You said, "How you were able to interpret this statement as 'hard-won objective fact gleaned from many expensive and accurate scientific surveys' is beyond me. I have always been clear that my opinion, like the rest of us here, is based on my personal experience and entirely subjective...In answer to your questions, the reason I am not quiet sure what you are talking about is because you have stated that I am making outrageous and gigantic claims and misrepresenting the typical consumer with some sort of scientific data."
Arggh. I have been pretty clear with my point two times already. I won't bother with a third and rest confident that most readers should be able to see what I meant. I'm sorry if you don't.
Then, "First, let me explain that I have not failed to respond because I had no response, but because I actually do things other than come to this forum."
You did reply to my first post and fail to answer at that time my question about where you get the data to support such bold statements. So what I said is fair. You're bringing up irrelevant facts about things that happened after the fact.
You also said, "Second, judging from the way you have responded to my posts, you seem to have anger management issues."
I'm confident people won't think my posts were "angry". This falls again under attacking a person rather than deal with an issue. And lastly I don't take such a statement seriously when it comes from somebody who on the first page in their first post out of the blue says to everyone, "I also believe that those of you who are saying you will get rid of your iPhone when that happens are idiots."
And, "Either way, I will say again, that I don't really care if you believe what I am saying...My suggestion to you is, don't take it all so seriously, maybe have some tea."
If nobody ever stands up for principles every now and again, who will? You're not the only one who's busy. I am too, but had read something that was simply too over the top to not say anything. And secondly, see previous paragraph. Weren't you taking this flash debate a little seriously? Anyway, who are you to decide when and where anybody should be concerned about anything? It's not for you to judge what others want to care about.
And finally, "But seeing as you are preoccupied with where I get the information to make these assertions, I will tell you. Some of this is gleamed directly from this thread, some if it from the other numerous threads about this same subject on this site and others, but also much of my understanding comes from being in the web development field for over 10 years developing all varieties of web content for a wide variety of clients."
I'm sorry but those are not examples of citations or references that a person can go check on. And I'm not discounting your professional experience. Just saying that doesn't entitle anybody to know what everybody is thinking. Nobody can, hence the reason scientific surveys are tried. If what you really meant to do is give opinion only, your choice of wording is to blame. If you really want an example of what I mean, I'd be happy to give one, but I get the feeling you don't. So, I'll just end here.
We just need the Mobile Safari version of Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper.
The day hell will order large amounts of mittens is the day Apple will allow browser extensions on the iPhone. I'd actually laugh my buttocks off when iPhone users had to stare at all the fine blinking and moving ads, probably wishing for the return of Flash. :-P
Quote:
On my desktop, most Flash placeholders for ads never materialize if I click the Flashblock > arrow, as Adblock Plus already took care of filtering that crap out.
I've never seen the need to use Adblock Plus in conjunction with Flashblock as ABP only leaves the legitimate Flash elements on a site (provided a good filter subscription is used). But that's off-topic.
The simple truth is that unfortunately there is so much variation in consumers' screen sizes, graphics cards, operating systems, browsers, versions of software, ISP's, etc. that anybody trying to create an internet site that works correctly for everyone is in for a bit of work. You pretty much have to decide right now who you want to create good content for and who you don't. On the hardware side Steve Jobs made a decision that he feels is the correct one about not supporting flash. Site creators who don't want to create a non-flash site for the iphone and other customers, do so at their own choice. Either it will be a good choice or not. I personally don't think Steve will "give in" until an efficient version of flash is created. I'm willing to bet flash and flash site creators cave first.
And as far as the argument that when html 5, smil, and css animations replace flash and unleash a holy terror of banners and animations on the iphone as well as everywhere else...so we should all just give in..., I agree those folks are probably forgetting about the fact that other things can change too, like anti-banner and anti-advertising technology. And if the "advertising apocolypse" happens like the doomsdayers predict, it is important to remember it is possible to drive people away from the internet entirely you know. So there are options there. Also, when it comes to the giant battle currently waging between subscription-based services and ad-supported services, who ever said it had to be one or the other? Why can't a free ad-based option coexist side by side with the subscription-based one? For people who want cheap and don't mind ads, they can do that. For people who don't want ads and don't mind paying, they can pay the nominal subscription rates to get clean, clutter-free, enjoyable internet. There is simply too much hostility, domination, and negativity out there. It most certainly does NOT have to be that way, if people would just start approaching things more thoughtfully and respectfully.
Comments
You said, "How you were able to interpret this statement as 'hard-won objective fact gleaned from many expensive and accurate scientific surveys' is beyond me. I have always been clear that my opinion, like the rest of us here, is based on my personal experience and entirely subjective...In answer to your questions, the reason I am not quiet sure what you are talking about is because you have stated that I am making outrageous and gigantic claims and misrepresenting the typical consumer with some sort of scientific data."
Arggh. I have been pretty clear with my point two times already. I won't bother with a third and rest confident that most readers should be able to see what I meant. I'm sorry if you don't.
Then, "First, let me explain that I have not failed to respond because I had no response, but because I actually do things other than come to this forum."
You did reply to my first post and fail to answer at that time my question about where you get the data to support such bold statements. So what I said is fair. You're bringing up irrelevant facts about things that happened after the fact.
You also said, "Second, judging from the way you have responded to my posts, you seem to have anger management issues."
I'm confident people won't think my posts were "angry". This falls again under attacking a person rather than deal with an issue. And lastly I don't take such a statement seriously when it comes from somebody who on the first page in their first post out of the blue says to everyone, "I also believe that those of you who are saying you will get rid of your iPhone when that happens are idiots."
And, "Either way, I will say again, that I don't really care if you believe what I am saying...My suggestion to you is, don't take it all so seriously, maybe have some tea."
If nobody ever stands up for principles every now and again, who will? You're not the only one who's busy. I am too, but had read something that was simply too over the top to not say anything. And secondly, see previous paragraph. Weren't you taking this flash debate a little seriously? Anyway, who are you to decide when and where anybody should be concerned about anything? It's not for you to judge what others want to care about.
And finally, "But seeing as you are preoccupied with where I get the information to make these assertions, I will tell you. Some of this is gleamed directly from this thread, some if it from the other numerous threads about this same subject on this site and others, but also much of my understanding comes from being in the web development field for over 10 years developing all varieties of web content for a wide variety of clients."
I'm sorry but those are not examples of citations or references that a person can go check on. And I'm not discounting your professional experience. Just saying that doesn't entitle anybody to know what everybody is thinking. Nobody can, hence the reason scientific surveys are tried. If what you really meant to do is give opinion only, your choice of wording is to blame. If you really want an example of what I mean, I'd be happy to give one, but I get the feeling you don't. So, I'll just end here.
We just need the Mobile Safari version of Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper.
The day hell will order large amounts of mittens is the day Apple will allow browser extensions on the iPhone. I'd actually laugh my buttocks off when iPhone users had to stare at all the fine blinking and moving ads, probably wishing for the return of Flash. :-P
On my desktop, most Flash placeholders for ads never materialize if I click the Flashblock > arrow, as Adblock Plus already took care of filtering that crap out.
I've never seen the need to use Adblock Plus in conjunction with Flashblock as ABP only leaves the legitimate Flash elements on a site (provided a good filter subscription is used). But that's off-topic.
And as far as the argument that when html 5, smil, and css animations replace flash and unleash a holy terror of banners and animations on the iphone as well as everywhere else...so we should all just give in..., I agree those folks are probably forgetting about the fact that other things can change too, like anti-banner and anti-advertising technology. And if the "advertising apocolypse" happens like the doomsdayers predict, it is important to remember it is possible to drive people away from the internet entirely you know. So there are options there. Also, when it comes to the giant battle currently waging between subscription-based services and ad-supported services, who ever said it had to be one or the other? Why can't a free ad-based option coexist side by side with the subscription-based one? For people who want cheap and don't mind ads, they can do that. For people who don't want ads and don't mind paying, they can pay the nominal subscription rates to get clean, clutter-free, enjoyable internet. There is simply too much hostility, domination, and negativity out there. It most certainly does NOT have to be that way, if people would just start approaching things more thoughtfully and respectfully.