TV Stand is coming along

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:41 -0500, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2/27/2013 8:14 PM, Mike M wrote:
>
>>
>> Looks good Brian, using Firefox there is an addon called no script
>> which lets you select what sites can run script. It's amazing how
>> many sites just don't work with out java. It is nice to only turn on
>> as much as you need to.
>>
>> Mike M
>>
>
>Do you mean Java or JavaScript? I haven't had Java installed for a
>couple of years and have yet to hit a site that doesn't work because it
>is missing. JavaScript on the other hand is all over the place. The
>bill pay system on every bank I have used uses JavaScript. The local
>utilities use JavaScript to present your bill online.
>
>Many companies use Java for their intranet apps. From what I have read,
>that was the original intent for Java. I know the intranet where I used
>to work was eat up with it.
>
>Mike

Probably java script. It hurts but I'll plead ignorance.

<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:56:39 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>> On 2/27/2013 10:16 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Part 1:
>>
>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Part 2:
>>
>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?videou
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think a dust collector might make the shop look more tidy. AND get
>
> YES! I do desperately need a dust collector. My biggest fear is getting
> nasal cancer. I saw a guy a few years back in a Dairy Queen who lost
> half his nose cancer and was wearing a prosthetic. He said he use to
> drive a truck that was filled with sawdust or contained saw dusty items
> (can't remember). I always think of that guy when I get the slightest
> nose irritation after woodworking.
>
>>
>> one of these,
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.woodcraft.com/product/2085016/38913/silicone-glue-brush-1.aspx
>
> I don't know about that. I like to just bend down and pick up a piece of
> scrap for a glue spreader; they are easy to find in my shop :)
>
>>


I was skeptical too but they do a much better job spreading the glue than I
ever would have thought. Not a big investment, you should give it a try.
They hold the glue well enough that I have less of a problem with the glue
dripping down the edge of a board even though the brush is wider than the
board edge.





>>

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> [email protected] writes:
>
> >>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Part 1:
>
> >>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >>>>>> Part 2:
>
> >>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
> >>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> >>>>> on(why?)
>
> >>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>
> >>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> >>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This must be the varmint here!
>
> >>
>
> >> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>
> > What is that? And how is this relevant?
>
>
>
> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>
> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>
> I'll double-check if you want.

That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:52:59 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:38:41 PM UTC-5, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:16:36 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > Part 1: http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all Part 2: http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75 Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Videos are nice for How-to's but it seems like too much work (for me) to watch 2 videos to see a current project. A couple pics might be a better medium. I am not sure if I am typical but that is my input.
>
>I wish I had your confidence in knowing that there is nothing I could learn by watching a woodworking video that would make it worth watching. I love woodworking and soak up anything I can and make judgment calls along the way. I can't get enough sawdust related info.
>
>Actually I'm not sure if you are projecting confidence, being foolish or both.
>
>Cheers!

Looks good Brian, using Firefox there is an addon called no script
which lets you select what sites can run script. It's amazing how
many sites just don't work with out java. It is nice to only turn on
as much as you need to.

Mike M

Mike M <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:41 -0500, Mike
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/27/2013 8:14 PM, Mike M wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Looks good Brian, using Firefox there is an addon called
>>> no script
>>> which lets you select what sites can run script. It's
>>> amazing how
>>> many sites just don't work with out java. It is nice to
>>> only turn
>>> on as much as you need to.
>>>
>>> Mike M
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean Java or JavaScript? I haven't had Java
>> installed for a
>> couple of years and have yet to hit a site that doesn't
>> work because
>> it is missing. JavaScript on the other hand is all over
>> the place.
>> The bill pay system on every bank I have used uses
>> JavaScript. The
>> local utilities use JavaScript to present your bill
>> online.
>>
>> Many companies use Java for their intranet apps. From
>> what I have
>> read, that was the original intent for Java. I know the
>> intranet
>> where I used to work was eat up with it.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Probably java script. It hurts but I'll plead ignorance.

Plead, hell, my wife will testify to it<g>
She reminds me all the time, too

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:36:47 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23:26 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>=20
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>=20
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>=20
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>=20
> >>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrot=
e:
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=3Dv74&categ=
ory=3Dall
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=3D75
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to=
be turned
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to cod=
e for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and w=
ill reduce your advertising income.
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>=20
> >>>>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_a=
fd_ads.js
>=20
> >>>>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>=20
> >>>>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run i=
t. I
>=20
> >>>>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>=20
> >>>>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>=20
> >>>>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted =
is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>=20
> >>>>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's =
why
>=20
> >>>>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>=20
> >>>>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appe=
ars?
>=20
> >>>>> Paste the url here.
>=20
> >>>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>=20
> >>> Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original though=
ts of you up in the thread.
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> Sorryto say it, but your "policy"speaks for itself. I marked the page
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> "untrusted".
>=20
> >>
>=20
> >> Of course, I don't confuse the page with the person.
>=20
> > Oy vey!! Bill - Don't go to my web page anymore. Do me a favor and e-m=
ail me your IP address and I will physically block you from accessing it ag=
ain and save you the accidental trouble of stopping by.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Don't get mad at the messenger for the message. Instead of saying "it's=
=20
>=20
> too much work", work on being responsible! Maybe if you rewrite your=20
>=20
> "not responsible for a damn thing" policy, it will motivate you!
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Bill


And what is your message Mr. Messenger? I never got it.

I am not going to jump through hoops because a very limited number of peopl=
e are afraid to turn on javascript. YOU are the one that needs to jump thr=
ough the hoops if you choose to turn it off. Don't like it? Don't go to =
my site and the millions of others that don't appease your fears and needs.=
Simple.

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:07:50 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
> > Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] writes:
>
> >>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> Part 1:
>
> >>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >>>>> Part 2:
>
> >>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> on(why?)
>
> >>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for
>
> >>> the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>
> >> Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> >>
>
> >> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will
>
> >> reduce your advertising income.
>
> >
>
> > This must be the varmint here!
>
> > ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>
>
>
> Near as I can tell, the webpage will leave 2 cookies on your machine as
>
> well.He must have forgot to mention that.

No cookies are used on my video page. I do however use cookies elsewhere. See my privacy policy which is published on my website:

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/privacy.php

On 2/28/2013 6:35 AM, Bill wrote:

> It was revealed however that Brian is not familiar with all of the
> technology (scripts) that he was using at this web site, and that it was
> "too much work" for him to care. That culminates my public service
> announcement.

Bullshit, Bill. :)

Once again, that is your job, and decision, NOT his. If you don't want
to deal with client side JS, turn it off on your end!

You will lose certain benefits, and with ALL benefits come risks ... it
is your decision, and yours ONLY, to weight those benefits against any
risks, NOT his.

Quit yerbitching and blaming Brian, and stand on your own two feet in
this regard ... that is the reality of the situation. ;)

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:14:56 PM UTC-5, Mike M wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:52:59 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>=20
> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:38:41 PM UTC-5, SonomaProducts.com wro=
te:
>=20
> >> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:16:36 AM UTC-8, br...@garagewoodwork=
s.com wrote:
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >> > Part 1: http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=3Dv74&categor=
y=3Dall Part 2: http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=3D75 Almost =
done. Critiques welcomed.
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >>=20
>=20
> >> Videos are nice for How-to's but it seems like too much work (for me) =
to watch 2 videos to see a current project. A couple pics might be a better=
medium. I am not sure if I am typical but that is my input.
>=20
> >
>=20
> >I wish I had your confidence in knowing that there is nothing I could le=
arn by watching a woodworking video that would make it worth watching. I l=
ove woodworking and soak up anything I can and make judgment calls along th=
e way. I can't get enough sawdust related info.
>=20
> >
>=20
> >Actually I'm not sure if you are projecting confidence, being foolish or=
both.=20
>=20
> >
>=20
> >Cheers!
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Looks good Brian, using Firefox there is an addon called no script
>=20
> which lets you select what sites can run script. It's amazing how
>=20
> many sites just don't work with out java. It is nice to only turn on
>=20
> as much as you need to.=20


Facebook and YouTube are two biggies that require it (not that I use Facebo=
ok). I leave mine turned on all the time and rely on my Firewall/virus pro=
tection. Anecdotal, but I've never had a problem as a result of doing so a=
nd I don't know anyone that's run into trouble either. On my video page it=
isn't actually my script that is using javascript, but BlipTV that require=
s it for their video viewer.

Thanks for commenting!





>=20
>=20
>=20
> Mike M

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:33:20 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> > Paste the url here.
>
> >>
>
> >> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>
> >
>
> >Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.
>
>
>
> Trim your posts, please.
>
>
>
> When I went to your homepage, I was served a selection of adverts on the >right hand side.

Only two ads for woodworking magazines.


>
> (Mainly for woodworking mags).

ONLY woodworking mags.


>Since I don't have the ability to view videos here, I
>
> didn't bother to try your videos.
>
>
>
> If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed
>

Nope. No google ads on my site. Those mag ads are served by me via agreements set up with the publishers.



> them.
>
>
>
> scott

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:40:53 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23:26 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>
> >>>>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>
> >>>>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>
> >>>>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>
> >>>>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>
> >>>>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>
> >>>>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>
> >>>>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>
> >>>>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>
> >>>>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>
> >>>>> Paste the url here.
>
> >>>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>
> >>> Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sorryto say it, but your "policy"speaks for itself. I marked the page
>
> >>
>
> >> "untrusted".
>
> >>
>
> >> Of course, I don't confuse the page with the person.
>
> > Oy vey!! Bill - Don't go to my web page anymore. Do me a favor and e-mail me your IP address and I will physically block you from accessing it again and save you the accidental trouble of stopping by.
>
> If you block me, I can't help you keep your page "clean". It seems
>
> like people running web pages like you are ought to be policed. I
>
> didn't charge you anything for the help I gave you tonight.

Yep. Knucklehead.

-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Just a thought, but your videos have ads. Assuming the ads are generated
> by a third party, they might be bringing their own dance partners to the
> party.

Of course that is the case. Bill is just being exceedingly silly/foolish
about this.

Cookies are cookies, there is really no difference between first party and
third party cookies except who left them. Some cookies are left as a matter
of course by a visit to a website that has ads by the advertisers
themselves, not by direct action of the website owner.These "third party"
cookies can be blocked by the user in most browsers, or by add-ons.
Although they are basically benign for all practical purposes, they are
used for tracking as it is possible for the advertiser to use its
"third-party" cookie to identify a visit as you move from one site with its
ads to another site with its ads.

It is up to Bill to wise up and learn to protect himself on the Internet,
not Brian. Neither Momma, nor government, can't take care of you forever.
Inform yourself, quit blaming others, and learn to protect yourself.

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Part 1:
>
> > http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >
>
> > Part 2:
>
> > http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >
>
> > Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
>
>
> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> on(why?)

Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> >>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>
> >>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>
> >>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> >>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>
> >>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>
> >>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>
> >>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>
> >>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>
> >>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>
> >>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>
> >>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>
> >>
>
> >> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>
> > Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>
> >
>
> > Paste the url here.
>
> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.

Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23:34 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/27/13 10:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>
> >>
>
> >>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Paste the url here.
>
> >>
>
> >> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>
> >
>
> > Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Just a thought, but your videos have ads. Assuming the ads are generated
>
> by a third party, they might be bringing their own dance partners to the
>
> party.


I don't think BlipTV has any association with Google (per his link he accused me of directing people to). BlipTV and Google Ads are competitors, not partners.

>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> -MIKE-
>
>
>
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
>
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
>
> --
>
> http://mikedrums.com
>
> [email protected]
>
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:16:36 AM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
> Part 1: http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all Part 2: http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75 Almost done. Critiques welcomed.

Videos are nice for How-to's but it seems like too much work (for me) to watch 2 videos to see a current project. A couple pics might be a better medium. I am not sure if I am typical but that is my input.

>I wish I had your confidence in knowing that there is nothing I could lear=
n by watching a woodworking video that would make it worth watching.... Act=
ually I'm not sure if you are projecting confidence, being foolish or both.=
Cheers!

I have seen that you have a passion to teach and that is laudable. However,=
this seemed to say "I have a new project tell me what you think". You aske=
d for critique. As is quite comon the critique was not on the specifc item =
you requested but critique non-the-less.

Also, personal preference, I really don't like watching videos unless there=
is some specifc thing that can't be shown any other way. It is usually the=
case that the vidoe takes 10 minutes to describe something that one pictur=
e and a few words could have accomplished in a few seconds. They usually al=
so leave all the sound from the power machinery which is really annoying.

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23:26 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>
> >>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>
> >>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>
> >>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>
> >>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>
> >>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>
> >>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>
> >>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>
> >>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>
> >>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>
> >>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>
> >>> Paste the url here.
>
> >> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>
> > Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.
>
>
>
> Sorryto say it, but your "policy"speaks for itself. I marked the page
>
> "untrusted".
>
> Of course, I don't confuse the page with the person.

Oy vey!! Bill - Don't go to my web page anymore. Do me a favor and e-mail me your IP address and I will physically block you from accessing it again and save you the accidental trouble of stopping by.

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:38:41 PM UTC-5, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:16:36 AM UTC-8, [email protected]=
om wrote:
>=20
> > Part 1: http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=3Dv74&category=
=3Dall Part 2: http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=3D75 Almost d=
one. Critiques welcomed.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Videos are nice for How-to's but it seems like too much work (for me) to =
watch 2 videos to see a current project. A couple pics might be a better me=
dium. I am not sure if I am typical but that is my input.

I wish I had your confidence in knowing that there is nothing I could learn=
by watching a woodworking video that would make it worth watching. I love=
woodworking and soak up anything I can and make judgment calls along the w=
ay. I can't get enough sawdust related info.

Actually I'm not sure if you are projecting confidence, being foolish or bo=
th.=20

Cheers!

On 2/27/2013 8:14 PM, Mike M wrote:

>
> Looks good Brian, using Firefox there is an addon called no script
> which lets you select what sites can run script. It's amazing how
> many sites just don't work with out java. It is nice to only turn on
> as much as you need to.
>
> Mike M
>

Do you mean Java or JavaScript? I haven't had Java installed for a
couple of years and have yet to hit a site that doesn't work because it
is missing. JavaScript on the other hand is all over the place. The
bill pay system on every bank I have used uses JavaScript. The local
utilities use JavaScript to present your bill online.

Many companies use Java for their intranet apps. From what I have read,
that was the original intent for Java. I know the intranet where I used
to work was eat up with it.

Mike

On 2/28/2013 10:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed
>>> them.
>>
>> What an ignorant, bullshit attitude and remark ... what fucking planet
>> you been living on?
>
> I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to rant. I made no value judgement,
> just stated a simple fact.

Why? Because you made an accusatory, smug declaration, as "fact", and
which contains NO basis in "fact" whatsoever.

The "fact" is that it is the client side execution of a script is what
ALLOWED those "ads to be served by a third party" to the web browser in
question.

Brian himself said there are no Google ads, another "fact" which you
clearly assumed?

Brian serves a banquet, from caviar (video content with value), to
conversation (comment section).

There is also a ham sandwich available ... but no one is forcing you to
eat the ham sandwich but ignorance of the "fact" that Brian is not
forcing you to.

That is a "fact" ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

[email protected] writes:
>On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:

>>
>> > Paste the url here.
>>
>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>
>Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.

Trim your posts, please.

When I went to your homepage, I was served a selection of adverts on the right hand side.
(Mainly for woodworking mags). Since I don't have the ability to view videos here, I
didn't bother to try your videos.

If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed
them.

scott

On 2/28/2013 9:25 AM, Bill wrote:
> On 2/28/2013 9:48 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's
>>> because you've allowed
>>> them.
>>
>> What an ignorant, bullshit attitude and remark ... what fucking planet
>> you been living on?
>>
>> Of course most websites with blogs these days ALLOW, and for heaven's
>> sake, ENCOURAGE, advertisers <gasp> ... especially those who produce
>> and/or stream video.
>>
>> Bandwidth cost money, and monetizing a site, via advertising ... in case
>> that is something besides unmitigated ignorance you're exhibiting above
>> ... is an everyday occurrence on the Internet these days
>>
>> Get a fucking clue, Bubba ... or No more Amazon, Lee Valley, Rockler,
>> YouTube, or any other modern website/blog for you.
>>
>
> Sounds like one of your feet is liberal (little regard for privacy) and
> the other is conservative (show me the money). As usual, I guess, the
> right answer lies in between.

Ignorance is no excuse ... in that regard, and in a nutshell, and
without getting too technical:

Websites/blogs do NOT, as a rule, keep the advertiser's "media"
(image/photo/banner adverts/etc) on their servers.

Scripts served up (which your browser ALLOWS, then executes, usually by
default), by the website/blogs you visit, contain links to the
ADVERTISER'S domain, on the advertiser's server.

That media (image/photo/banner ad/etc) is served up, by request (by an
http "get" in the ADVERTISER'S script when it is executed, client side,
which you ALLOW, or not), to _your_ web browser when you visit the
website/blog containing the adverts.

It is when that Advertiser's image/photo/banner ad/whatever is served up
on your screen (at the request of YOUR browser with that http "Get" in
the script, and that _you_ ALLOWED to be executed, client side) that the
"third party" cookie is also left.

So, in effect, it is YOUR browser _requesting (AND ALLOWING)_ the media
offered by the ADVERTISER (including executing the client side scripts
containing the links to advertisers domains), so you can view it on your
monitor.

Again, if you don't want the scripts and cookies, disable the scripts
from being executed on your (client) side, and the disable the ability
to leave the cookies, in _your_ browser, and live with any consequences,
if that is what YOU chose.

It is the way the "world wide web" works ... you either live with it and
learn to do so at your convenience; don't use it; or be subjected, like
a sheep, to the manipulation of others.

Your choice ... labels like "liberal", "conservative" or otherwise are
merely foolish contrivances which serve NO purpose in this regard.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > [email protected] writes:
>
> >> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Part 1:
>
> >>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >>>> Part 2:
>
> >>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> >>>
>
> >>> on(why?)
>
> >> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>
> > Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> >
>
> > Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>
>
>
> This must be the varmint here!
>
> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js

What is that? And how is this relevant?

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> >>>>> [email protected] writes:
>
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Part 1:
>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> >>>>>>>> Part 2:
>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> >>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>
> >>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>
> >>>>>>> on(why?)
>
> >>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>
> >>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> >>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>
> >>>> This must be the varmint here!
>
> >>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>
> >>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>
> >>
>
> >> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>
> >>
>
> >> I'll double-check if you want.
>
> > That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>
>
>
> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>
> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".

Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?

Paste the url here.

On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:56:39 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> On 2/27/2013 10:16 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> > Part 1:
>=20
> > http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=3Dv74&category=3Dall
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Part 2:
>=20
> > http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=3D75
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>=20
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I think a dust collector might make the shop look more tidy. AND get=20

YES! I do desperately need a dust collector. My biggest fear is getting n=
asal cancer. I saw a guy a few years back in a Dairy Queen who lost half h=
is nose cancer and was wearing a prosthetic. He said he use to drive a tru=
ck that was filled with sawdust or contained saw dusty items (can't remembe=
r). I always think of that guy when I get the slightest nose irritation af=
ter woodworking.

>=20
> one of these,
>=20
>=20
>=20
> http://www.woodcraft.com/product/2085016/38913/silicone-glue-brush-1.aspx

I don't know about that. I like to just bend down and pick up a piece of s=
crap for a glue spreader; they are easy to find in my shop :)

>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I just switched from an acid brush and am not looking back. These=20
>=20
> brushes will hold quite a bit of glue and are a snap to clean before or=
=20
>=20
> after the glue dries.

Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed
>> them.
>
>What an ignorant, bullshit attitude and remark ... what fucking planet
>you been living on?

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to rant. I made no value judgement,
just stated a simple fact.

I do recall Brian once stating that he didn't use third-party ads, when he first started
posting his webpage to this newsgroup.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:38:04 -0600, Swingman wrote:

> On 2/28/2013 9:25 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On 2/28/2013 9:48 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's
>>>> because you've allowed
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> What an ignorant, bullshit attitude and remark ... what fucking planet
>>> you been living on?
>>>
>>> Of course most websites with blogs these days ALLOW, and for heaven's
>>> sake, ENCOURAGE, advertisers <gasp> ... especially those who produce
>>> and/or stream video.
>>>
>>> Bandwidth cost money, and monetizing a site, via advertising ... in case
>>> that is something besides unmitigated ignorance you're exhibiting above
>>> ... is an everyday occurrence on the Internet these days
>>>
>>> Get a fucking clue, Bubba ... or No more Amazon, Lee Valley, Rockler,
>>> YouTube, or any other modern website/blog for you.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like one of your feet is liberal (little regard for privacy) and
>> the other is conservative (show me the money). As usual, I guess, the
>> right answer lies in between.
>
> Ignorance is no excuse ... in that regard, and in a nutshell, and
> without getting too technical:
>
> Websites/blogs do NOT, as a rule, keep the advertiser's "media"
> (image/photo/banner adverts/etc) on their servers.
>
> Scripts served up (which your browser ALLOWS, then executes, usually by
> default), by the website/blogs you visit, contain links to the
> ADVERTISER'S domain, on the advertiser's server.
>
> That media (image/photo/banner ad/etc) is served up, by request (by an
> http "get" in the ADVERTISER'S script when it is executed, client side,
> which you ALLOW, or not), to _your_ web browser when you visit the
> website/blog containing the adverts.
>
> It is when that Advertiser's image/photo/banner ad/whatever is served up
> on your screen (at the request of YOUR browser with that http "Get" in
> the script, and that _you_ ALLOWED to be executed, client side) that the
> "third party" cookie is also left.
>
> So, in effect, it is YOUR browser _requesting (AND ALLOWING)_ the media
> offered by the ADVERTISER (including executing the client side scripts
> containing the links to advertisers domains), so you can view it on your
> monitor.
>
> Again, if you don't want the scripts and cookies, disable the scripts
> from being executed on your (client) side, and the disable the ability
> to leave the cookies, in _your_ browser, and live with any consequences,
> if that is what YOU chose.
>
> It is the way the "world wide web" works ... you either live with it and
> learn to do so at your convenience; don't use it; or be subjected, like
> a sheep, to the manipulation of others.
>
> Your choice ... labels like "liberal", "conservative" or otherwise are
> merely foolish contrivances which serve NO purpose in this regard.

+1

It is entirely up to the end user to allow or disallow any content,
and whether or not to tolerate the lack of functionality attached
to that content.
Websites can't "make" you do or accept anything.

basilisk

On 2/28/2013 7:28 PM, Swingman wrote:
> normally if someone uploads copyrighted content to a site the owner of
> the site is not liable for a breach of copyright, and actually has
> immunity under the DCMA.

DMCA, not DCMA, sorry ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

[email protected] wrote:
> Part 1:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> Part 2:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.

I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
on(why?)

[email protected] wrote:
>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>
>>
>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>
>> on(why?)
> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.

Since you put it that way, as a web page publisher, what are you doing
on your end to ensure the security of your visitors? My guess is that
"it's too much work" for you to do anything at all.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Part 1:
>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>> Part 2:
>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>
>>> on(why?)
>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
> Was the pejorative necessary?
>
> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.

This must be the varmint here!
...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js

Bill wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>
>>>> on(why?)
>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for
>>> the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>
>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will
>> reduce your advertising income.
>
> This must be the varmint here!
> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js

Near as I can tell, the webpage will leave 2 cookies on your machine as
well.He must have forgot to mention that.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>> on(why?)
>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>
>>
>> This must be the varmint here!
>>
>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
> What is that? And how is this relevant?

My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
I'll double-check if you want.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>> on(why?)
>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>
>>
>> This must be the varmint here!
>>
>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
> What is that? And how is this relevant?
I see you changed your page. It's not even taking cookies now.

As you invited us to your webpage. You made it's content relevant.
Posting "your policies" in the form of a php script seems like rubbish
(to me)!

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>>>> on(why?)
>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>>
>>
>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>>
>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>>
>> I'll double-check if you want.
> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.

I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040209030502010703060605
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be
>>>>>> turned
>>>>>> on(why?)
>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for
>>>>> the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will
>>>> reduce your advertising income.
>>>
>>>
>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>>
>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
> I see you changed your page. It's not even taking cookies now.
>
> As you invited us to your webpage. You made it's content relevant.
> Posting "your policies" in the form of a php script seems like rubbish
> (to me)!
>
>

Here is the GarageWoodworks policy, for anyone who wants to read it:


*GARAGEWOODWORKS WEBSITE DISCLAIMER*

For the purposes of this disclaimer detailed below, "you" refers to the
reader/visitor/viewer of this website (gargewoodworks.com).

*No warranties*

This website is provided "as is" without any representations or
warranties, express or implied. GarageWoodworks and Brian Grella make no
representations or warranties in relation to this website or the
information and materials provided on this website.

Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph,
GarageWoodworks or Brian Grella do not warrant that:

* this website will be constantly available, or available at all; or
* the information on this website is complete, true, accurate or
non-misleading.

*Limitations of liability*

GarageWoodworks or Brian Grella will not be liable to you (whether under
the law of contact, the law of torts or otherwise) in relation to the
contents of, or use of, or otherwise in connection with, this website:

* for any indirect, special or consequential loss; or
* for any business losses, loss of revenue, income, profits or
anticipated savings, loss of contracts or business relationships,
loss of reputation or goodwill, or loss or corruption of information
or data.

These limitations of liability apply even if GarageWoodworks or Brian
Grella has been expressly advised of the potential loss.

You agree that you will not bring any claim personally against
GarageWoodworks or Brian Grella in respect of any losses you suffer in
connection with the website.

You agree to indemnify and hold harmless GarageWoodworks.com or Brian
Grella from and against any personal injury, damages, costs and
expenses, including any legal fees, potentially resulting from the
application of any of the information provided by GarageWoodworks.com or
Brian Grella. This disclaimer applies to any damages or injury caused by
any failure of performance, error, omission, interruption, deletion,
defect, delay in operation or transmission, computer virus,
communication line failure, theft or destruction or unauthorized access
to, or use of record, whether for breach of contract, tort, negligence,
or under any other cause of action.

*Reasonableness*

By using this website, you agree that the exclusions and limitations of
liability set out in this website disclaimer are reasonable.

If you do not think they are reasonable, you must not use this website.

*Unenforceable provisions*

If any provision of this website disclaimer is, or is found to be,
unenforceable under applicable law, that will not affect the
enforceability of the other provisions of this website disclaimer.

*This website disclaimer*

Some of this website disclaimer is based on a precedent created by
template-contracts.co.uk <http://www.template-contracts.co.uk/> and
published by freenetlaw.com <http://www.freenetlaw.com/>




--------------040209030502010703060605
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#99FF99" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Bill wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:[email protected]" type="cite"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM
UTC-5, Bill wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Scott Lurndal wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> writes:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Wednesday, February 27, 2013
12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Part 1:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&amp;category=all">http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&amp;category=all</a>
<br>
Part 2:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75">http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75</a>
<br>
Almost done.&nbsp; Critiques welcomed.
<br>
</blockquote>
I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript
to be turned
<br>
on(why?)
<br>
</blockquote>
Because the page uses javascript.&nbsp; It's too much work to
code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
<br>
</blockquote>
Was the pejorative necessary?
<br>
Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and
will reduce your advertising income.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
This must be the varmint here!
<br>
<br>
...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
<br>
</blockquote>
What is that?&nbsp; And how is this relevant?
<br>
</blockquote>
I see you changed your page. It's not even taking cookies now.
<br>
<br>
As you invited us to your webpage.&nbsp; You made it's content
relevant.
<br>
Posting "your policies" in the form of a php script seems like
rubbish (to me)!
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Here is the GarageWoodworks policy, for anyone who wants to read it:<br>
<br>
<br>
<center><strong>GARAGEWOODWORKS WEBSITE DISCLAIMER</strong></center>
<p>For the purposes of this disclaimer detailed below, "you" refers
to the reader/visitor/viewer of this website (gargewoodworks.com).
</p>
<p><strong>No warranties</strong></p>
<p>This website is provided &#8220;as is&#8221; without any representations or
warranties, express or implied. GarageWoodworks and Brian Grella
make no representations or warranties in relation to this website
or the information and materials provided on this website. </p>
<p>Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph,
GarageWoodworks or Brian Grella do not warrant that:</p>
<ul>
<li> this website will be constantly available, or available at
all; or</li>
<li> the information on this website is complete, true, accurate
or non-misleading.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Limitations of liability</strong></p>
<p>GarageWoodworks or Brian Grella will not be liable to you
(whether under the law of contact, the law of torts or otherwise)
in relation to the contents of, or use of, or otherwise in
connection with, this website:</p>
<ul>
<li> for any indirect, special or consequential loss; or</li>
<li> for any business losses, loss of revenue, income, profits or
anticipated savings, loss of contracts or business
relationships, loss of reputation or goodwill, or loss or
corruption of information or data.</li>
</ul>
<p>These limitations of liability apply even if GarageWoodworks or
Brian Grella has been expressly advised of the potential loss.</p>
<p>You agree that you will not bring any claim personally against
GarageWoodworks or Brian Grella in respect of any losses you
suffer in connection with the website.</p>
<p>You agree to indemnify and hold harmless GarageWoodworks.com or
Brian Grella from and against any personal injury, damages, costs
and expenses, including any legal fees, potentially resulting from
the application of any of the information provided by
GarageWoodworks.com or Brian Grella. This disclaimer applies to
any damages or injury caused by any failure of performance, error,
omission, interruption, deletion, defect, delay in operation or
transmission, computer virus, communication line failure, theft or
destruction or unauthorized access to, or use of record, whether
for breach of contract, tort, negligence, or under any other cause
of action.</p>
<p><strong>Reasonableness</strong></p>
<p>By using this website, you agree that the exclusions and
limitations of liability set out in this website disclaimer are
reasonable. </p>
<p>If you do not think they are reasonable, you must not use this
website. </p>
<p><strong>Unenforceable provisions</strong></p>
<p>If any provision of this website disclaimer is, or is found to
be, unenforceable under applicable law, that will not affect the
enforceability of the other provisions of this website disclaimer.</p>
<p><strong>This website disclaimer</strong></p>
<p>Some of this website disclaimer is based on a precedent created
by <a href="http://www.template-contracts.co.uk/">template-contracts.co.uk</a>
and published by <a href="http://www.freenetlaw.com/">freenetlaw.com</a></p>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------040209030502010703060605--

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>>
>>
>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>>
>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>
> Paste the url here.
You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.

On 2/27/13 10:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>
>>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>
>>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>>
>>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>>
>>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>>
>>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>>
>>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>>
>>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>>
>>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Paste the url here.
>>
>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>
> Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.
>

Just a thought, but your videos have ads. Assuming the ads are generated
by a third party, they might be bringing their own dance partners to the
party.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>>> Paste the url here.
>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
> Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.

I see you removed your BlipTV stuff from your page (why???). Maybe it
got ajaxed from there. If you'll look through several years
of my posts, you'll see I'm not a fabricator.//If BlipTV is not to be
trusted, maybe you owe the group an apology--even if you feel you
are adequately protected by your policy.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>>> Paste the url here.
>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
> Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.

Sorryto say it, but your "policy"speaks for itself. I marked the page
"untrusted".
Of course, I don't confuse the page with the person.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23:34 PM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 2/27/13 10:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>>>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>>>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>>>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>>>>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>>>>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>>>>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>>>>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>>>>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>>>>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>>>>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>>>>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>>>>> Paste the url here.
>>>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>>> Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.
>>
>>
>> Just a thought, but your videos have ads. Assuming the ads are generated
>>
>> by a third party, they might be bringing their own dance partners to the
>>
>> party.
>
> I don't think BlipTV has any association with Google (per his link he accused me of directing people to). BlipTV and Google Ads are competitors, not partners.

Replace your BlipTV code and I'll check my browser for the link again
(or you can do the same)...

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> -MIKE-
>>
>>
>>
>> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
>>
>> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
>>
>> --
>>
>> http://mikedrums.com
>>
>> [email protected]
>>
>> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23:26 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>>>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>>>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>>>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>>>>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>>>>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>>>>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>>>>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>>>>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>>>>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>>>>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>>>>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>>>>> Paste the url here.
>>>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>>> Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.
>>
>>
>> Sorryto say it, but your "policy"speaks for itself. I marked the page
>>
>> "untrusted".
>>
>> Of course, I don't confuse the page with the person.
> Oy vey!! Bill - Don't go to my web page anymore. Do me a favor and e-mail me your IP address and I will physically block you from accessing it again and save you the accidental trouble of stopping by.

Don't get mad at the messenger for the message. Instead of saying "it's
too much work", work on being responsible! Maybe if you rewrite your
"not responsible for a damn thing" policy, it will motivate you!

Bill

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23:26 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:06:07 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:22:25 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:00:41 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on(why?)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.
>>>>>>>>>>> Was the pejorative necessary?
>>>>>>>>>>> Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.
>>>>>>>>>> This must be the varmint here!
>>>>>>>>>> ...http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/show_afd_ads.js
>>>>>>>>> What is that? And how is this relevant?
>>>>>>>> My browser downloaded it from your website. I just didn't run it. I
>>>>>>>> couldn't make stuff like that up! : )
>>>>>>>> I'll double-check if you want.
>>>>>>> That file does not exist on my website. And the link you posted is not my website. Nor do I refer any user to the link you posted.
>>>>>> I'm suspect it just got "ajax'ed" in. I am not an expert (that's why
>>>>>> I'm careful). Blame Mozilla; I just chose "View Page Info".
>>>>> Which page of mine did you "View Page Info" on where that link appears?
>>>>> Paste the url here.
>>>> You've changed your page tonight. It's not there now.
>>> Please! It never was there. You are living up to my original thoughts of you up in the thread.
>>
>>
>> Sorryto say it, but your "policy"speaks for itself. I marked the page
>>
>> "untrusted".
>>
>> Of course, I don't confuse the page with the person.
> Oy vey!! Bill - Don't go to my web page anymore. Do me a favor and e-mail me your IP address and I will physically block you from accessing it again and save you the accidental trouble of stopping by.
If you block me, I can't help you keep your page "clean". It seems
like people running web pages like you are ought to be policed. I
didn't charge you anything for the help I gave you tonight.

On 2/28/2013 6:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Just a thought, but your videos have ads. Assuming the ads are generated
>> by a third party, they might be bringing their own dance partners to the
>> party.
>
> Of course that is the case. Bill is just being exceedingly silly/foolish
> about this.
>
> Cookies are cookies, there is really no difference between first party and
> third party cookies except who left them. Some cookies are left as a matter
> of course by a visit to a website that has ads by the advertisers
> themselves, not by direct action of the website owner.These "third party"
> cookies can be blocked by the user in most browsers, or by add-ons.
> Although they are basically benign for all practical purposes, they are
> used for tracking as it is possible for the advertiser to use its
> "third-party" cookie to identify a visit as you move from one site with its
> ads to another site with its ads.
>
> It is up to Bill to wise up and learn to protect himself on the Internet,
> not Brian. Neither Momma, nor government, can't take care of you forever.
> Inform yourself, quit blaming others, and learn to protect yourself.
>

It was revealed however that Brian is not familiar with all of the
technology (scripts) that he was using at this web site, and that it was
"too much work" for him to care. That culminates my public service
announcement.

On 2/28/2013 7:35 AM, Bill wrote:
> On 2/28/2013 6:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a thought, but your videos have ads. Assuming the ads are generated
>>> by a third party, they might be bringing their own dance partners to the
>>> party.
>>
>> Of course that is the case. Bill is just being exceedingly silly/foolish
>> about this.
>>
>> Cookies are cookies, there is really no difference between first party
>> and
>> third party cookies except who left them. Some cookies are left as a
>> matter
>> of course by a visit to a website that has ads by the advertisers
>> themselves, not by direct action of the website owner.These "third party"
>> cookies can be blocked by the user in most browsers, or by add-ons.
>> Although they are basically benign for all practical purposes, they are
>> used for tracking as it is possible for the advertiser to use its
>> "third-party" cookie to identify a visit as you move from one site
>> with its
>> ads to another site with its ads.
>>
>> It is up to Bill to wise up and learn to protect himself on the Internet,
>> not Brian. Neither Momma, nor government, can't take care of you forever.
>> Inform yourself, quit blaming others, and learn to protect yourself.
>>
>
> It was revealed however that Brian is not familiar with all of the
> technology (scripts) that he was using at this web site, and that it was
> "too much work" for him to care. That culminates my public service
> announcement.

I mean terminates, not "culminates".

On 2/28/2013 9:48 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's
>> because you've allowed
>> them.
>
> What an ignorant, bullshit attitude and remark ... what fucking planet
> you been living on?
>
> Of course most websites with blogs these days ALLOW, and for heaven's
> sake, ENCOURAGE, advertisers <gasp> ... especially those who produce
> and/or stream video.
>
> Bandwidth cost money, and monetizing a site, via advertising ... in case
> that is something besides unmitigated ignorance you're exhibiting above
> ... is an everyday occurrence on the Internet these days
>
> Get a fucking clue, Bubba ... or No more Amazon, Lee Valley, Rockler,
> YouTube, or any other modern website/blog for you.
>

Sounds like one of your feet is liberal (little regard for privacy) and
the other is conservative (show me the money). As usual, I guess, the
right answer lies in between.

Bill

On 2/28/2013 12:07 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 2/28/2013 10:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> There is also a ham sandwich available ... but no one is forcing you to
> eat the ham sandwich but ignorance of the "fact" that Brian is not
> forcing you to.
>
> That is a "fact" ...
>

Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to
digest that! ; )

I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform!

Bill

Swingman wrote:
>
>> Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to
>> digest that! ; )
>>
>> I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform!
>
> LOL ... sound as if you mean it, Bill! :)
I wasn't even sure I understood the verbage I was replying to above, and
even less so once I posted.
However, I still apprecriate the efforts anyone makes to inform/explain,
unless they are clueless (I'm
censoring myself).


>
> BTW, Scott "wrote" none of the above ... he will likely not appreciate
> the attribution. ;)

Well, he was arguing for the side of the issue I was on at one point,
and I appreciated his help.
I'll apologize to him for for anything he "doesn't appreciate"!

I sort of hate to bring it up, but if anyone publishes content of a 3rd
party, then they are reponsible for
it's content if they are familiar with it--and I think they have a duty
to become familiar with it with the
passage of time. The publisher ought not to be able to say, "Well, my
head was in the sand" and over
there I wrote that I am "not responsible". At least, I suspect that a
court would rule that way if real damages
were incurred.

Bill

Swingman wrote:
>
> If you paid attention, many of the videos on YouTube of the meteorite
> taken in dashboard camera's in Russian's cars were taken down because
> of the few seconds of copyrighted music that was playing on the car
> radio when the video was taken during the meteorite's imminent crash.
>
> Although that is not Fair Use, it does illustrate just how ridiculous,
> and assinine the copyright situation has gotten.
>
I missed that one. It's difficult to legislate against incentives that
people have...we live in a world of "angle-shooters"--people who seek to
find
paths around rules prescribed by others. It may make more sense to look
at the "economics" involved if one wishes to predict how things are
going to play-out, instead of the rules.

Bill

On 2/28/2013 6:18 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to
>>> digest that! ; )
>>>
>>> I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform!
>>
>> LOL ... sound as if you mean it, Bill! :)
> I wasn't even sure I understood the verbage I was replying to above, and
> even less so once I posted.
> However, I still apprecriate the efforts anyone makes to inform/explain,
> unless they are clueless (I'm
> censoring myself).
>
>
>>
>> BTW, Scott "wrote" none of the above ... he will likely not appreciate
>> the attribution. ;)
>
> Well, he was arguing for the side of the issue I was on at one point,
> and I appreciated his help.
> I'll apologize to him for for anything he "doesn't appreciate"!
>
> I sort of hate to bring it up, but if anyone publishes content of a 3rd
> party, then they are reponsible for
> it's content if they are familiar with it--and I think they have a duty
> to become familiar with it with the
> passage of time. The publisher ought not to be able to say, "Well, my
> head was in the sand" and over
> there I wrote that I am "not responsible". At least, I suspect that a
> court would rule that way if real damages
> were incurred.

If I understand you correctly.

Unless there has been a recent change (and this stuff changes at the
whim of the DOJ, the toadies at the MPAA and RIAA, and the congressman
they have bought at the moment) but no ... normally if someone uploads
copyrighted content to a site the owner of the site is not liable for a
breach of copyright, and actually has immunity under the DCMA.

Under the DCMA, there are provisions where the copyright owner can issue
a Takedown Notice to the ISP and/or website, and the ISP or website must
respond or lose their immunity under the DCMA.

There are specific procedures for doing that, but it is still abused
quite often by copyright owners mistakenly confusing their copyrights
with the concept of Fair Use.

If you paid attention, many of the videos on YouTube of the meteorite
taken in dashboard camera's in Russian's cars were taken down because of
the few seconds of copyrighted music that was playing on the car radio
when the video was taken during the meteorite's imminent crash.

Although that is not Fair Use, it does illustrate just how ridiculous,
and assinine the copyright situation has gotten.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

[email protected] writes:
>On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:52:00 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > Part 1:
>>
>> > http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Part 2:
>>
>> > http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>>
>>
>>
>> I couldn't read it because your page requires Javascript to be turned
>>
>> on(why?)
>
>Because the page uses javascript. It's too much work to code for the few knuckleheads that have it turned off.

Was the pejorative necessary?

Denigrating a potential audience is counter-productive, and will reduce your advertising income.

On 2/27/2013 10:16 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Part 1:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=v74&category=all
>
> Part 2:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/video.php?video=75
>
> Almost done. Critiques welcomed.
>

I think a dust collector might make the shop look more tidy. AND get
one of these,

http://www.woodcraft.com/product/2085016/38913/silicone-glue-brush-1.aspx


I just switched from an acid brush and am not looking back. These
brushes will hold quite a bit of glue and are a snap to clean before or
after the glue dries.

On 2/28/2013 8:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> If those ads were served by a third party (e.g. google ads), then it's because you've allowed
> them.

What an ignorant, bullshit attitude and remark ... what fucking planet
you been living on?

Of course most websites with blogs these days ALLOW, and for heaven's
sake, ENCOURAGE, advertisers <gasp> ... especially those who produce
and/or stream video.

Bandwidth cost money, and monetizing a site, via advertising ... in case
that is something besides unmitigated ignorance you're exhibiting above
... is an everyday occurrence on the Internet these days

Get a fucking clue, Bubba ... or No more Amazon, Lee Valley, Rockler,
YouTube, or any other modern website/blog for you.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/28/2013 11:32 AM, Bill wrote:
> On 2/28/2013 12:07 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 2/28/2013 10:25 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> There is also a ham sandwich available ... but no one is forcing you to
>> eat the ham sandwich but ignorance of the "fact" that Brian is not
>> forcing you to.
>>
>> That is a "fact" ...
>>
>
> Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to
> digest that! ; )
>
> I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform!

LOL ... sound as if you mean it, Bill! :)

BTW, Scott "wrote" none of the above ... he will likely not appreciate
the attribution. ;)


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)