version" or the like. I do have a problem with
obnoxious, outright advertising (like Opanda Photo Filter employs)
though. I.e. the blurb should be available on request, not shoved
(*pushed*) down our collective throats.
This isn't always the case. Depends on the program. Regardless, when I
provide a link I always try to choose one that goes to the author's
website. If I provide a link to a freeware site, it's usually one that
provides a link to the program's home page. That way, if the software
author has other programs or services available, you will see that this
is so. I do this out of respect for the programmer and I believe that
this is adequate to serve the purpose.
Of course I agree with you here Richard. It's never been my intention to
"outlaw" adware outright (even though I loath and detest it), but only
to point out that it's not freeware and as such should not be
recommended or discussed in this group. Adware simply *isn't* freeware
because the price demanded for using it *is still and always will be*
your attention and screen real estate.
You've just described the advertising in Opanda Photo Filter perfectly.
I know what you mean. I couldn't handle the web without WebWasher, which
I now notice has a rather large, obnoxious "CYBERGUARD" link-logo in the
lower left hand corner. But since the program runs in the tray, I don't
see it except on the rare occasions when I change a setting.
By the way, WebWasher is still a resource hog with W9X.
I also understand the position which others (a minority by the way, as
proven by an easily repeatable vote which I took) have regarding wanting
adware to be called freeware. It is *precisely* because of my
understanding of their position and the possible motivations that lead
to it, that I see this as the most menacing attack on the definition of
freeware that can be undertaken. It is the proverbial "toe in the door"
that will open the floodgates to the destruction of the meaning of the
word "freeware" and the end of the usefulness of this group.
I will ALWAYS fight bitterly against adware being called freeware.
Whether or not adware is *ethical or a good idea* is not the issue. The
issue is *whether or not adware is freeware* and as such, should be
discussed in this group. In my opinion and in the opinion of most others
who frequent this group, it's NOT freeware and shouldn't be recommended
or discussed here.
However, this is an unmoderated group and people will continue to
promote crapware here. That others, like ME, will continue to make doing
so unpleasant for them is also a given. That's just the nature of things
and it's not going to change. People like Dick Hazeleger think they can
shut me up, and they're deluding themselves.
Don't forget loud car stereos (my personal most hated.)
My most detested push-advertising though, is telemarketing. In fact:
http://www.idleworm.com/gms/telem.shtml
All telemarketers should spend eternity in hell, trying to sleep on a
bed of flames, next to a phone that rings every five minutes with a
telemarketer calling - each one more obnoxious than the last.
I do what I can to prevent telemarketers from creating a communicative
ingress into my house via the telephone. When they call, they first are
asked to identify themselves and after their doing so, they immediately
find themselves in a conversation with Satan, the master of darkness,
himself. Since THEY called ME, I can say anything I like and do; let
them try to prove that it was in fact me they were talking to.
As for door to door solicitors, my front door has a sign on it that says
the following:
___________________________________
NO SOLICITORS-
Religious, sales, political, survey
or ANY OTHER TYPE.
Except for U.S. Postal Service mail,
package deliveries or new telephone books
from authorized representatives,
do not leave literature of any kind!
Violators will be subject to
prosecution for criminal trespass.
___________________________________
So far, nobody has been foolish enough to ignore that sign, but I'm sure
the day is coming. When it does, I and my baseball bat are at the ready
(JUST KIDDING!!!)
I agree. And in an offensive manner it also attempts to trivialize a
person's concerns and render them worthless. This is an old and very
hackneyed debate technique which I tend to ignore. Kind of like calling
a person a "nazi" in a newsgroup. It's a weak, last ditch attempt to win
an argument. In fact, all it does is to prove that the person who says
it is weak and lazy.
In the past, I believe the creation of a separate alt.comp.adware
newsgroup was attempted. As can be expected, it failed due to lack of
interest.
That being the case, perhaps another route should be tried. Maybe it's
time for the creation of an "alt.comp.truefreeware" newsgroup with
carefully crafted charter. This group could then be abandoned to those
who would pollute the definition of freeware by including adware and
other such garbage. Of course, none of this will happen either.
I never intended for this to escalate into a long, boring and protracted
thread on the tiresome old, old, old subject of adware vs. freeware, yet
Dick turned it into exactly that. He did this because he wants me to
stop voicing my opinions here. That's simply pissing in the wind on his
part too.
*The main thing here to remember (and which Dick seems to be forgetting)
is that I never protested loudly that the mention of Opanda's program
was "off topic"* and tried by doing so to "set policies in this group".
I only posted my objections *to the program* as I have a right to do and
will *continue* to do whenever I encounter an adware POS like Opanda
Photo Filter.
D
Dick_Hazeleger
And what kind of a remark is this, John...? Are we playing gamer, or are we
involved in a serious discussion? I'm really beginning to wonder now!
Yes, you differ... when it suits you!
OK, Mr Moderator (you write you aren't, yet you behave like one. To make
the term *very* complete, so that you eventually may understand what I
mean: "Unintrusive, Ad-supported Freeware"
Funny enough (we're still talking about Opanda) the previews are up in a
way that I don't see that ad when looking at those previews; also... the
amount of screen property depends on your screen size... for you it may be
14%, for others it may be 10% or less... And then there is that little
button I pointed your attention to.
As far as I know, *any* upgrade to a higher version from the "Personal"
version will bring you from freeware to $ware, John... and you know that!
Is that "Click here to Upgrade" link mission critical? Oops, then I have
missed something essential, I guess! To me the *updates* are mission
critical, since they influence the effectiveness of the program! This
"Upgrade" link is an ad, the way it is presented... whether we like ity or
not.
Again wrong, John. As I wrote before, I see only your voice and not the
opposite and IMO the other side should be reflected as well. John, you can
have whatever opinion you want, as far as I'm concerned; but please allow
me and others to think independantly from that, and although you may not
agree with me (us), at least respect our points of view!
That vote was held in 2000... now is 2005, perhaps it is a good idea to
renew on this... However I would recommend calling it "unintrusive adware",
since most people think of spyware when adware is mentioned! So, if you
want to, be my guest!
I am not "skirting away" from anything, I am just pointing out it still is
freeware, whatever *your definition* of that is! Also I try to make clear
to you that the attitude of "an ad is an ad" is a wrong one
And I say that it isn't "showing my underbelly", as no personal data, other
than the usual data necessary for opering a web site, was exchanged. John,
if anyone is insinuating here, it's you! I try to discuss facts, you read
differently in my posts, too bad!
And you are engaging in classical "populistic" tactics, John... you would
be a fine politician in toiday's world! And don't come me with "Now you're
playing the man and not the ball" or something similar; *I* didn't start
this, you did by repeating that I am insinuating things, which I am
*_not_*!!
Well, thank you for your kindness, Sir! As I wrote at nauseum: I am trying
to avoid good, safe, software from being labeled as "non-freeware", just
because there is an - unintrusive - ad in it!
I think only one person needs to get real here, and it is not me!
Nothing, as long as you allow others to think differently, instead of
behaving like it is one of the "Ten Commandments"!!!
This is not a "game of power, of dominace", John. This is software that
doesn't contact "home" (for whatever reason), that doesnt show "my
underbelly" to the developers (or any other party involved), so please
explain us what "soft underbelly" you actually meant when you wrote that in
the above?
Granted, but on both accounts unavoidable, I think!
And where, in the paragraph above your questions did I even mention that in
the most vague way? John, also at naseum asked for: Read my posts for what
they say, not for what you think I might have hidden inside it (as there is
no hidden meaning!).
I merely stated in the quoted text that Opanda PhotoFilter is not related
to spyware. Yes, Opanda advertizes... I thought we agreed on that from the
beginning, didn't we?
Oh John, you really sound like a politician now... Come back to the real
world, and please don't put words, or intentions, in my writing that
weren't in there from the beginning. Spyware, John, starts with (but is not
limited to) intrusive adware; as such many people think that adware equals
spyware. What I did in all my posts is to make the difference between
intrusive and uninstrusive (IOW: Between spyware and adware) clear! So, I
try to avoid the confusion you accuse me of!
I beg you pardon?
Ah, you can't get me over to your ideas and now I am all over sudden
"trollish"? John, you word is Law, and if someone has the guts to stand up
against it, they are trolls? Is that what you're saying?
Your quoted poll? How can you hold any poll without determening the pros
and cons clearly?
Oh, so an ad in "link" form, or as a button is OK? Now, how does that fit
in the "An ad is an ad" attitude? Not IMHO!!! (Oops... I will be defenitely
called a troll now); but if you're consistent in your thinking regarding
this, then you must stick to it, and all ads, whether as a graphic, or a
link, button, or even a menu item is adware... Think about that, John!
An insult is an insult, John, no matter how nice it was wrapped. I won't go
into that.
Respect is in the equation, you brought it in yourself: Respect for a
person's points of view, and your showing of disrespect by attacking the
person, by insulting ("disingenuous to the extreme", to mention but an
example, is really not a compliment) your opponent in the discussion. John,
if that is all you can put into this discussion, then I think this
discussion is evolving into a flame... And I am absolutely not in for that!
I am referring to the perfectly legitimate "unintrusive ad-supported
freeware" they list at their site, but why ask...you knew this answer was
coming!
It won't... I know!
Well, no adware, no promoware, and I'm sure you will come up with a few
others that shouldn't be discussed here... it will be very quiet here in
the near future.
Which still makes it adware, according to the "An ad is an ad" doctrine
since it *is* advertizing something...
Simple tactic you use here, and very transparent: Ignore it, or point back
to the maker of the remark, when it becomes uncomfortable!
Thank the Cyberspirits that the makers of anti-malware programs differ in
opinion with you, John.
It is not freeware according to _your_ definition, it is according to mine,
period. And as such it can be discussed and presented in this group, which
indeed last time I looked was named alt.comp.freeware, and not
alt.comp.freeware_by_johns_rules (and no need to capitalize, I can read)
Which was a very one sided vote, actually it was: Do you vote for my deas
or not? See mmy remarks in the above when you mentioned this "poll" before.
Look at your postings, John; you're doing nothing else, and if a person
expresses his opinions he is accused of "insinuating", or is insulted
(which you continued to do in the above paragraph).
You indeed would a very fine politician, John; you twisting, turning and
bending as it suits you. Now, while unintrusive adware is still freeware to
me (and therefore belongs in this group, according to me) shareware, warez
(stolen commercial software), and commercial software clearly don't. The
thread is not only unmoderated, the whole NG is, John... and please give me
and example where I wrote that you don't have the right to express you
opnion (just as I have that right)... I do remember that I mentioned "which
is your good right" somewhere in the previous threads... but that doesn't
sound like censoring... on the contrary, you are trying to censor, and
ridicule my opinion... also a form of censoring!
Oh, sorry, I took it literally
If you don't see my point in the paragraph above your question the re-read
the last line, please; that is my point!
Now, are you playing "dumb and dember", or what? You know darn well what I
mean, John!
I wrote "unintrusive"... Then don't start it, remove it, but let others
discuss the program as they like!
From what I see in the postings: Yes, John, you do read the whole group's
list of posts. How I "shifted"? Re-read the thread froim the beginning:
From a simple post with a just as simple reply (mine) you started to act
like a moderator, and an insulting one if I may say so!
No need to shout, I still am very well capable of reading lowercase!
And I posted my opinion, also as a user of the program!
I don't think so, John: I am still master of the system, and I still
determine what will be installed on it; just as you are.
John, given the fact that both of us won't change their opinions in this
matter, and the fact that this matter is getting more and more personal
with every post made, I'll stop here and now!
I hope you will hold a new poll, with an adapted question. I surely will
vote.
Have a nice day, and regards to you and all readers!
Dick
D
Dick_Hazeleger
You cannot stop twisting and turning, can you? If it were for you, you'd
probably have me kill filed, denounced as being a troll (usually your
last defence), or the gods know what else... Stick with the truth, John!
Neither did I John, but.. I didn't start pointing fingers and calling
names (how well wrapped you may have them): It was you! To get this out
of the world for once and for all: *You* have all rights to express your
opinion, just like I have! And I won't let you ridicule my arguments,
period end of story!!! Nor will I accept any insult, or acussations from
you, I hope I can get that across to you!
It was loud enough to be heard here said:
Unless your new poll will learn you the opposite, of course; right, John?
Have a fine week end, and regards to you and all readers here!
Dick
S
Sparky
Richard said:
Richard;
Thank you so much for taking the time to post this. I'm in the same
boat wrt advertising in all its forms *and* your closing statement gives
encouragement to civility and common sense.
cheers,
-Sparky
R
Richard Steinfeld
Sparky said:
I appreciate the feedback, Sparky and John.
I think that it's really important for people to speak up and out about
this issue. The distillation of my words boils down to invasion of our
mental spaces. And I'm worried about one or two generations of citizens
who are, in effect, numbed as a result.
In order to pay attention to the details of music, we need silence. And
silence itself is an actual component of music.
I'm certain that the only way to get anywhere (now I'm OT regarding
software itself) is to protest in a meaningful way. And, when it comes
to the retail arena, the best way that I can think of is to ensure that
the management is made aware of how much custom this custom has cost them.
So, I've told Lucky (Albertson's) and Safeway (these are supermarket
chains in the western US, for you good folks abroad) that they have lost
over $100,000 of my family's business due to their attempts to jerk
their customers around with loud in-store advertising and loud music.
This is the truth. They have the statistics to prove it. What their
statistics don't tell them is how many people they've driven away
altogether by doing it.
It's a tough matter when it comes to companies like Symantec and
Quicken, because they've insulated themselves so thoroughly from contact
by their customers. These people hide behind shields from which they
spam you. Well, maybe not any more due to the spam laws.
The vehicular noise issue is very real to me, and here, I think that
legislation will have to be the answer. And the car stereo lobbyists
will be out there working against us, so concerted action will be requisite.
Regarding environmental noise, I'll mention The Noise Pollution
Clearinghouse, where I picked up this awkward slogan, but one that
works: "Your noise penetrates my silence, but my silence will never
penetrate your noise."
Richard
S
seaside
I'm sure you love listening to yourself,
but YOUR NOISE is penetrating my silence.
but YOUR NOISE is penetrating my silence.
J
John Corliss
Dick_Hazeleger said:
Twisting and turning? Bullshit. I've been forthright from the beginning
and haven't attempted to hide anything from you.
( something about calling me a "moderator" ring a bell?)
And the same applies to you from my end.
Then clarify how I did so in the OP and in so doing provide proof.
What new poll is that? At this point, I've not agreed to any such thing.
J
John Corliss
Dick_Hazeleger said:
It's a remark that's very clear about my intentions. There's no
productive dialog at this point because both of us have clearly stated
out viewpoints. It's very clear to me that you're simply trying to wear
me out. You've made no move to clean up the quoting in a clear attempt
to make repling to you tedious and labor intensive. I've noticed this
from the start. However, and pay close attention, this is my last
detailed reply to you in this branch. I will only from this point on
reply by saying the following:
"We have both clearly stated our points. You are attempting to turn this
into some kind of marathon where the first person who gives up "loses".
Nothing could be further from the truth. You have your opinions and I
have mine. You are not going to change mine and I'm not going to change
yours. In my OP, I clearly and forceably stated my objections to Opanda
Photo Filter and described it as being adware. You agreed in fact that
this was the case. Further discussion on this topic is unproductive and
I refuse to engage in it. End of discussion."
Such a remark is "serious" discussion? I differ because I differ. Are
you trying to say that I made this up just to make a point? Look, it's
obvious to me that you're trying to make this an all or nothing point.
That's not going to work, so give it up. An outright advertisement as in
Opanda Photo Filter is an outright advertisement. Stick to the issue
here. We're not talking about other programs and I won't have you draw
me into such diversions.
It seems to me that your entire "point" is that I must either accept
advertising in its entirety or not at all and I haven't a clue why you
believe that this is so. One deals with the pervasiveness of advertising
as best one can and that's what I'm doing.
Getting back to your question here:
1. Why would you extrapolate from my remarks that I have the slightest
desire to stop people from thinking independently in this UNMODERATED
group or anywhere else?
2. Like anybody else, yourself included, of course it would make me
happy to see that others share my viewpoint. However, forcing people to
do so is of absolutely no interest to me.
Tell me THAT isn't inflammatory rhetoric. Obviously you made the remark
to distract from the fact that you admit to calling the program adware.
How does my simply stating my opinion about a program mean that I'm
trying to *moderate the group*? Maybe you don't like the way I forceably
state my opinion about the program, but that's just too bad.
There is no such thing. Adware is adware, freeware is freeware. Adware
is not freeware because the price you pay for using the software is both
your attention and your desktop real estate.
Programs that only include a menu item that discreetly leads to their
website, new window or pane where you then view information about
upgrading to a pro version of the program are what *I* call PROmotionware.
Having a link, icon or button on the main window of a program that
performs this function is a gray area. If the link, icon or button is
too attention getting, then the program could be considered to be
adware. But hey, this is not an issue that I've really thought about
much and I don't have to. I'm not trying to moderate this unmoderated
group. I DO however, have the same right YOU do to state my opinions and
I will continue to do so in spite of the fact that you would like to
stop me from doing so.
As if this is a relevant point, I'll assume that you've run the program
at different screen resolutions then. I'm not going to reinstall the
program just to verify this. Regardless, you are trying to establish
what percentage of a program's window can be dedicated to ads in order
for it not to be called adware and that's bullshit. ANY advertisement in
a program's window means that the program is adware. On the other hand,
is a link, button or icon to such advertising considered to be
advertising in and of itself? There's the gray area. And it's being
pushed to the max by programmers.
As for Opanda Photo Filter - as much as you are trying to minimize the
impact of the advertising that appears until you press the button (which
you have to do *every time you restart the program*), the fact remains
that I personally find it distracting in the extreme and know that many
others will feel the same.
If you want to use the program, then you will do so. Where have I ever
said that you can't?
Oh, you mean the one that YOU HAVE TO PRESS EVERY TIME YOU RUN THE
PROGRAM IN ORDER TO TURN OFF THE ADVERTISING!
Yes, ususally that's the case and of course I know that upgrading most
personal or "lite" versions of a program means that you will then be
using a $ware version of the program. Why are you behaving as if I don't
realize this and what's your point?
Gimme a break. You know perfectly well that I was referring to the
ENTIRE PROGRAM being mission critical, not its individual features and
inclusions. Besides, we're talking about Opanda Photo Filter. You will
not draw me into discussions about other programs in this thread.
Oh? *How* is it wrong? I didn't see any proof from your end that the
vote was falsified (which it wasn't) and that it's results are invalid
OR unrepeatable. If you're going to make a claim you'd better have proof
to support it.
That's because the question of whether or not adware is freeware is so
moot. Most people are simply bored with the topic, consider adware not
to be freeware and move on. You, on the other hand, and a few others
want adware to be discussed here.
How very generous of you.
*AHEM* you keep saying this.
I have done, can do AND want to do NOTHING to stop you and others from
thinking independently. Why do you keep implying that the situation is
anything other than that?
As I said, respect has nothing to do with it.
Bullshit. Adware is adware. Call a spade a spade. If the vote is
retaken, then it will have to be the same question.
I think of adware when adware is mentioned and I think of spyware when
spyware is mentioned. Adware can include spyware and spyware can include
adware. However, the both of them can be separate and discrete entities.
Stop trying to confuse the issue.
You just did it again! Thus I will state my point again! The
advertisement in Opanda Photo Filter's main window is graphical and is
the full advertisement. It is NOT a link, button or icon that leads you
to the advertisement and gives you a choice of whether or not you want
to view it. You can turn the advertisement off, but the next time you
restart the program, there it will be again! Deny or disprove any of
this if you can.
That's about as logical as saying that "the attitude of 'a metal skillet
is a metal skillet' is a wrong one".
What the HELL are you talking about here?
Where? You throw a huge pile of steaming, unsubstantiate claims at me
and yet demand that I prove everything *I* say.
At what point did I say that I believed that showing your soft
underbelly to the advertising community OR that any of my objections to
Opanda Photo Filter had ANYTHING to do with privacy issues? YOU ALONE
are making that claim.
I think you are and you think that I'm doing the same. Let's just leave
it at that.
The whole point here, is that *your opinion* is that the advertising in
Opanda Photo Filter is unintrusive. My opinion is the opposite and my OP
clearly stated as much. In fact and YET AGAIN, that's all the OP ever
was... MY OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAM!!! And again, if you don't like my
opinions, tough shit. You're not going to change them.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
(copied and pasted from above) *AHEM* you keep saying this.
I have done, can do AND want to do NOTHING to stop you and others from
thinking independently. Why do you keep implying that the situation is
anything other than that?
Of course it is. And you are the one who started it. You are not going to:
1. Convince me to change my opinion
2. Convince me to stop STATING my opinions.
Here we go again. Why don't you stop pretending that you don't
understand me or that you didn't read what I said? I *never said* that
showing your soft underbelly to the advertising community had ANYTHING
to do with privacy issues like "contacting home".
Now read this very c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y and s-l-o-w-l-y
I consider showing a person's soft underbelly to the advertising
community to be when that person caves in and never speaks out against
the rampant raping of our consciousness that the advertising community
makes their money from engaging in. I consider showing one's soft
underbelly to the advertising community to be saying something like (and
NOTE: I am not claiming that you ever made this remark) "advertising is
so pervasive that you might as well accept that nothing can be done to
change it. It will get worse and there's nothing we can do about it, so
just shut up and accept it."
THERE! Do you understand what I mean by showing your soft underbelly to
the advertising community now? Is there anything I can *possibly* do to
clarify this issue????
My point was that I believed your inference was that I was or should be
concerned about privacy issues only when it comes to objecting to
advertisements in software. Nothing could be further from the truth. My
objection to advertising in software is simple and clear: it is to the
advertising itself. Period. End of statement. Finitimo.
Then why have you inserted anything about spyware into this discussion?
*I* certainly wasn't the one who did it. I've stated over and over that
this issue has NOTHING to do with my objections to Opanda Photo Filter.
So leave off with it.
Oh. So now I'm not only a "moderator", I'm a ****ing "politician".
BULLSHIT! Spyware can be in ANY kind of software and you know it.
And right from the start, I've been clear as hell that I consider Opanda
Photo Filter to be adware. NOT spyware, NOT anything else! Just ADWARE!
Deny it all you like, but *YOU* are the one who brought the topic of
spyware into this thread. And it's also obvious to me why you are doing
so and keep mentioning it.
I beg your pardon?
Again, I can keep this up as long as you like.
WTF????? Whatever are you talking about??? This is an unmoderated group.
There ARE no "policies" and nobody can make any. Me included of course.
No it's not. I'm not calling you a troll, because if I was the claim in
my signature file would apply to you. I was saying that it was trollish
to remark that I was "setting up a policy" in this group. You know
better than that.
That's it. Try and undermine the validity of the informal poll by making
such a claim. In other words, "don't believe your lying eyes, believe
what I tell you."
There is no need for any pros or cons in this issue. Everybody knows
clearly enough what they are, has their own opinions (LIKE WE DO) and
placed their vote exclusively based on them. Any new poll will result on
people basing their vote on the same foundation.
An ad is an ad. Period. Whether or not a button, link or menu item is an
ad is another issue. The advertising in Opanda Photo Filter *is*
advertising and you know it. *That's* what I meant by "an ad is an ad."
What, are you then one of the following that you seem to be taking this
personally?
1. advertiser
2. medical community member
3. lawyer
4. pornographer
5. hitman
Criticism and condemnation of a trade only becomes an insult when it's
based on untruth. That in general all of the aforementioned base their
behaviour on greed is, IMO totally based on fact. I will not apologize
for nothing I said here.
It got that way when you forced me to continuously repeat myself by
pretending that you don't understand what I say.
I'm not a mind reader. And euphemistically call it what you like, but
Opanda Photo Filter is adware. You've already admitted this too.
I always capitalize the first three letters of the word in order to
clarify what it is, as in "PROmotionware."
Only if this group becomes moderated (not bloody likely) and when
freeware stops existing. Besides, you've been here long enough to know
that people talk about donationware, liteware, postcardware, etc. and
they're all not freeware either. You're boring the shit out of me by
forcing me to restate things that I've already mentioned ad nauseum in
this group. Besides, as we both know, this group is unmoderated. End of
story.
NO. That "an ad is and ad" is a simple truism. Whether or not a menu
item, button or link which LEAD to an ad are in and of themselves
advertisements, are totally other issues. This group seems to think that
they are not. Or would you like to have a vote on that topic?
Then I will cut and paste a response (which I've already given several
times) into this spot:
That "an ad is and ad" is a simple truism. Whether or not a menu item,
button or link which LEAD to an ad are in and of themselves
advertisements, are totally other issues.
I *have* previously said that they are are separate *issue*, but this
isn't the case. Obviously, they are separate issueS.
Nothing you've said or done in this thread has made me uncomfortable,
merely bored in the extreme. On the other hand, being bored *is* a type
of uncomfortableness I suppose.
Adware doesn't need anything special to remove it unless it also
contains spyware or some other form of malware. All you have to do with
adware is to not install it in the first place if you don't like it,
because it's usually clearly labeled as such. On those occasions when it
ISN'T labeled as such, then a person like me will always call it out.
I have no such "selective blindness". I hate and detest all forms of
advertising which I have little choice but to view it.
Note that I clearly use the word "supposed" as in "supposed to be for
the discussion of freeware". Nowhere did I say "in spite of the fact
that this is an unmoderated group, you MUST talk only about freeware".
Besides and I want you to read this very sl-o-w-l-y and c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y:
My OP was simply a statement of my opinion. Nothing in it had ANYTHING
to do with on or off topic discussion in this group. Only YOU have
implied that this was the case. If you don't believe me, here is that OP
quoted in its entirety YET AGAIN!
_____________________________________
All right. So I installed this program on my system just now, and here's
my opinion.
It's obnoxious adware for the company's other $ware programs. There is a
flashing section in the lower right 1/7 of the program window.
Remember, adware doesn't have to call home to be considered adware. All
a program has to do is to obnoxiously advertise something and this
program fits the bill to a "T".
And the software author has the nerve to ask for donations.
Off of my system this POS goes. I don't care if it works or not, I don't
do adware. Period.
_____________________________________
And there you have it. Simple as that. You think that adware is freeware
and I don't. Regardless, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with my OP
(quoted in its entirety above) which was nothing more than a statement
of my opinion about Opanda Photo Filter. Or am I not now allowed to make
such statements of opinion because YOU object to them?
Who, other than YOU, said that anybody *can or can't* talk about
anything they like in this group? Certainly *I* never did. I will,
however, continue to state my opinion about whether or not I believe
discussion of a certain type of software in this group is appropriate.
Deal with it.
Fine. If that's how you feel about it then do so. You keep saying that I
make rules and that's quite clearly not true. Stick with the truth, the
truth will set you free.
It was only one sided in that most people said that adware should not be
considered to be freeware. That's as simple as it gets and the issue is
not rocket science. Your attempt to discredit the poll is lame.
Let's put what you just said together. From my statement the following:
"How did you derive the belief that I want to stop people from thinking
differently from my simply expressing my opinions?"
and now your remark:
"Look at your postings, John; you're doing nothing else"
Thus to summarize, you're saying outright that *I want to stop people
from thinking differently*.
This is NOT the same as saying (which would be the truth) that I want to
persuade others to accept my opinions. Note the difference in connotation.
Gee, that sounds like a real crime. And in any event, I'm certainly no
different from you *or anybody else for that matter* in having that desire.
Which you do. You DO insinuate. And I find that objectionable because
you don't come out and make clear claims (well, there was that
untruthful one above) about anything that I do. If you did, then you
know that I would easily be able to discredit them.
Hey, enough of that shit! I'm calling that a trollish remark because
you've been here long enough to KNOW that it pisses me off. Now knock it
the **** off and grow up.
No, that's your forte.
Never said that you ever did. However, anybody who read this long and
boring diatribe will clearly see that this is your desire. You objected
to my OP, which was only a statement of my opinion and had NOTHING to do
with your claim that I am attempting to "moderate" this *unmoderated* group.
No I am not. I'm not ridiculing or censoring it, I'm arguing against it
and you know this. That I am doing so must frustrate you to death and
that's just too bad.
Oh, sorry, I took it literally
If you don't see my point in the paragraph above your question the re-read
the last line, please; that is my point!
I was being facetious. Your point is clear, but didn't need to be made.
I thought we were talking about Opanda Photo Filter's advertisements.
*groan* GOD DAMN IT!!! I never SAID that others can't discuss the
program as they like. Where in the namd of GOD did you come up with that
****ing bullshit?
Well, you're wrong. I don't. I scan over the topics and if one is of no
interest to me, I move on. Photo editing software is one of the topics
that's of interest to me.
(big snip here because I'm too bored to continue this pissing match.)
"We have both clearly stated our points. You are attempting to turn this
into some kind of marathon where the first person who gives up "loses".
Nothing could be further from the truth. You have your opinions and I
have mine. You are not going to change mine and I'm not going to change
yours. In my OP, I clearly and forceably stated my objections to Opanda
Photo Filter and described it as being adware. You agreed in fact that
this was the case. Further discussion on this topic is unproductive and
I refuse to engage in it. End of discussion."
J
John Corliss
Dick_Hazeleger said:
Because I'm so bored with this tedious and idiotic "discussion", I've
changed my mind.
"We have both clearly stated our points. You are attempting to turn this
into some kind of marathon where the first person who gives up "loses".
Nothing could be further from the truth. You have your opinions and I
have mine. You are not going to change mine and I'm not going to change
yours. In my OP, I clearly and forceably stated my objections to Opanda
Photo Filter and described it as being adware. You agreed in fact that
this was the case. Further discussion on this topic is unproductive and
I refuse to engage in it. End of discussion."
D
Dick_Hazeleger
From the moment on where the discussion became a bit "uncomfortable",
John, you have been twisting and turning. In the above again *you*
accuese _me_ of censoring you; John.. stick with the truth, how painful
it may be for you: *I am not censoring you! In fact I think the opposite
is more true*, so stop telling lies!
Quote from the 7th post (yours...) in the original thread: "I disagree.
An ad is an ad. Look, you may be talking from the
perspective of trying to establish some kind of policy. Me? I'm just",
accusing me of setting uo policies here... does *that* ring a bell??? Up
to that post everything was quite civilized, John... But I don't take an
unrightful accusation, from you nor anyone... Do you want some more
examples? You should have known that!
Did I insult you? Perhaps I did by having the nerves to post an opinion
opposing yours, well if you can't handle that... you know what to do! If
somewhere in the thread, and without a reason... please point me to it...
If you're right I will apologize to you *and* the group... If not... then
keep your remarks to yourself.
Simply by stating that this "Adware" was off topic here... and do you
want me to quote the post where I made the remark about you setting up
policies, and that in reference to your original post...?
OKAY, sorry, I msunderstood you there then... But I remember you
referring to the old poll, and then say "If you want, you're free to hold
another vote. However, frankly I think you're engaging in wishful
thinking.", to which I replied "Be my guest!"
But... If you want me to hold the poll, fine with me, John; but I hope
you will at least help me a bit by checking the numbers too... Should be
a fair poll, shouldn't it?
Regards, and hope your weather is much better than ours!
Dick
J
John Corliss
Dick_Hazeleger said:
"We have both clearly stated our points. You are attempting to turn this
into some kind of marathon where the first person who gives up "loses".
Nothing could be further from the truth. You have your opinions and I
have mine. You are not going to change mine and I'm not going to change
yours. In my OP, I clearly and forceably stated my objections to Opanda
Photo Filter and described it as being adware. You agreed in fact that
this was the case. Further discussion on this topic is unproductive and
I refuse to engage in it. End of discussion."
****ing enough, Dick.
D
Dick_Hazeleger
<SNIPPED because the post became too large>
And you decide that *I* should be silent? Hmm, that should give a few here
to think about who is censoring who!
Oh, and why didn't I snip parts of the text? Simple John, it is good to
refer back to; if I could have done that easily I would have numbered the
lines, or at least the paragraphs in order to be able to refer back to them
easily... *That* is why I didn't snip text John, didn't come up in your
mind that this could be a reason too, did it?
Oh, have we changed definitions again? Now from "advertizement" to
"outright advertizement"? I guess then "advertizements" are approved by you
(so you can keep AdAware, and the Gods know what else on your box?). John,
you're right... this is leading nowhere, it's like try to catch a blob of
mercury: Every time you think you have it, it changes and slips through
your fingers!
John, we're talking also about "basics" here: What is appropriate here, and
what not... and the very strong impression I get from your replies so far
is that some ads are allowed, and some not (and that from the person who
wrote, I repeat: Adware is adware)... doesn't sound right to me.
John, you will see that later in my poll, the point is that this is not a
simple "Yes" or "No" situation. If adware is not allowed here, then *ALL*
(caps for emphasis) adware is not allowed here... and that would throw out
a lot of good, otherwise free, software; if adware is allowed, then the
NG's readers should decide what is allowed and what not. In order to do so,
the issue must be discussed here... and that was OT according to you...
Because you vividly try to stop them from posting by branding them OT, or
worse...
No, we cannot (and if I could, I wouldn't) force anyone into replying.
Thanks to those who did, further down the thread, otherwise this would just
have been a 'discussion' between two people, where the interest should
concern the group IMO; I hope you can agree to that.
I think that in this phase of our 'discussion' was entitled to make that
remark; John, you cannot accuse people of whatever and then think that they
won't get mean at you... If you're playing the ball, you must expect it
bouncing back to you, as simple as that.
Simple rethoric discussion tactic: Denial (heard those words before? Right
*you* used them!)
There is, John; and I tried very hard to explain that to you, but I might
as well have tried to do so to a concrete wall!!!
Nonsense, "promoware" is adware, whether you like it or not
But you should think about it, John... Think very hard of what you would
call "AdAware", and Sygate's "SPF", and Zonelab's "ZoneAlarm" and a few
others that have clear "Upgrade" buttons, links or whatever! Do you want to
throw them all out, even though their ads are unintrusive? That will clean
up the PriceWareList next time there is a vote...
Well, you'll be satisfied to hear that some freeware athors think that
small ad doesn't work, and donation buttons neither... so they move to
shareware; which is another way of loosing very good software.
Yes, (I quote) "you personally" feel that way... please leave room for
others to feel different about it.
You haven't, and you won't: Like I wrote earlier in this thread: I am still
mater of this system, and I decide what's on it", just like you do on your
system!
John, I am neither deaf, nor am I blind... so stop writing in caps, you
know nettiquette just as well as I do!
Because you're playing "Dumb and Dumber"? And because you refuse to say
either "AdAware's link is not an ad to me", or "AdAware's link is an ad to
me!"
And I stop repeating myself, see my previous remark about this!
So once decided on John anyone's poll that type X of free software is out
of bounds here, this goes forever? John... the poll you're referring to was
held *_five_* years ago, in computer terms that is in the 18th Century!
If you want to be cynical, two can play that: "You're welcome, John!" Can't
take a remark for what it is: Just a remark, aye?
And I will, since *you* will not be dictating what *I* think about software
(or anything else), just (and I add this before we get any
"misunderstandings" again) as nobody will dictate you, right?
It has, since you demand it from others, yet don't give it yourself!
But (thank the Gods) most people are not like you, John... You are not the
world, and the world is not you!
Why am I reminded of a broken record in which the needle gets stuck at the
same place over and over again???
Because the latter is always in the same form, ads in software (and we were
discussing those, right?) are not! Dumb and Dumbest, you have graduated!
(and *that* is cynical!)
I ask questions, I give examples, and all *you* do is twisting and turning,
changing definitions, and post a lot of accusations to my address!
Then, please, tell us in what manner you mean that... and keep in mind that
not every reader is that good in your language that they understand the
meaning behind expressions, reason why I try to avoid them! We might be
having this discussion together, but it is read all over the world!
Duh: Denial again!
I didn't post to change your opinion John... I know you to well to know
that even Mr Phelp's team couldn't do that. I posted to show the other side
of the medal, and inconsistency in this reasoning... Do you now understand,
John?
If ever someone misunderstood a remark on Usenet completely, it was you
misunderstanding my "This is not a "game of power, of dominace", John."!!!
Of course I meant between us! Gee wizz!
In reply to your two points: Neither will you stop me replying to them to
make people aware of "the other side of the medal"
John, you're getting arrogant, and to a point where I could kill-file you;
I hate the attitude you're now showing.
OKAY... now I do understand what you meant to say... Thanks for explaining
(and this is really meant!), but I have a different opinion... and you know
it; I have been clear in that from the beginning.
It wasn't John, but I wanted to point out that - unlike what you said in
early posts - this is not intrusive software, so that there are no privacy
concerns involved, and that I wanted to make the difference between
"intrusive" and "unintrusive" advertizing
If you don't understand that, you can't understand the English language,
since I explained over and over!
John... mind the kids in the newsgroup... where did I use that kind of
language... your arguments aren't getting better by swearing!!!
What is unclear to you in "(but is not limited to)", please?
Is there a "Usenet Parrot" in the newsgroup? If I want an echo, I will
visit the Maine mountains, John; I don't need you for that...
Stop playing games, John...
Stop cutting my sentences in half and have the decency to reply to the full
paragraph, you're making a mess of this post (and not just with your
language)!
Ah? Then why the "trollish remark"? Unfortunate choice of words...? John, I
won't let you attack me in that way, and I know very well how to fight
back, and... without swearing or using street language!!!
<Smile> If that is how it was read, then I apologize, since this was not
the intention. But you know just as well as I do that - by choosing the
question of a poll carefully enough - you can almost prove anything (NOTE:
I don't say you did this, or even that you had the intention to do so);
however to me a poll can be conducted only when pros and cons to the
question have been discussed, and that is what I meant... Sorry if I was
unclear in that!
Do they? And how in Earth's name do you know that? Do you have the power of
telepathy?
OK, that is fair; and I already agreed to the fact of Opanda advertizing in
their free programs. But adware is not discussable here, it is off topic
and should be referred to alt.comp.adware... right?
Quote: "To state that you think otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.";
"disingenuous" according to The Sage: "Not straightforward or candid;
giving a false appearance of frankness.". Since I already wrote that I do
think otherwise, I don't have to be either one of the above to take it
personal John... Think before you write such stupidness...
You insulted me, and I am not a trade (at least, not that I'm aware of),
and you wrapped it nice, but still it is an insult!
Like you force(d) me to repeat myself over and over?
Hmm, you must be... given previous remarks you made... John, I use that
very complete description to avoid confusion with intrusive advertizing,
and now stop playing "the stupidest boy of the NG", doesn't fit you!
I still have eyes, and can read, John... even without caps I understand
"promoware"
No, because there won't be much left to write about, I mean. Donationware
is OT here too (Oops, there goes SpywareBlaster (AdAware is adware, so that
is OT too)... OMG this is getting better and better!
Too simple, needs expansion... keep an eye on my poll!
They aren't; they are ads... as simple as that.
You make me feel bored too: With your evasiveness, insults and accusations;
still I stay polite and don't swear, John...
Malware does...
Which is your good right, let me state that clearly...but I take the
liberty to differentiate a bit more!
Would you please correct that to "You think that unintrusive adware is
freeware", I even would agree to that assumption. You are too general in
your remarks and assumption, something is either good or bad, nothing
inbetween! And that is not always true
Correct, I did! Then I can hope that, if such a topic comes up next time,
you won't yell "OT" at us? That would definitely prove that I was wrong.
It was a one sided poll because there was only "Yes" or "No"... there were
too little options!
I did notice the difference!
I hope you meant the "real crime" ironically!
I don't, John; you're so eager to prove that I am insinuating something,
that you can't read my clearest text without being suspicious of any hidden
meanings, which there aren't... and that from my first post in this thread
on. Ah, so now I am an insulting, insinuating and untruthful person?
Yes? And you know me well enough to know what makes me angry, so why do you
are you trying so very hard?
Quote from about three paragraphs up in this same post: >>>this group, NOT
me. And the irony is that in spite of all your talk
Sorry John, you're T&T again!
Which I will
I disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have started this by replying to your
initial post.
Yes... where do I take a detour, according to you?
Mind you language, there are also minors reading this group, John! John....
your nose starts growing... Question: Did *you* or didn't you state that
there is no place for this kind of software here? I will answer for you,
before you start twisting and turning again: You did! So, in effect you
take the chance from others to discuss that kind of software here!
Sorry for that... Since you reply to a lot of posts it may have appeared
that you do read everything... again, sorry! They interest me too; and when
they are good... I'll keep and use them, when not (or tries to install
something like Save now! on my system), they are "off", and I'll inform
that particular webmaster!
John... My last post already said that I would quit; you forced me back in
it again (just as you did force me into a reply to your post to Richard's
post with your remarks about me...)
Your "need" to react to it seems that you think that this game you accused
me (once again without reason, but you're good in that) of playing is
really played here... John, it's not... but I don't like half-truths or
outright lies, twisting and turning, and changing definitions as it suits
one in a discussion.
But in one thing you're right: We both said our pros and cons, and we
should give the others a chance to make up their mind about it.
I will post the poll together with this post, and then we will see.
Regards, and keep it dry and sunny (it's pooring here)
BTW: I think the whole matter will be in the hands (votes) of our fellow
members in this newsgroup from now on.
Dick
And you decide that *I* should be silent? Hmm, that should give a few here
to think about who is censoring who!
Oh, and why didn't I snip parts of the text? Simple John, it is good to
refer back to; if I could have done that easily I would have numbered the
lines, or at least the paragraphs in order to be able to refer back to them
easily... *That* is why I didn't snip text John, didn't come up in your
mind that this could be a reason too, did it?
Oh, have we changed definitions again? Now from "advertizement" to
"outright advertizement"? I guess then "advertizements" are approved by you
(so you can keep AdAware, and the Gods know what else on your box?). John,
you're right... this is leading nowhere, it's like try to catch a blob of
mercury: Every time you think you have it, it changes and slips through
your fingers!
John, we're talking also about "basics" here: What is appropriate here, and
what not... and the very strong impression I get from your replies so far
is that some ads are allowed, and some not (and that from the person who
wrote, I repeat: Adware is adware)... doesn't sound right to me.
John, you will see that later in my poll, the point is that this is not a
simple "Yes" or "No" situation. If adware is not allowed here, then *ALL*
(caps for emphasis) adware is not allowed here... and that would throw out
a lot of good, otherwise free, software; if adware is allowed, then the
NG's readers should decide what is allowed and what not. In order to do so,
the issue must be discussed here... and that was OT according to you...
Because you vividly try to stop them from posting by branding them OT, or
worse...
No, we cannot (and if I could, I wouldn't) force anyone into replying.
Thanks to those who did, further down the thread, otherwise this would just
have been a 'discussion' between two people, where the interest should
concern the group IMO; I hope you can agree to that.
I think that in this phase of our 'discussion' was entitled to make that
remark; John, you cannot accuse people of whatever and then think that they
won't get mean at you... If you're playing the ball, you must expect it
bouncing back to you, as simple as that.
Simple rethoric discussion tactic: Denial (heard those words before? Right
*you* used them!)
There is, John; and I tried very hard to explain that to you, but I might
as well have tried to do so to a concrete wall!!!
Nonsense, "promoware" is adware, whether you like it or not
But you should think about it, John... Think very hard of what you would
call "AdAware", and Sygate's "SPF", and Zonelab's "ZoneAlarm" and a few
others that have clear "Upgrade" buttons, links or whatever! Do you want to
throw them all out, even though their ads are unintrusive? That will clean
up the PriceWareList next time there is a vote...
Well, you'll be satisfied to hear that some freeware athors think that
small ad doesn't work, and donation buttons neither... so they move to
shareware; which is another way of loosing very good software.
Yes, (I quote) "you personally" feel that way... please leave room for
others to feel different about it.
You haven't, and you won't: Like I wrote earlier in this thread: I am still
mater of this system, and I decide what's on it", just like you do on your
system!
John, I am neither deaf, nor am I blind... so stop writing in caps, you
know nettiquette just as well as I do!
Because you're playing "Dumb and Dumber"? And because you refuse to say
either "AdAware's link is not an ad to me", or "AdAware's link is an ad to
me!"
And I stop repeating myself, see my previous remark about this!
So once decided on John anyone's poll that type X of free software is out
of bounds here, this goes forever? John... the poll you're referring to was
held *_five_* years ago, in computer terms that is in the 18th Century!
If you want to be cynical, two can play that: "You're welcome, John!" Can't
take a remark for what it is: Just a remark, aye?
And I will, since *you* will not be dictating what *I* think about software
(or anything else), just (and I add this before we get any
"misunderstandings" again) as nobody will dictate you, right?
It has, since you demand it from others, yet don't give it yourself!
Of course... said:
But (thank the Gods) most people are not like you, John... You are not the
world, and the world is not you!
Why am I reminded of a broken record in which the needle gets stuck at the
same place over and over again???
Because the latter is always in the same form, ads in software (and we were
discussing those, right?) are not! Dumb and Dumbest, you have graduated!
(and *that* is cynical!)
I ask questions, I give examples, and all *you* do is twisting and turning,
changing definitions, and post a lot of accusations to my address!
Then, please, tell us in what manner you mean that... and keep in mind that
not every reader is that good in your language that they understand the
meaning behind expressions, reason why I try to avoid them! We might be
having this discussion together, but it is read all over the world!
Duh: Denial again!
I didn't post to change your opinion John... I know you to well to know
that even Mr Phelp's team couldn't do that. I posted to show the other side
of the medal, and inconsistency in this reasoning... Do you now understand,
John?
If ever someone misunderstood a remark on Usenet completely, it was you
misunderstanding my "This is not a "game of power, of dominace", John."!!!
Of course I meant between us! Gee wizz!
In reply to your two points: Neither will you stop me replying to them to
make people aware of "the other side of the medal"
John, you're getting arrogant, and to a point where I could kill-file you;
I hate the attitude you're now showing.
OKAY... now I do understand what you meant to say... Thanks for explaining
(and this is really meant!), but I have a different opinion... and you know
it; I have been clear in that from the beginning.
It wasn't John, but I wanted to point out that - unlike what you said in
early posts - this is not intrusive software, so that there are no privacy
concerns involved, and that I wanted to make the difference between
"intrusive" and "unintrusive" advertizing
If you don't understand that, you can't understand the English language,
since I explained over and over!
John... mind the kids in the newsgroup... where did I use that kind of
language... your arguments aren't getting better by swearing!!!
What is unclear to you in "(but is not limited to)", please?
Is there a "Usenet Parrot" in the newsgroup? If I want an echo, I will
visit the Maine mountains, John; I don't need you for that...
Stop playing games, John...
Stop cutting my sentences in half and have the decency to reply to the full
paragraph, you're making a mess of this post (and not just with your
language)!
Ah? Then why the "trollish remark"? Unfortunate choice of words...? John, I
won't let you attack me in that way, and I know very well how to fight
back, and... without swearing or using street language!!!
<Smile> If that is how it was read, then I apologize, since this was not
the intention. But you know just as well as I do that - by choosing the
question of a poll carefully enough - you can almost prove anything (NOTE:
I don't say you did this, or even that you had the intention to do so);
however to me a poll can be conducted only when pros and cons to the
question have been discussed, and that is what I meant... Sorry if I was
unclear in that!
Do they? And how in Earth's name do you know that? Do you have the power of
telepathy?
OK, that is fair; and I already agreed to the fact of Opanda advertizing in
their free programs. But adware is not discussable here, it is off topic
and should be referred to alt.comp.adware... right?
Quote: "To state that you think otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.";
"disingenuous" according to The Sage: "Not straightforward or candid;
giving a false appearance of frankness.". Since I already wrote that I do
think otherwise, I don't have to be either one of the above to take it
personal John... Think before you write such stupidness...
You insulted me, and I am not a trade (at least, not that I'm aware of),
and you wrapped it nice, but still it is an insult!
Like you force(d) me to repeat myself over and over?
Hmm, you must be... given previous remarks you made... John, I use that
very complete description to avoid confusion with intrusive advertizing,
and now stop playing "the stupidest boy of the NG", doesn't fit you!
I still have eyes, and can read, John... even without caps I understand
"promoware"
No, because there won't be much left to write about, I mean. Donationware
is OT here too (Oops, there goes SpywareBlaster (AdAware is adware, so that
is OT too)... OMG this is getting better and better!
Too simple, needs expansion... keep an eye on my poll!
They aren't; they are ads... as simple as that.
You make me feel bored too: With your evasiveness, insults and accusations;
still I stay polite and don't swear, John...
Malware does...
Which is your good right, let me state that clearly...but I take the
liberty to differentiate a bit more!
Would you please correct that to "You think that unintrusive adware is
freeware", I even would agree to that assumption. You are too general in
your remarks and assumption, something is either good or bad, nothing
inbetween! And that is not always true
Correct, I did! Then I can hope that, if such a topic comes up next time,
you won't yell "OT" at us? That would definitely prove that I was wrong.
It was a one sided poll because there was only "Yes" or "No"... there were
too little options!
I did notice the difference!
I hope you meant the "real crime" ironically!
I don't, John; you're so eager to prove that I am insinuating something,
that you can't read my clearest text without being suspicious of any hidden
meanings, which there aren't... and that from my first post in this thread
on. Ah, so now I am an insulting, insinuating and untruthful person?
Yes? And you know me well enough to know what makes me angry, so why do you
are you trying so very hard?
Quote from about three paragraphs up in this same post: >>>this group, NOT
me. And the irony is that in spite of all your talk
Sorry John, you're T&T again!
Which I will
I disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have started this by replying to your
initial post.
Yes... where do I take a detour, according to you?
Mind you language, there are also minors reading this group, John! John....
your nose starts growing... Question: Did *you* or didn't you state that
there is no place for this kind of software here? I will answer for you,
before you start twisting and turning again: You did! So, in effect you
take the chance from others to discuss that kind of software here!
Sorry for that... Since you reply to a lot of posts it may have appeared
that you do read everything... again, sorry! They interest me too; and when
they are good... I'll keep and use them, when not (or tries to install
something like Save now! on my system), they are "off", and I'll inform
that particular webmaster!
John... My last post already said that I would quit; you forced me back in
it again (just as you did force me into a reply to your post to Richard's
post with your remarks about me...)
Your "need" to react to it seems that you think that this game you accused
me (once again without reason, but you're good in that) of playing is
really played here... John, it's not... but I don't like half-truths or
outright lies, twisting and turning, and changing definitions as it suits
one in a discussion.
But in one thing you're right: We both said our pros and cons, and we
should give the others a chance to make up their mind about it.
I will post the poll together with this post, and then we will see.
Regards, and keep it dry and sunny (it's pooring here)
BTW: I think the whole matter will be in the hands (votes) of our fellow
members in this newsgroup from now on.
Dick
P
Peter Seiler
Dick_Hazeleger - 07.08.2005 01:18 :
but, if, please without the whole quotings (~1000 quotinglines snipped).
More than often unnecessary quoting (even more than often with
top-posting) become more and more unhealthy usual usenet behavior not
only by usenet-newbies - making threads more and more unreadable and
wasting bandwidth.
but, if, please without the whole quotings (~1000 quotinglines snipped).
More than often unnecessary quoting (even more than often with
top-posting) become more and more unhealthy usual usenet behavior not
only by usenet-newbies - making threads more and more unreadable and
wasting bandwidth.
J
John Corliss
Dick_Hazeleger said:
"We have both clearly stated our points. You are attempting to turn this
into some kind of marathon where the first person who gives up "loses".
Nothing could be further from the truth. You have your opinions and I
have mine. You are not going to change mine and I'm not going to change
yours. In my OP, I clearly and forceably stated my objections to Opanda
Photo Filter and described it as being adware. You agreed in fact that
this was the case. Further discussion on this topic is unproductive and
I refuse to engage in it. End of discussion."