On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 18:00:17, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>What I normally ask for is /suggestions/. Maybe something I forgot to take
>into consideration, or something I did not know existed. You know,
>*possibilities*. I can wel do without the "you should not even /want/ to do
>that" responders. :-(
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
That's a bit like "what happened before the big bang?". [I do have some
grasp - through a glass, darkly, as the saying goes - why the question
is indeed invalid, but I like asking it anyway, if only to wind up those
who do understand the subject!]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 14:51:53, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote
(my responses usually FOLLOW):
[]
>I mentioned not wanting to run random scripts as one of just two conditions
>in my initial question/post. I assumed that that would be enough to
>indicate its importance to me. But if you have a suggestion to how to
>express such a thing better, I'm again all ears.
>
>> I'll readily admit that your reference to "random scripts" went right
>> over my head. Was that my fault for not stopping to ponder what you
>> must mean by that, or your fault for expressing your preference obliquely?
>> Most likely both.
>
>:-) There is no way anyone can express himself in such a way that
>/everyone/ will be able to understand it. That is why a question is
>normally the start of a dialog.
>
>I have to ask though : even if the "random" in it was not clear enough for
>you, how come you missed the "no scripts" (in my browser) part ?
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
I suspect your use of "random" was the problem: had you just said "I
don't want to run scripts" (or "any scripts"), the question would have
been clearer. "Random" is in this case somewhat subjective: the web page
authors (or more likely, the authors of the software they used to put
together the web page) knew exactly which scripts they intended you to
run. So they weren't "random" to them. But they were to you.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

John,

> I suspect your use of "random" was the problem: had you just said "I don't
> want to run scripts" (or "any scripts"), the question would have been
> clearer.

And I would have lied.

For one, I've got an add-on named GreaseMonkey (to scrub and generally
reformat webpages) which, you guessed it, uses JS to do its work.

Also, the "random" was quite intentionally - I would have few problems with
a (vetted by me and) locally stored, static script. IOW, I tried to keep
my options open.

> "Random" is in this case somewhat subjective: the web page authors (or
> more likely, the authors of the software they used to put together the web
> page) knew exactly which scripts they intended you to run. So they weren't
> "random" to them.

:-) Are you sure ?

*Any* webpage which has (JS driven) ads on it negates that "I know what my
users are getting" idea. And that means it goes for 98.36% of all webpages
out there (and yes, I plucked that number outof thin air. :-) ).

Same goes for all those JS-driven facebook, twitter and other "social media"
buttons you see everywhere. Definitily not under the control of the page
authors ...

And thats besides the "my JS has got some dependencies, lets load it from
(not controlled by them) somewhere else" ofcourse.

Add to that that most, if not all "page authors" use webpage designing
programs which hide the nitty-gritty from them and I think I can quite
confidently state that not even they know what, in regard to JS, their page
actually does on their users machines.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t3p4tt$lhv$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser wrote...
>
> Philip,
>
> > If you mean that, then a little diplomacy will avoid a lot of
> > unpleasantness, which itself is a distraction from the issue at hand.
>
> If you have a suggestion to how to deal with people who refuse to even read
> the question - or think they can just discard requirements mentioned in it
> because its inconvenient to them - than I'm all ears.
>
> > Most people responding (most of the time) are trying to be helpful.
>
> I've got a different experience. Just take the number of people here who
> just tried to convince me to enable JS in my browser and be done with it.
> Not the kind of "help" I asked for or need.
>
> > That's becoming less common, even among those with the expertise
> > to understand the issues involved, but most people would still readily
> > accept
> > that as a premise for your question - provided it's importance to you is
> > signalled clearly.
>
> I mentioned not wanting to run random scripts as one of just two conditions
> in my initial question/post. I assumed that that would be enough to
> indicate its importance to me. But if you have a suggestion to how to
> express such a thing better, I'm again all ears.
>
> > I'll readily admit that your reference to "random scripts" went right
> > over my head. Was that my fault for not stopping to ponder what you
> > must mean by that, or your fault for expressing your preference obliquely?
> > Most likely both.
>
> :-) There is no way anyone can express himself in such a way that
> /everyone/ will be able to understand it. That is why a question is
> normally the start of a dialog.
>
> I have to ask though : even if the "random" in it was not clear enough for
> you, how come you missed the "no scripts" (in my browser) part ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I think it's a safe bet that most of us scan the posts at speed for anything of
interest, or with which we might be able to assist. Your question was sloppily
written, heavily coloured by your idiosyncratically strong views on running
JavaScript, to the extent that the emphasis was muddied. I did, in an earlier
post, offer a full suggestion of how your question could have been worded to
elicit better targeted replies. Your enquiry touched on something I know more
about than most, so I offered some key details which you'd have to know to
stand any chance of obtaining the information you want to access, however you
wish to attempt it. Instead of clarifying that particular requirement to
anyone like me who happened to miss it, here you are fulminating about all
these fools on Usenet...

No-one here owes you a thing, and you're not a victim. So learn to be nicer
when you ask for help - and that includes being more understanding when people
trying to provide help haven't picked up your intended emphasis quite the way
you assumed.

But you're clearly not going to get this, so that's it from me.

--

Phil, London

Philip,

> Your question was sloppily written, heavily coloured by your
> idiosyncratically strong views on running JavaScript, to the
> extent that the emphasis was muddied.

I see you have a lot to complain about, but have privided nothing in regard
to how to do it better. As such this conversation is also terminated.

Goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:24:04 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
>
> That's a tough one. I found the phone number today for
>a cousin. It was easy because his landline is listed.
>whitepages.com. But I don't think I've ever seen an email
>address listed, except for sites that want you to pay a
>fee. Someone would probably have to be naive enough to post
>their name and email on a webpage somewhere.
>
> But if phone is good enough, you might be able to find that.
>Most of these sites will show up in search. You seach for
>John Q. Public and they list all matches in the US, with
>age and location, as well as guesses at who they're related
>to.
>
I've never had that issue but then I have both a very rare first and
last name. And have been involved in quite a few activities whose
participants end up high in Google searches (a search on my name gives
6+ pages of references all actually me) with the result that I
probably take a different attitude to privacy the many people.

I simply have no expectation of online privacy. This is both a good
thing and a bad thing.....