On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 12:53:09 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
>
>| Don't misterpret the word 'missive'
>| - which by definition is supposed as written to convey a message
>| message(sometimes important), yet too often like many writers op'eds
>| nothing more than a repetitive attempt to make the same point.
>|
>
> So you thought that piece was good, but only a rehashing
>of things she's written before? Tough crowd. :)
>
> I hadn't seen such insight into the matter before I read that.
>I rarely see anyone who even has the courage to question
>wokism. Weiss, Chappelle, Rowling, McWhorther... That seems
>to be about it in terms of mainstream media. But I confess
>that I also hadn't followed Weiss before I saw that piece.
>

It seems Truth no longer stands a chance of survival these days.

As for repetitiveness, or rehashing, it seems to me the lefttards have
surpassed even Goebbels' achievement at retelling the big lie.

I guess it takes "rehashing" to get their version of the truth into
the more dense heads around them. To add, it did take "rehashing" by
Weiss to finally reach Newyana2.

I might also point out that it takes "rehashing" the so-called Truth
over and over so it does stick in the minds of our children.

This "rehashing" reminds of some of the "Usenet Monitors" around who
chastise a poster because he made a redundant post three years after
someone else had posted the same info.

Newyana2 wrote:
> "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
>
> | Don't misterpret the word 'missive'
> | - which by definition is supposed as written to convey a message
> | message(sometimes important), yet too often like many writers op'eds
> | nothing more than a repetitive attempt to make the same point.
> |
>
> So you thought that piece was good, but only a rehashing
> of things she's written before? Tough crowd. :)
>
> I hadn't seen such insight into the matter before I read that.
> I rarely see anyone who even has the courage to question
> wokism. Weiss, Chappelle, Rowling, McWhorther... That seems
> to be about it in terms of mainstream media. But I confess
> that I also hadn't followed Weiss before I saw that piece.
>
>
Her writing is acceptable, just takes forever to make a point(i.e.
filling up space without the need to do so).

Woke has become a misused word(et al an umbrella term, a ubiquitoous
slur). Originally coined by Black Americans against progressive ideals
of injustice(social, ethnicity, civil rights, etc.)

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 9/1/23 1:34 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>
> I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
> firefox or before they hit my screen?
>>
>
> It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
> that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
> as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
> up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
> them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
> gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
> based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
> an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
> be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
> snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
> to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
> blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like
> userContent.css would be applied by FF.
>
> If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
> FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
> and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
> for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
> blocks trackers well.

Excellent. Now I wonder if the ad-deliverers get paid for the delivery
even if it doesn't actually make it to the viewer.

--
Cheers, Bev
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 9/1/23 1:34 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
>>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

>>>I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
>>>firefox or before they hit my screen?
>> It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
>>that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
>>as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
>>up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
>>them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
>>gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
>>based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
>>an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
>>be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
>>snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
>>to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
>>blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like
>>userContent.css would be applied by FF.

>> If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
>>FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
>>and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
>>for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
>>blocks trackers well.

>Excellent. Now I wonder if the ad-deliverers get paid for the delivery
>even if it doesn't actually make it to the viewer.

I'm sure your suspicion is correct, that there is no useful measurement
of ad delivery and that advertisers are paying for views that never
occurred.

It's like directory listings on the Internet now that there's no such
thing as a telephone directory that somebody actually maintained with
somewhat adequate quality control. There is a negative incentive to fail
to remove outdated listings and bad listings. A hit is a hit. They are
measuring hits, not usefulness.

On 9/3/23 11:08 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 9/1/23 1:34 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
>>>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
>>>>firefox or before they hit my screen?
>
>>> It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
>>>that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
>>>as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
>>>up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
>>>them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
>>>gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
>>>based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
>>>an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
>>>be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
>>>snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
>>>to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
>>>blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like
>>>userContent.css would be applied by FF.
>
>>> If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
>>>FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
>>>and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
>>>for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
>>>blocks trackers well.
>
>>Excellent. Now I wonder if the ad-deliverers get paid for the delivery
>>even if it doesn't actually make it to the viewer.
>
> I'm sure your suspicion is correct, that there is no useful measurement
> of ad delivery and that advertisers are paying for views that never
> occurred.
>
> It's like directory listings on the Internet now that there's no such
> thing as a telephone directory that somebody actually maintained with
> somewhat adequate quality control. There is a negative incentive to fail
> to remove outdated listings and bad listings. A hit is a hit. They are
> measuring hits, not usefulness.

If you look at a number of different "white pages" you can eventually
figure out what might be reasonably current information. I have a
number of them bookmarked, but I forget which is the best one and always
forget to mark it :-(

Undated reviews similarly useless. Even if submitted by people you
wouldn't regard as cretins, you have no idea if the review is current or
10 years ago when the product was made by a different company :-(

Looking for doctors is the absolute worst. They NEVER update those and
they REALLY need to.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of the people who pissed me off."

casey@invalid.com wrote:

>
>It seems Truth no longer stands a chance of survival these days.
>
>As for repetitiveness, or rehashing, it seems to me the lefttards have
>surpassed even Goebbels' achievement at retelling the big lie.

The champion of the Big Lie these days is Donald Trump ... and the
republicans seem more that ready to lap up whatever lies he tells.

--
Tim Slattery
tim <at> risingdove <dot> com