On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:45:48 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 16/07/2011 06:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:06:20 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> utterly
>>> plastered with ads,
>>
>> Hmmm, I don't see those on Facebook or Google+....Oh, wait, because I
>> use one of those intractably-difficult-to-implement ad blockers that
>> couldn't possibly solve the impossible problem of blocking ads. ;)
>>
>> <scnr>
> 
> Now try reading what I actually wrote: I said that the *other* social
> sites are ad-encrusted. :-P

Actually, that's not what you said. You said:

"At the behest of various people I know, at one time or another I've been
signed up to various "social" websites. Which was a rather baffling
experience, in that they were all horrifyingly broken (if you thought MS
Word was unreliable, it's rock-solid compared to this crap!), utterly
plastered with ads, and more to the point they DON'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.
Really strange."

'various social websites' = not excluding Facebook. :P

> Although, Facebook does have ads. But it's trivially easy to ignore
> them, because they're in a segregated area that you can just ignore.

It's even easier to ignore them with FB Purity and an ad blocker 
installed - and an ad blocker will help with all the other sites as well, 
as we talked about earlier.

Jim

Post a reply to this message