On 4/21/2022 1:21 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2022 at 6:17:43 AM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <2ZGdndOvkPAlNv3_nZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> > In article <atropos-0ADAC1.11113920042022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> > <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <200420220923388655%nope@noway.com>,
>>> >> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> In article <t3or2o$f3u$6@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>>> >>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Apr 19, 2022 at 7:41:32 AM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>> As per the subject line, two wokesters in Scottsdale AZ denounced a
>>> >>>>>>> DJ
>>> >>>>>>> hired for a local event because they insisted he was wearing
>>> >>>>>>> blackface
>>> >>>>>>> but he was actually black!
>>> >>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2022/04/18/woke-sp
>>> >>>>>>> ec
>>> >>>>>>> ialists-erupt-over-dj-in-blackface-surprise-hes-really-black-n1590622
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> It's more grift from PJ Media. There's a pitch for sending them money
>>> >>>>>> at the end of the piece. They also mention "the Zuckerbeast." Jeezus.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I just can't take these people seriously.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ad hominem noted.
>>> >>
>>> >>> That's not an "ad hominem," whatever you think that's supposed to mean.
>>> >>> I don't take them seriously because they're not serious. "The
>>> >>> Zuckerbeast"? Really? And the pitch at the end? They're grifters,
>>> >>> and not very good ones at that.
>>> >>
>>> >> How is the pitch at the end any different than the NY Times hijacking my
>>> >> browser when I'm reading an article and throwing a pop-up over the text
>>> >> demanding money if I want to continue reading?
>>> >>
>>> >> No, wait, it *is* different. At least PJ Media lets you read the article
>>> >> and only asks for money at the bottom of the page. The Times (and the
>>> >> Post and the Boston Globe, etc.) won't let you read the article. They
>>> >> time their pitch for money so that you get about two paragraphs in, then
>>> >> lock you out unless you pay the tithe.
>>> >
>>> > Turn off javascript.
>>>
>>> Objection your honor. Non-responsive to the question asked.
>>>
>>> Why is PJ Media a 'grift' for asking for money from its readers but The NY
>>> Times isn't?
>>
>> If you turn off javascript, the paywall doesn't work.
>>
>> Does the NY Times beg for money at the end of its articles?
>
> No, it just hijacks your entire browser to beg for money.

Or, it just says you must pay for its news.

On 4/21/2022 10:20 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <atropos-76E95B.16431021042022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <210420221811443245%nope@noway.com>,
>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <atropos-5B9D4C.14385921042022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <210420221728080990%nope@noway.com>,
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <atropos-324B1E.14043221042022@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <210420221624413077%nope@noway.com>,
>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <ZZidnfZFNfySPfz_nZ2dnUU7-c2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, BTR1701
>>>>>>> <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, if they ask you to pay for their product, that's a grift,
>>>>>>>> don't you see?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly, you don't. They run a "news" story and work in a pitch at
>>>>>>> the end of it. That's "a" grift. It's certainly not journalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL! "Work in a pitch" is somehow different than "hijack browser and
>>>>>> throw you a pitch".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever, dude.
>>>>
>>>>> What the hell are you talking about? Yes, working a pitch into the end
>>>>> of a story is different from hijacking your browser. Glad we got that
>>>>> settled.
>>>>
>>>> I said hijacking the browser was different-- i.e., worse-- from the
>>>> beginning. The fact that you only *now* think that's been settled speaks
>>>> more to your deficits than mine.
>>
>>> Yes, working a pitch into the end of a story you're reading is
>>> different from hijacking your browser, i.e., taking over control of it.
>>
>> Which no one disputed. As I said, I acknowledged it was different--
>> i.e., worse-- from the beginning.
>>
>> You're claiming victory over something that was uncontested.
>>
>> Well done. Fantastic job.
>
>
> I'm still looking for my declaration of victory. It must be around
> here somewhere.

It would be oxymoronic to lose a victory...