Load bearing wall removal - purlin above issue

[ban-all-sheds]

Mental issues BAS ? I think so.

Well, Simon certainly isn't behaving in a rational or justifiable way, that's for sure.

Why get so worked up on a blinking forum ?

Dunno - you'll have to ask Simon why he's getting so worked up. He's the one who decided that my short simple warning meant that I was trying to police the forum. He's the one who decided that the logical (sic) extension of my warning was that people should not use DIYnot.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So let me get this right, you are claiming that the post you made suggesting people don't go to Photobucket was relevant to A post in the thread, but not necessarily to the OPs original post ?
In which case, a simple question - which post WAS it relevant to ?

My mistake, on looking back, it was the OP which had those images in.

Your mistake too, as you claimed that my warning had 0% relevance to it.

And BTW - more comprehension problem on your part.

I did not suggest that people don't go to it, and nowhere except in your mind will you find anywhere that I did. Whilst I believe that a case could be made for that, I didn't try to make it.

The chances of glam.com, criteo.com, rlcdn.com, adsonar.com, scorecardresearch.com, crwdcntrl.net , pbsrc.com, quantserve.com, amazon-adsystem.com etc delivering malware are small, almost non-existent. But not zero.

What is certain though is that some of them gather data on you - things like IP address, web browser details, web browsing behaviour, and I can promise you they are not doing it for your benefit. Maybe people consider that the spying and the tracking are a fair price to pay for the service they receive from the nominal website, and maybe they don't.

But they cannot make that decision if they don't even know it's going on.

We're all advised not to click on links in emails which appear to come from your bank but which aren't really. We're all advised not to download and open attachments from people we don't know.

Maybe we would all be well advised not to visit any website where we don't know what it's going to do to us or where we do not have the opportunity to consider whether what it's going to do is a price we are prepared to pay.

 

[SimonH2]

So, the only relevance you claim to the OP was that the images are at a third party site. So no relevance at all to the subject of building.

And yet again you demonstrate that you don't understand "IT" outside of your own area - yes I do have a pretty good idea what your area is.

I did not suggest that people don't go to it, and nowhere except in your mind will you find anywhere that I did. Whilst I believe that a case could be made for that, I didn't try to make it.

To the sort of people where the warning of of any benefit, what you posted will flag up as a "best not to go there then" warning.

Also interesting that you chose only this thread to post a warning. Why not post a warning that this site calls in stuff from outside ...

What is certain though is that some of them gather data on you

Oh yes, who does this site call in ads from, why Google that well known respecter of privacy. Do you warn all visitors to this site that using it will result in scripts running from at least one third party site, and one that is well known for flouting the law, ignoring privacy requests and mechanisms (in fact they go to great lengths to bypass user's attempts to maintain any privacy), and collects all sorts of data for the sole purpose of selling you to their customers ?
So you seem unhappy about calling in ads (along with all the user tracking that implies) from Amazon, but are OK calling them in from Google ?

For the record I'm not a fan of Photobucket - I'm sure they get up to all the same tricks as Google etc, after all, it is how they pay their bills. But I'm also not bothered if someone chooses to use them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So, the only relevance you claim to the OP was that the images are at a third party site. So no relevance at all to the subject of building.

No, but relevant to the post which was made.

To the sort of people where the warning of of any benefit, what you posted will flag up as a "best not to go there then" warning.

If you wish to imagine that there appears to be nothing I can do. As is often observes, it is difficult to change by reasoning positions which are not arrived at by reason.

Also interesting that you chose only this thread to post a warning.

I happened to see it. I'm not going to spend my time trawling the site to find every instance.

Why not post a warning that this site calls in stuff from outside ...

Why not indeed.

Oh yes, who does this site call in ads from, why Google that well known respecter of privacy. Do you warn all visitors to this site that using it will result in scripts running from at least one third party site, and one that is well known for flouting the law, ignoring privacy requests and mechanisms (in fact they go to great lengths to bypass user's attempts to maintain any privacy), and collects all sorts of data for the sole purpose of selling you to their customers ?
So you seem unhappy about calling in ads (along with all the user tracking that implies) from Amazon, but are OK calling them in from Google ?

I get no ads. And, inter alia, I'm blocking webcache.googleusercontent.com, partner.googleadservices.com, google-analytics.com and googlesyndication.com.

For the record I'm not a fan of Photobucket - I'm sure they get up to all the same tricks as Google etc, after all, it is how they pay their bills. But I'm also not bothered if someone chooses to use them.

Nor am I. And nowhere except in your imagination will you find that I have said otherwise.

 

[SimonH2]

I get no ads. And, inter alia, I'm blocking webcache.googleusercontent.com, partner.googleadservices.com, google-analytics.com and googlesyndication.com.

Ah, so you're blocking some "harmful" content yourself, but just chose to randomly pick some posting and comment on the other "harmful" content in that posting - but say nothing about the other content you've considered needs blocking.
Very consistent and logical
But in any case, still not in any way relevant to the OPs question.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ah, so you're blocking some "harmful" content yourself, but just chose to randomly pick some posting and comment on the other "harmful" content in that posting

I didn't "randomly pick" it - I was looking at the topic, and in it was that post with photobucket images. So in passing I posted a quick warning about it.

That's all.

I know that you are so desperate to show that I have some ulterior lets-ban-photobucket motive, or that I want to set myself up as some kind of arbiter of what people here should or should not do, should or should not click on etc that you're probably almost crying in frustration at your failure to make your fatuous accusations of "policing" stick, but that's the way it is.

- but say nothing about the other content you've considered needs blocking.

No, because that other content is generic to the site, not specific to this topic.

Very consistent and logical

Actually perfectly consistent and logical for someone who was just posting one short warning about one thing in one topic in one forum, with no ulterior motives, no hidden agendas, no desire to persuade people of anything.

But you can't bear that, can you.

Would you have been happier if I had talked about other content? Would we all have been spared your pathetic petulance if I'd gone beyond the scope of one short warning about one thing in one topic in one forum, and started talking about the site-wide, or indeed world-wide issues of tracking, profiling, identity monetisation, cross-site scripting etc?

Somehow I think not, which makes it strange that you should say "Very consistent and logical " because I didn't.

But in any case, still not in any way relevant to the OPs question.

Not to his question, no, but very relevant to his post.

 

[SimonH2]

No, because that other content is generic to the site, not specific to this topic.

So a threat is OK if it's widespread, but not if it isn't then.
Or it it that it's OK if it's something you'd already blocked personally (so in fact you don't care about those who didn't know to block it), but not if it's something you hadn't already blocked (else why would you happen to notice it) ?

BTW - Have you contributed to the site's costs to balance the lost revenue from blocking their ads ?

 

[mikeey84]

I have some ulterior lets-ban-photobucket motive,

Well you do want to ban sheds, so its not a huge leap of faith

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So a threat is OK if it's widespread, but not if it isn't then.

No - that's another faulty inference on your part. I would suggest that you just read what I write and stop imagining things I haven't written, but it seems that you are either incapable of that, or simply refuse to do it.

Or it it that it's OK if it's something you'd already blocked personally (so in fact you don't care about those who didn't know to block it), but not if it's something you hadn't already blocked (else why would you happen to notice it) ?

No - that's another faulty inference on your part. I would suggest that you just read what I write and stop imagining things I haven't written, but it seems that you are either incapable of that, or simply refuse to do it.

BTW - Have you contributed to the site's costs to balance the lost revenue from blocking their ads ?

No more than I contribute to commercial TV stations' costs because I record programmes and either edit out the adverts before watching, or fast-forward through them.

 

[SimonH2]

No more than I contribute to commercial TV stations' costs because I record programmes and either edit out the adverts before watching, or fast-forward through them.

So a freeloader then.