/nIn vTmkB66N, Diesel
wrote:

I've never actually used it. Noscript serves me well for most ad
blocking needs, although it's not specifically designed for that
single purpose.

There are two different philosophies at work here, and quite a few great
tools that almost everyone loves.

It's clear that many people love AdBlock freeware - that's a given.
It's also clear that many people love NoScript (yesscript included).

For the use model that most people employ, both are great.

But for *my* use model, both suck.

My use model is to use one browser for each task I do on the net, where
each browser is specifically set up for that one task. This has advantages,
but it also comes with disadvantages.

I have more browsers than almost any of you!

My entire Windows system is well organized and philosophically it keeps to
the KISS principle, one of whose tenets is that you try not to do anything
twice.

For that reason (among others) I *never* use browser plugins or addons
(some of which are privacy issues anyway).

In the past, I futzed with NoScript and all the related tools ad infinitum,
but I gave up. The simplest thing to do was just have a browser set up with
Java and another browser set up without java and then only use the one that
I had to use for the application.

Anyway, this is a long-winded explanation of why NoScript and AdBlock isn't
in the cards for my use model - but they're great tools for other use
models.

We are trying to improve our tribal knowledge here.
You are trying to detract from that with your trolling of useless
drivel.

You've been a usenetter for a very long time, I suspect you may
infact predate me by a decade or more. That being said, you should
know that your post however well intended has most likely fallen on
deaf ears.

In what I call the "bandying about" use model, it's not worth any effort to
shut down the trolls because the trolls, like a cancer, once they infest a
thread, have already killed it (they kill it the moment they see it).

You can't beat the trolls simply because they use the same tactics that
cancers use.

So for the "coffee shop banter" model of Usenet, where you really don't
care all that much about the thread, just ignoring the trolls causes them
to attempt to get fed somewhere else.

However ... I don't use the coffee-shop banter Usenet model.
I actually CARE about getting an answer in any given thread.

Hence, I try to shut down the cancer as soon as it happens, although, as I
noted, since they use a base method of destroying the thread, they will
always win whether you try to get rid of the troll cancer or not.

It's the nature of that troll, John Doe, to ruin a thread.
Why do they do that?
I don't know why - but we all know that these trolls thrive on being the
cancer of Usenet.