Free Republic

"LOL, I hear ya, I'm watching this show on National Geography about man eating tigers."

You're watching tigers being eaten by a man?

Awesome!

Thanks, Duke Nukum*, for the IE-Spyad info. I hunted it down and installed it as soon as I saw your post.

I did have to tweak it a bit, because its most immediate effect was preventing me from logging in to post to my own blog! (Right And Wrong, if I'm permitted a shameless blog plug, thanks...)

[*As a North Carolina Tar Heel, I have to say I'd be a fan of a nickname more along the lines of "Nuke Duke." ;-) ]

Personally, I hate netscape whatever name it goes under.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Not only does Netscape stink, but the "Mozilla" name is dumb. I always found it odd how Netscape just kind of suddenly transformed into "Mozilla" without any kind of official acknowledgement. Yes, I know the Netscape company itself wasn't really involved with the whole deal, but it was just weird how the word "Mozilla" started popping up everywhere without any sort of explanation.

(I forgot that if you insert a single piece of HTML code into a Free Republic post, you have to code up the whole dang thing. So here's the proper version of the above post:)

Have you considered not visiting Drudge's site?

No, I haven't considered that. I said the popups were annoying. I didn't say they were an utter turn-off.

Gee, I must be a really bad writer, because based on responses like the above, I've obviously failed to clearly make my point. Once again: The point of my post was not to express annoyance about the Drudge popups, or to learn how to block them. The point of my post was to ask if anyone knows what's different about the Drudge popups. It's my annoyance that leads to my question, but it's the question that is at issue, not my annoyance.

The user who just responded "Code" understands what I'm getting at, though what I really want to know is what is SPECIFICALLY different about the code. That's all!

Have you considered not visiting Drudge's site? No, I haven't considered that. I said the popups were annoying. I didn't say they were an utter turn-off. Gee, I must be a really bad writer, because based on responses like the above, I've obviously failed to clearly make my point. Once again: The point of my post was not to express annoyance about the Drudge popups, or to learn how to block them. The point of my post was to ask if anyone knows what's different about the Drudge popups. It's my annoyance that leads to my question, but it's the question that is at issue, not my annoyance. The user who just responded "Code" understands what I'm getting at, though what I really want to know is what is SPECIFICALLY different about the code. That's all!

Thanks, all. I appreciate the pointers toward other browsers and software.

But the real goal of my post was to understand HOW the popups at Drudge get through, when popups from everywhere else get blocked. What's different about the popups at Drudge? What is it about them that makes them different from others?

Why do you presume this would "bug" me?

Because you wondered who would do it first instead of doing it yourself.

This doesn't make sense. Your logic goes like this:

1. Wizzler wondered who would first suggest prayer.

2. Wizzler was not himself the first to suggest prayer.

3. Thus Wizzler would be bugged by the suggestion of prayer.

Do you see the problem in your thinking? The "bug" aspect of this is what we call a non sequitur.

Now, he obviously can't speak because of the legal situation, but I think that is his way of telling us that these were perscribed by a DOCTOR, and the lies about him buying them illegally in parking lots were just that: lies!

This was precisely the kind of thing I was referring to in post #7. Maybe those statements were lies; maybe they were true. The point is that you have no idea. Why you would bother to go out on a limb either way is beyond me.

Let's all bug wizzler and suggest it.

Why do you presume this would "bug" me? I don't care if you suggest we pray. I just wondered who would be the first to post it. And we got our answer: ThePythonicCow.

I wonder who will be the first poster here to suggest we "pray" for Rush Limbaugh.

I wonder who will be the first poster here to say, "OK, I was wrong last week when I said the media was lying -- so he IS addicted to painkillers."

I wonder who will be the first poster here to wonder how this affects Republican politics, etc.

By the way... I supported Bush in the 2000 election.

I have obviously come to look at him in a different light.

Well said.

It seems that a lot of people around here -- and everywhere, really -- are much more interested in the notion of politics as a game. So long as their team is "winning," then they're happy. In this case, the team in question is the Republican Party, with Coach Bush at the helm.

Logic and intellectual consistency are foreign concepts to these sorts of people. They do not possess critical thinking skills. They act almost entirely on emotion. They can usually be spotted by their use of punning on their opponents' names ("Klintoon" and "Hitlery" on one side; "Shrub" and "Repugs" on the other).

They are as emotionally wedded to their team as a Detroiter is to the Lions. And no amount of data, facts and logic will make them rethink this attachment, because to do so would spur an existential crisis. For these people, to question one's attachment to Bush would be a betrayal of one's very identity. Because their attachment to Bush is an emotional one, not a cognitive one.

Cut/Copy/Paste

Thank you for the explanation.

With all due respect, I don't think "CCP" is an acronym with which many people would be familiar. A Usenet search of "CCP" and "Cut Copy Paste" -- going back more than a decade -- results in a paltry 42 hits.

(For comparison's sake, a search of "LOL" and "Laughing Out Loud" produces more than 25,000 hits.)

"CCP," in other words, is the kind of thing that is likely to confuse most people who read your post. For the sake of clarity, it should be avoided.

Maybe someday everyone around here will finally realize a basic fact: The Bushes are not conservatives. They are politicians who happen to be Republicans.

no CCPing allowed

What does this mean?

George W. Bush is not a conservative.

What site is this article from? The writing is terrible. It's gotta be from one of those internet news sites -- those places don't even seem to use editors. Please post a link; I'm curious where this came from.

I really can't stand Mickey Kaus' smug, snarky style of writing. And the parenthetical "editor's comments" gimmick is ridiculously lame.

Listen, cupcake, whenever I need your help to best define "intelligent and reasoned debate", I will wring your neck.

This doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by "defining" a "debate"? And why would you "wring my neck" if you "need help" defining a debate (whatever that is)?

Even if this is sarcasm of some kind, it doesn't work, because any intended irony is washed out by the non sequitur.

Please explain.