Firefox unblocked, temporarily
I found a new method of blocking AdBlock Plus users. Now, if the ABP people want to be jerks, they could probably, easily find another way around this, and start the mess all over again, just to prove a silly, juvenile point. But, if they are about freedom and rights as they have been claiming they are, then they will allow those site owners that want to block AdBlock Plus users to do so.
The code for blocking people using Ad Block Plus is...
<script>
if(document.all){ci= new Array(1,2);}
else{ci=Components.interfaces;}
if("nsIAdblockPlus" in ci){
document.write('ad block detected');
var bod = document.getElementsByTagName("html");
bod[0].innerHTML = '<p align="center"><font face="Century Gothic"><b>This page cannot be displayed because ad blocking software has been detected.</b></font></p>';
}
</script>
Allowing site owners to block Ad Block Plus users is something the original creator of AdBlock provided. Wladimer Palant, however, when he copied the code and released AdBlock Plus chose to not offer that. His claims that bad ads justify blanket ad blocking, rings hollow since blocking AdBlock Plus users also places a barrier between the user and "potentially" bad ads. The number of sites that would actually block ABP users wouldn't even be a significant number, so why he and the filter writers insist that site owners be unable to block ABP users makes no sense at all, unless they simply like the idea of getting things for free at other people's expense, by force—a basic definition of Socialism. (or stealing, depending on whose dictionary you're using)
So now we get to see if Palant and his filter writers are really about freedom, or if they are simply children demanding more bread and circuses.
Posted by Danny Carlton at September 12, 2007 11:19 AM
Congratulations.
It obvious that you don't understand the web. You don't understand the architecture of the internet and you're trying to transform it into something that it is not.
The web was designed to be an open platform for information distribution that is accessible by a large variety of different user agents (i.e. browsers). It's not a "shove it down your throat whether you like it or not" delivery mechanism like broadcast TV. Rather, it's a "request only what you like" system.
Just because your web page includes images I'm not morally obligated to download and view them--I'm free to turn off images in my browser. Just because your web page includes a nice CSS stylesheet I'm not morally obligated to use it--I'm free to turn off styles or use a custom user stylesheet. Just because your web page includes links to other pages on your web site, I'm not morally obligated to click on them to increase your page views. And just because your web page includes ads I'm not morally obligated to download them either!
I would argue that using Adblocker Plus is NOT theft of resources. Let's not forget that I'm paying for my internet connection too and if I don't want to download every image, video, and ad on your web site I shouldn't be forced to.
Yes, you have every right to block Firefox if you so choose (and you'll soon find that you've relegated yourself to the sidelines while the rest of the 'net passes you by). If you really wants to earn money with this web site, you should only make it available to paying subscribers. Then you'll know if anyone values your content enough to pay for it.
Just as the lyrics of the song goes, "Video killed the radio star", and just as the internet is destroying newspapers, modern technologies will eventually destroy the advertising model on the web. Technology is constantly evolving and changing. You can try and stop it, but in the end you either adapt or become extinct.
You're fighting a losing battle. You will not be able to transform the web into something that it was not designed to be because the web surfers ultimately will not allow it! We'll just move on to more "open" web sites.
Rich, learn to read. I'm not blocking Firefox now.
Such cluelessness pretty much negates the rest of what you wrote.
Danny Boy,
I did read your post. Yesterday you were blocking Firefox. Today you're only blocking it if Adblock Plus is installed. (In fact, the title of your post indicates that it's only temporarily unblocked.) So what? That changes absolutely nothing in regards to my comment. I know you'd like to be able to simply dismiss me as a mindless idiot, but it's simply not that easy.
Of course it's that easy watch...
[Hint: That was me dismissing you as a mindless idiot.]
[Hint: That was me explaining the obvious because I've dismissed you as a mindless idiot.]
Freedom…
And now your page downloads fast and looks very nice. Congratulations for a nice clean design.
This last Greasemonkey script will be unneeded in Firefox 3 which will have a standard option to turn off auto-refresh. Browsers are required to have the capacity to stop auto-refresh because of accessibility (blind users, etc.).
When all is said and done, it comes down to a little, but interesting, case of freedom. The Web itself was developed and paid for by Europeans' tax money in their Nuclear Physics Laboratory (CERN) and donated free (as in freedom) for the world to use.
If we don't defend freedom on the Web, we shouldn't cry when we find one day that that freedom has been taken away from us.
-- So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.
Interesting, C. Senior, but a small spelling correction. The Firefox extension is AdBlock Plus (ABP) like Danny Carlton has in the main article, not Addblocker Plus.
I think that the "writing is on the wall" for Internet advertising. Copy the strategy of the financially most successful provider of ads, Google, and give unobtrusive text ads suited (like JackLewis.net already does) to the page being viewed. No need for JavaScript.
People like me who use ABP all the time do not block Google type ads. And we sometimes find them interesting and useful, and buy! So relieved to escape the aggressive attacks of the old-style dinosaur advertising.
Perhaps this site could set an example by putting a text ad version as the noscript alternative, instead of trying to send us to an irritating you-have-to-have-javascript-enabled page.
Oh. And I have a "freedom" quote too. But I can't translate it into English because of the play on words. I think the original was in French:
"La libertad es el poder -- si puedo, soy libre."
AbBlock Plus=selfishness
NoScript=paranoia
Greasemonkey's no auto-refresh=crippling yourself out of both selfishness and paranoia.
I don't call delusion, freedom.
Blocking useful features. Many things on my blogs are form my own server, my own scripts even, but add to the functionality of the page. In your paranoia, you've blocked those, thinking it some how makes you safe. Why not just go live in a shack in the middle of the woods, then you'd really be safe from all the internet boogie men.
Yet, autorefresh is a functional part of some sites. HTML chats, links that require a notice of leaving a site (most government sites do that).
The internet came about because of American ingenuity. The "web" is simply the concept of a simple access for everyday use, rather than just government or educational use. It wasn't "developed" by European taxes it was developed by commercial interests worldwide footing the bill so freeloaders like you could pretend you are entitled to it. Without a commercial goal in site, it would have been nothing more than a passing fancy. Free doesn't mean freedom. Do you actually believe even those European taxes simply fell from the sky rather than being taken from people at gunpoint?
Freedom is taking things from other people. That's stealing. Freedom is the right to control your own work and equity. That we need to defend, if not we have nothing.
Yet you brag that the web was developed and paid for by European taxes. So which is it? Is the state which taxes bad, or good?
The vast bulk of ABP users block all Google ads. So you point is completely irrelevant. You people keep harping about the extremes of marketing, while defending the extremes of anti-marketing. You can't see the hypocrisy in that?
But, the vast majority of ABP users block Google ads. They even whine when Kos added a subscription "nag" to his blog, encouraging those blocking ads to buy a subscription. Advertisement follows market forces, yet ad blocking also follows market forces in trying to accommodate the childish desires of those who feel any and all kinds of ads will hurt their precious little eyes. The exception (those that block only the worst kind of ads) does not prove the rule.
Turning javascript off is paranoia plain and simple. I have no interest in entertaining the delusions of paranoids. If javascript scares you, turn the stupid computer off and get a couple of carrier pigeons.
Seems surfers are interested in everyone's freedom except site owners. Site owners are just as free to display their content in any manner their little coded pages will allow. I've got no problem displaying (or trying to) only to certain browsers, screen sizes, ip addresses, etc., or even using all images or just sounds. Do what you want and let the marketplace sort it out.
Likewise, surfers are free to view pages in any manner their browsers allow. If a browsers with ad blocking becomes so prolific that content is driven underground or to paid only services...so be it. Probably won't happen, but I don't care if it does, it would be beautiful poetic justice to the free-information types.
The only thing I don's understand is those who get so emotionally involved with all the name calling, etc. Can't you guys/gals just type and click away without being so personally invested? How can so much of one's identity be wrapped up in such silly issues as what browser, computer, code language they use I'll never understand.
This link:
Adblock Plus detection
show a very simple way of detecting the Adblock Plus plugin...
Have fun! :-)
Dan
I'm reading this webpage with Internet Explorer and the IE7Pro addon, with the AD Blocker option enabled and I don't see any ad. Now what? www.ie7pro.com
And yes, I'm blocking all ads, including Google's. You post what u want in the Internet, as I can do. I grab what I want, no more.
:)
First of all, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about for those that use AdBlock Plus, nor this site's attempt to block users that use it. Both seem like perfectly legitimate actions. However, if readers of this site still want to block ads, there are other ways of doing it besides AdBlock Plus. One easy way (for Windows users) is to re-direct advertising web addresses to your own computer in your .hosts file. http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm offers a pretty good description of how to do it, and also offers updated lists of ad sites. The best thing is that you can easily tailor it to those ad sites you find most annoying.
But the other thing I found surprising in visiting this site (became aware of it while reading an article on CNET) is that apparently Danny Carlton is a Christian, perhaps even an Evangelical Christian. Danny, admittedly I haven't performed an exhaustive read of your site, but the little I've come across has disturbed me. The banner at the top of your site says "as for me and my blog, we will serve the LORD!" But you use such hateful language towards people such as "That was me dismissing you as a mindless idiot." and "That was me explaining the obvious because I've dismissed you as a mindless idiot." I realize you're probably trying to be funny, but if you're really pursuing a relationship with Christ, and desire to be like him, and desire this site to be a reflection of Him, I believe you would choose different, more constructive ways to debate with people.
Some scripture that comes to mind as I look at this site:
"Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph 5:1, NIV)
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph 6:12, NIV)
"This is what the LORD says:
'For three sins of Israel,even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed...'" (Amos 2:6-7a, NIV)
Most of the adblock users haven't got a clue what they are doing to the net! They'll just drive sites to closure, leaving only .gov sites and .edu sites, a bit like 30 years ago.
Many sites, mine included, have started suffering in the last few months. 30% of my readers are Firefox users, mostly to me promoting FF, and more and more have started to use adblock. It's not like there are a lot of ads on the site, just 7 (3 graphic, 4 google/text), but they are stopping my income.
It has come to the point were I ask myself if I should just stop. My site is the biggest on motorcycle news, and probably the oldest. But I ahve now asked myself if I should just stick to writing for magazines. At least there, adblock has no influence..
This link:
Adblock Plus detection
show a very simple way of detecting the Adblock Plus plugin...
No, too many Firefox users hide their useragent. Also AdBlock Plus also works in SeaMonkey and some other Mozilla browsers. I demonstrated my method in the post above which still works. I would imagine almost any blocking method could be worked around. The problem is that people want to, rather than respect the right of the site owner to limit access to only those viewing ads.
I read your comment while riding my unicorn on Mars with Elvis and Marilyn Monroe. I've test other ad blocking software, ie7pro included, they're still blocked. Don't be such a putz.
In Matthew chapter 23 Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites, 6 times (vs. 13-15,23,25,27 and 29), blind guides, 2 times (vs. 16 and 24), fools and blind, twice (vs. 17 and 19), Blind Pharisee (v. 26), serpents and generation of vipers (v. 33), and child of hell (v. 15) each once. In verse 27 He compares them to whited sepulchres, about as offensive a remark as possible to an orthodox Jew. And that's only one chapter...
Christians aren't commanded to be wimps. Perhaps it's because you're reading the Not Inspired Version that you miss the strength of the Gospel, and that Jesus said he came to give offense.
Really? I should just trust all the javascript on the web?
NoScript=control. Many of us don't want to hand control of our applications to people we don't know. There's some nasty popups out there that can only be blocked with NoScript.
Will all the organized crime on the internet, the need for tools like NoScript will only increase. Sure, it breaks websites. But is has the ability to selectively enable scripts based on domain name. It takes a little getting used to, but I can't imagine surfing naked with IE on a Windows box. Better to just install the bot software on the computer yourself and save the bad guys the trouble.
Danny, I appreciate your view on this, but even you must confess it is very webmaster-centric.
Danny,
I find your scriptural interpretations to be rather interesting. As with the comment I posted concerning your remarks about educators, you skirt around the Bible's admonishment to avoid judging others. Even more interesting is the fact that all the scripture quotations that you utilize above are the statements of Jesus. Now I am sure that we can all agree that 1)Jesus was far more intelligent than yourself. 2)Within the context of Christianity, Jesus and the Godhead would ultimately have the authority to Judge. 3)No where in the Bible did Jesus explicitly give you the authority to Judge someone else in fact there are several references detailing the dangers of doing so. While your attempt to justify your behavior is interesting, I think it is still against the teachings of Christ to walk around with one's chest bowed out (virtually in this case) extolling their own intelligence. I am pretty sure that it is universal to most translations. Yes, parts of the Bible are hard-edged and can be offensive, but you leave out Jesus's 2nd commandment.
Matthew 22
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 ° Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it °, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
JavaScript was designed to have limited functionality. Modern browsers add even more limitation to it. So the only reason to really fear JavaScript is paranoia.
There are some annoying ones on disreputable sites, but avoiding those sites (Warez, porn, other kinds based on an attitude on anarchy or an absence of morality) and you'll rarely find them.
The #1 way to be victimized on the internet is to be stupid. There are no plug-ins for that.
No, you misconstrue it. The passage is...
...which isn't a command to never judge, but a warning that if you do, you'll receive the same criteria when you are judged. The Bible also says...
...so there we are commanded to judge. Judging is nothing more than discerning the value of something. It's an abused word just like discrimination is. We must judge in our daily lives or we'd never be able to make any decisions. We must judge others or we'd never be able to determine whether to trust someone or not. There are valid criteria for judging and invalid criteria. The Bible stresses that we employ valid criteria, not that we never distinguish between good and evil in other's actions. That's stupid.
So you disagree with AK that we should strive to be more like Jesus?
You'll need to actually read the Bible before making such false statement that Jesus never commanded us to judge. He did, in John 7:24.
A very subjective assessment of my comments; one which requires you to judge me to make such a conclusion.
A child is given candy by one man, and knocked down by another. Which man loves the child more? Oh, but the man who gave the candy was actually a pedophile attempting to lure the child into danger, the man who knock the child down was the child's father saving his life as a car was about to kill the child.
You judge my words based on your own, limited comprehension, all the while telling me I shouldn't judge. There's another passage which you need to read...
Danny,
I said that "the scriptures admonish us to avoid it" you interpret that to mean exercise caution when doing so, but none the less it comes to the same effect. I just find that your harsh criticism of others not to fit into my interpretation of Biblical principles, but that is something we will most likely never agree upon. I have read the Bible, but not everyone comes to the same interpretation as you. I don't understand why you are incapable of debate which doesn't involve attempting to degrade the intelligence or character of your opponent. A difference of opinion does not equate to a lack of comprehension. Sure I think a Christian should try to be more like Jesus, but I think that goes for his teachings of love and forgiveness as well not merely attempting to mimic his authority. I don't understand your sticking to your guns and maintaining your need to insult others. Insulting others is a sign of insecurity and weakness. I don't recall Jesus resulting to such juvenile actions as a tactic in arguments.
Yes, there is a little bit of a gray area with me judging your judgement of others, but then again I am not the one professing my adherence to the word of God. You on the other hand are. This creates a bit of an issue within the context of this argument because you are locked within a specific predetermined moral code on which you must base your argument, but you dealt yourself that hand.
Your attempt with the cute little narrative concerning the pedophile was interesting, but you aren't really saving anyone from danger with your behavior. In fact it has been people like yourself and their overwhelming religious zealotry that have driven me from religion all together. You have repeatedly asserted your own intelligence over mine, but that is something based entirely on your opinion. You do walk around with your chest puffed out calling those who don't agree with your ill-founded world-view ignorant. How many people have your hate mongering over-exaggerated posts turned to God? Do you really think that people want to become a part of a religion in which the disciples are cruel and offensive? My comments were not subjective, you have been insulting and rude by common societal standards in your post, in fact several others have pointed this out. Christianity doesn't pin you with moral superiority, this is something that you must achieve through your actions.
The inclusion of the verse at the bottom is humorous as I quoted this in another comment on a similar topic to which you didn't respond.
Danny,
I guess it all comes down to choice, control and money. You choose to deliver your content freely and without restriction on the web, wish to control what your visitors see, and the ads that you deliver provides you money via a revenue stream. However, your visitors have their own choice, control and money. Your visitors choose to visit your website, they control the content with their choice of browser, and they pay their money for access to the Internet. Unlike the broadcast medium where viewers have no choice and their only control is to change the channel, computers allow owners to use browsers that can tailor content to meet thier needs and wishes.
Your choice to exploit (not that exploit is a bad word but lets call a spade a spade) the traffic to your website with ads to generate revenue does not constitue a binding agreement with your users to have to download or view those ads. And lets face it, ad blocking software/plug-ins stopping the ads before they are delivered only upsets your hit count whether or not someone pays attention to them.
Before you dismiss me as an idiot, I want to let you know that I have a MBA and my Bachelors has an emphasis on e-Business (a.k.a. online business/marketing). I work as a network administrator protecting and filtering content based on business need. So I have background and experience.
Last I checked, I pay for my Internet access. Companies pay for their share of Internet access too. Just because you put your content on the web without constraint or controls doesn't give you the right to call the world freeloaders since everyone is already paying for access. If you want control, password protect your content.
Highly unlikely considering the proliferation of other forms of communication in this world.
Actually Freedom is defined by Merriam-Webster as: the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.
Nothing there about controlling works or equity. Again if you want control, protect your content.
It isn't hypocrisy a feigning to be what one is not. What you see is called an opinion, albeit an opposing one to yours. Hypocrisy would be complaining about the ads and using advertising to push an ad blocking program.
What you consider whining are people's opinions they are entitled to, and if they want to voice their opinions about "nag" screens they have a right to do so. The creator of the content has to balance getting their message out with generating revenue.
My decision to not view advertising isn't childish, but rather an adult, conscious decision to not be bothered by content I don't wish to spend time reading. Your demeaning use of the term demonstrates that what you are upset about a feeling that people are coming to your site and getting something for nothing and "stealing" money from you.
And yet you entertain them by creating ways and means to block those without Javascript rather than catering to all your viewers.
On the other hand, Javascript should scare you. Javascript's model is asking someone who you don't know to give you a file to run on your computer that you have no idea what it is doing. Implying that any user should "just trust you" begs the view of the "I know what is best for you" mentality that too many people in positions of power have used to lull people into a false sense of security for the sake of exploitation.
Javascript exploits are abundant throughout the web and not just in "...disreputable sites,...(Warez, porn, other kinds based on an attitude on anarchy or an absence of morality)". Lest we forget the exploits used on MySpace, Facebook, and Bebo that allowed remote code execution and installation of malicious software. Those websites don't fall into your exclusive category of where you'll find exploits.
Then password protect your content, otherwise realize that I could be viewing your website with a text-based browser that supports neither frames, images, javascript, or css if I choose to.
I agree with you on the point that it is easy to fall victim on the Internet. Unfortunately there are plug-ins for the "stupid" and the cautious in the form of firewalls, anti-virus, anti-spyware, pop-up blockers, and script blockers. I'm sure as the trusting and intelligent user you are that you don't run any of those because you are better than that.On another side note, I find it odd that you removed the post in which the user agreed with my comments and how doubts about your own ability to comprehend the material being presented. Yet another double-standard on your web-site I suppose.
Speaking as a fellow webmaster and blogger, I feel that you have neglected a few things in the design of your site and your blogging methodology. First, you have blocked a large percentage of your interned traffic from viewing content that they want to view. Most bloggers are concerned with increasing their traffic, not eliminating more than 15% of it. It just strikes me as odd. Most of the time, calling visitors to your site idiots is a bad idea, and can only result in decreased popularity. However, if all you care about is telling your opinion to the world, go right ahead. Just don’t complain when your visit count starts dropping. Also, you have shown in your comments that you are unfamiliar with current internet technology and security practices. You view javascript as harmless, but that is blatantly incorrect. Let me quote a wkikipedia article for you:
"JavaScript and the DOM provide the potential for malicious authors to deliver scripts to run on a client computer via the Web."
Yes, this article does not go into the details. However, any web designer that is slightly intelligent knows that javascript can be dangerous, and can seriously infringe on your privacy. No, I am not paranoid about people going through my files, but I would like to keep sensitive information, such as e-commerce records and banking passwords, safe safe and private on my computer. Also, I have a quote from a very interesting blog post that I read recently:
“There are no secure browsers. Too may people use peripheral reasons to favor one browser of the others, and it gets a bit silly when they then try to rationalize it by ignoring the obvious.”
The lack of secure browsers means that people need to use plugins or extensions to make them more secure and to patch mistakes in the browser. Guess what is one of these extensions that helps make the browser more secure? NoScript.
I don’t agree with your opinions on the firefox/adblock plus issue, but you are entitled to your own opinion. So far, I have not seen one logical post about this issue, and you have just completely blown off the comments people have left with vague, childish insults and misconstrued scripture. When it comes down to this argument, you should think about what your readers know. Some of them are very smart people, and quite possibly understand more than you.
All I ask is that you provide at least one piece of logical proof that ad blocking is damaging your site, and I will consider believing you. Also, since many other commenters ended with a quote, I will end with one that I read in a blog that I am sure that you know well.
“Enjoy what you got and let other enjoy what they got and quit trying to pretend one's better than the other simply because you prefer it.”
This quote sums up my point well. Enjoy your large readerbase, let others choose how they view the internet, and stop misconstruing freedom just because you are greedy and want more money. It really doesn't matter what you think about this, it is up to the readers to decide... If you have any left.
Speaking as a fellow webmaster and blogger, I feel that you have neglected a few things in the design of your site and your blogging methodology. First, you have blocked a large percentage of your interned traffic from viewing content that they want to view. Most bloggers are concerned with increasing their traffic, not eliminating more than 15% of it. It just strikes me as odd. Most of the time, calling visitors to your site idiots is a bad idea, and can only result in decreased popularity. However, if all you care about is telling your opinion to the world, go right ahead. Just don’t complain when your visit count starts dropping. Also, you have shown in your comments that you are unfamiliar with current internet technology and security practices. You view javascript as harmless, but that is blatantly incorrect. Let me quote a wkikipedia article for you:
"JavaScript and the DOM provide the potential for malicious authors to deliver scripts to run on a client computer via the Web."
Yes, this article does not go into the details. However, any web designer that is slightly intelligent knows that javascript can be dangerous, and can seriously infringe on your privacy. No, I am not paranoid about people going through my files, but I would like to keep sensitive information, such as e-commerce records and banking passwords, safe safe and private on my computer. Also, I have a quote from a very interesting blog post that I read recently:
“There are no secure browsers. Too may people use peripheral reasons to favor one browser of the others, and it gets a bit silly when they then try to rationalize it by ignoring the obvious.”
The lack of secure browsers means that people need to use plugins or extensions to make them more secure and to patch mistakes in the browser. Guess what is one of these extensions that helps make the browser more secure? NoScript.
I don’t agree with your opinions on the firefox/adblock plus issue, but you are entitled to your own opinion. So far, I have not seen one logical post about this issue, and you have just completely blown off the comments people have left with vague, childish insults and misconstrued scripture. When it comes down to this argument, you should think about what your readers know. Some of them are very smart people, and quite possibly understand more than you.
All I ask is that you provide at least one piece of logical proof that ad blocking is damaging your site, and I will consider believing you. Also, since many other commenters ended with a quote, I will end with one that I read in a blog that I am sure that you know well.
“Enjoy what you got and let other enjoy what they got and quit trying to pretend one's better than the other simply because you prefer it.”
This quote sums up my point well. Enjoy your large readerbase, let others choose how they view the internet, and stop misconstruing freedom just because you are greedy and want more money. It really doesn't matter what you think about this, it is up to the readers to decide... If you have any left.
Great minds think alike :-)
Anyway, if like me you are using Firefox's Noscript and No Auto-refresh to browse this site (see the posts near the top). don't forget to turn off no-scripting for JackLewis.net to post a comment because you have to input a little "captcha" to show you are human.
Altogether, the comments on this topic have been very interesting. Thanks are due to Danny for hosting them.
Congratulations, Danny. As predicted, the arms race has begun.
Look here: http://adblockplus.org/development-builds/adblock-plus-detection-possibility-closed
I enabled javascript for your website and your code now seems unable to detect AdblockPlus.
Thanks for that heads-up tip, Josh.
Now we can simply allow JavaScript for this as a trusted site :-)
"Power to the people. Right on!"Oh well... So long. And thanks for all the fun!
I can't believe someone can be so arrogant and claim to be a Christian. You consistently call people names and use phrases like "illiterate morons". You ignore scripture like, "give to everyone who asks and if anyone takes what belongs to you, don't demand it back". You'll have your your arrogant response to this too, I'm sure of that, which I guess is a good thing because just as I came to see how incredibly unChrist like you are by reading your response to the posts above me, so will others see your attitude by your response to me. May God have mercy on you because you certainly need all you can get.