Religious Fundy has his own crusade against Mozilla Firefox.

I’m browsing through the Techdirt blog this evening and I come across an entry titled On The Stupidity Of Blocking Firefox Users:

Ferin alerts us to a story at Slashdot about some new campaign among some websites to block Firefox users. To be honest, it’s tough to know how real this is. The actual site is down from the Slashdot Effect, and it certainly hadn’t received much attention before. Even if it is real, it seems unlikely that many sites would sign up and take part. Most people just aren’t that stupid. However, assuming (big risk here) that the campaign is real and some sites actually are doing this, it’s worth explaining why it makes no sense. The complaints are basically that Firefox users “spend less” and sometimes use extensions like ad block to block out ads. Even if true (and it’s only a small percentage of people who use ad block), that makes no sense if you understand the bigger picture. First of all, they tell people to go use other browsers—but if those people aren’t going to click on ads anyway, then they’re still not going to click on ads from other browsers.

If you try to go to one of the sites participating in the ban you get redirected to Why FireFox is Blocked.com which lays out the reasoning for the ban:

The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software.  Many site owners therefore install scripts that prevent people using ad blocking software from accessing their site. That is their right as the site owner to insist that the use of their resources accompanies the presence of the ads.

While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus’s unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative. Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers..

Since the makers of Ad Block Plus as well as the filter subscriptions that accompany it refuse to allow website owners control over their own intellectual property, and since FireFox actively endorses Ad Block Plus, the sites linking to this page are now blocking FireFox until the resource theft is stopped.

The site includes links to pages on how to block Firefox, supposed Firefox Myths, and—the one that caught my eye—The Firefox Cult. Now normally I wouldn’t give a shit if a sight blocked me because I was using Firefox as chances are they’re not supplying anything I’d be interested in anyway, but this piqued my curiosity so I read the comments left in the original Techdirt entry and at comment #36 we find out who it is that’s behind this campaign. Turns out it’s some guy by the name of Danny Carlton and he left the following comment:

I’m the “some websites” slashdot refers to. Here are the facts that seem to be omitted.

1. This isn’t a group, it’s one person, me.
2. Ad Block Plus, like many ad blocking software is most commonly used to block all ads. (which is stealing)
3. Unlike other ad blocking software, Ad Block Plus intentionally prevents site owners from blocking those that use it.
4. FireFox actively promotes Ad Block plus
5. Since I am unable to prevent people from stealing resources by blocking only ad block software users, I therefore block all Mozilla users.
6. There are more ways to detect Mozilla than the useragent.
7. Using IETab will allow FireFox users to access my sites. Something I recommend and even link to in the page explaining why I am blocking FireFox (which it seems very few FireFox user have the ability to read past the first few words)
8. By the hate email and phone calls I’ve been getting, some really sick and disturbed people use FireFox and seem to treat it as a religion.

Hmmm. There’s that Firefox-as-religion theme again. Time to do a Google Search for Danny Carlton. He’s the very first result that comes up, though oddly enough it’s for a site called JackLewis.net. Clicking the link in Firefox does bring up the Why Firefox is Blocked page so it’s safe to assume this is one and the same guy and Google verifies it is with a link to a page titled Danny Carlton—alias “Jack Lewis”.

So this is where it gets interesting because the very first thing you’ll notice about his site are the banners proclaiming …as for me and my blog, we will serve the LORD! and I STAND WITH ISRAEL! along with copious ads from various services, including Google AdSense, down the left side of the page. Then the very first entry in his weblog at the time I clicked on it is titled When religion poses as science in which he takes the recent news report about a couple of German physicists who claimed to have broken the speed of light that came out a couple of days ago and uses it as a foundation for a rant against Evolution:

See, that’s the problem when religion (Evolution) poses as science: scientific findings that are contrary to the religion are suppressed, crippling real science. So why weren’t these scientists aware of the 2005 experiments that produced similar results, published here and mentioned here? Why weren’t these scientists aware of the experiments that produced the opposite effect (slowing the velocity of light) published here and mentioned here? Dr. Nimtz seems peculiarly ignorant of other experiments producing results that also pose a serious problem to the religion of Evolution.

One of the “foundational” “proofs” for the overall religion of Evolution is the distances of stars. By claiming stars are so far away, adherents to the religion of Evolution use that as evidence for an old universe. However that falls apart if the speed of light is not an absolute (actually it falls apart for several other reasons, but much more apparently without the assumption of Einstein’s claim about the velocity of light). So research that shows any aberration in the dogma of an absolute speed of light is conveniently ignored, suppressed and tossed aside. Thus we have Dr. Nimtz being oblivious to other, recent findings.

One has to wonder how much science has been crippled by the religion of Evolution.

Suddenly, it all becomes so clear. With logic skills like that it’s no wonder he thinks he has to block all Firefox users. Suddenly I’m very glad that I can’t get to his website using Firefox as the utter stupidity of it all might melt my brain. It’s probably just a coincidence, but poking around his other entries just caused Internet Explorer 7 to crash and I can’t help but wonder if it’s just IE’s usual flakiness or the sheer amount of stupidity present on the site choking the poor browser to death. A few more examples of his line of thinking include Foreign aid to Israel is defense spending and Liberal Jihad. The last of which is a rant about Elizabeth Edwards campaigning for her husband:

There something very cowardly about a candidate sending his cancer-ridden wife out to attack his opponents, knowing they dare not respond too harshly for fear that they’ll be accused of attacking someone suffering. This seems eerily similar to the radical Moslems’ tactic of using children and women as suicide bombers. Exploiting their opponents virtues to render them defenseless.

Is it any wonder John Edwards is now being called “The Other Female Candidate”.

It’s amazing one man can contain so much stupidity without imploding in on himself. One of the buttons along the left-hand side of his blog announces that he’s a 2006 Nominee for the Homeschool Blog Awards in the categories of “Best Homeschool Dad Blog” and “Best Current Events, Opinions or Politics Blog.” Now there’s a ringing endorsement.

This fellow might be a fun one to check in on from time to time, that is if I can keep IE7 from crashing too often while I’m there. The funny thing about that is I’ve never had IE7 crash on a site before. Of course I don’t use it that often either so that may be why, but I suspect it has more to do with the amount of stupid at that site. It’s just too much for the poor thing to take in at once.

17 thoughts on “Religious Fundy has his own crusade against Mozilla Firefox.

  1. I’ve learned a lot about Evolution from this site and the people here.  However, it has been on my mind a lot lately how exactly discoveries in quantum physics impact the other sciences and even the realms of philosophy.  I’ve heard about the discoveries linked to and am curious what impact this does have on the theory/law of evolution?  I can’t imagine Dennett having a satisfactory answer for this.

  2. Even without the star evidence you’ve got the age of Earth’s rocks, and the Deep Field Hubble observations show objects so distant, light would have to travel thousands of times faster to reach Earth on any human timespan.

  3. Theocrat: I’ve heard about the discoveries linked to and am curious what impact this does have on the theory/law of evolution?

    Evolution is a long way down the chain from physics, biology depends on chemistry which is set by quantum physics. As far as genetics is concerned the quantum physics dictates what bond enthalpies are (by what the constants are for electrostatic interaction, and hence the degree of attraction between the positive nuclei and the negative electrons of the bond) and how many bonds something can make (via maximum valency) which is set (in part at least) by the pauli exclusion principle of quantum physics, the conseqences of these are completely assimilated into chemistry (because they dictate chemistry), and on the macroscopic scale all you see is vastly simplified but well obeyed rules of chemistry (such as a C element atom can make 4 bonds and a certain bond would have a certain ballpark amount of energy, with differences arising from what structure you’ve got)

    Because chemical rules dictate the structure of DNA or a potential alternative (such as PNA), what makes it stable (hydrogen bonds between the 2 strands) and the limits on how it copies itself (ie must be the right shape chemical to interact with the strand, and the energy of interaction must make the aproach and do what chemical changes they need to, but able to leave again afterwards

  4. ’ve learned a lot about Evolution from this site and the people here.  However, it has been on my mind a lot lately how exactly discoveries in quantum physics impact the other sciences and even the realms of philosophy.  I’ve heard about the discoveries linked to and am curious what impact this does have on the theory/law of evolution?

    Unless you want to frame the ToE in reductionist terms, the impact is zilch.

  5. What Elwed said. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Quantum Physics. It works regardless of whether or not the speed of light has been exceeded.

  6. Only the mechanism is affected, by needing alternative molecules if the rules supporting chemistry were different. Swings +roundabouts as to how its done (except with diferent chances of mutation and a change in what chemicals the body must supply)

    Beyond chemical mechanism, evolution works the same as a concept, as genetic probability

  7. I guess one of the problems I have with materialist philosophy is they usually don’t qualify the limits of their skepticism.  Their skepticism reaches to science, empiricism and the material world, but they aren’t skeptical enough to make it to solipsism or nihilism.  They stop before they reach those, but they never explain why they stopped or if they do their methods are inconsistent with how they apply that skepticism to other things.

    In regards to this line of thought, I realize Dennett would say generalizing and categorizing is useful and greedy reductionism is not useful.  However that doesn’t deal with the small effects of when quantum level things do those rare obscure things that seem illogical.  Probability deals with the norm and in Chemistry and Biology the norm is determined well enough to come up with a “law” of evolution for example.  But those rare quantum obscurities fall outside of probability and must have some effect.  It may be small or it may be bigger than we think it to be, but it certainly can’t be discounted by the categories and generalizing.  Biology may operate on firmly established laws that are not wholly understood how they connect to the laws of the more basic sciences, but greedy reductionism can’t be brushed aside because of an appeal to probability.  It seems dishonest to not take very seriously those rare instances when events happen outside of probability.  Hopefully that makes sense.

  8. Oh Les, you might also want to get ahold of the maintainer of HPGuru’s HOSTS file. Apparently someone slipped your site into the list and it’s being blocked now – I had to manually remove the entry for stupidevilbastard.com. This is new, as I used it before without issues. Someone hath taken issue with you smile

    And…that anti-Firefox asshole got his server turned into slag by us Slashdot members. It was beautiful 😀

  9. Theocrat, I tried to follow what you were saying and was left scratching my head.

    TheJynxed, thanks for letting me know. I’ve registered with their site and put in a formal request to have SEB removed from their hosts file.

  10. Theocrat – I do want to understand and talk about what you’re saying, but I’m not familiar with some of the technical terms you use, because I don’t tend to officially group concepts that much
    (wikipedia’s explanation is beyond my level of technicality)

    The words I don’t understand are: empiricism, solipsism, nihilism

    I feel I can discuss the science:

    But those rare quantum obscurities fall outside of probability and must have some effect

    I realize quantum mechanics can seem what people would not expect given clasical mechanics not being quantized. Quantum mechanics is not followed illogically or unpredictably, but lacks explanation as to why it is what it is. Classical mechanics is only what you observe on the large scale where quantization is negligible, they don’t contradict because they govern different things

    There is an uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, and I feel it’s important to explain 2 different sides to it (it won’t hurt):

    The typical way of measuring something’s speed is to take 2 photographs of it (as speed cameras do), from the 2 photographs you can determine how far something’s moved in a given period of time. To take these photographs we either shine light or an electron beam on something, the problem is this has energy itself, some of which will be transferred to the object you’re trying to measure, which will change it’s speed. The lighter the object and the more energy involved, the more it’s speed could increase. This becomes quite a significant problem on the quantum level because it means there is significant uncertainty on the speed and position of these very small things we’re trying to measure. The effect becomes virtually negligable when you’re dealing with systems as large as those the size of DNA, so it’s possible effect on that is minimal, and at most all it’d do is change the speed/position of a DNA strand, not cause a mutation.

    Uncertainty in position (on the first snapshot) is caused by something different, everything has both particle and wave properties . If something was 100% particle it would be a point in space, a single snapshot would give 100% certainty on position but no information on how fast it was travelling, whereas something 100% wavelike would have no fixed position (being equal along an infinite range), but it’s speed would be certain. Since all observed objects seem to have properties of both (ie even light has spin like a particle, and even matter can be diffracted) then you have basically a compromise that looks like an infinite wave with highest peaks in the middle. Conceptually a snapshot of this provides some degree of information on speed and position, but neither is certain. This is considered one of the last hold-outs for a posssible mechanism of divine intervention if the world is real and the laws of physics are never broken (the position and speed could be varied within the limits of uncertainty to ultimately control colision paths of molecules by uncertainty of the molecule itself, and uncertainty of it’s outer shell electrons that govern it’s shape. The only other possible intervention in a real and strict world might be on the probability of reactions and probability of absorbing light.

    Biology may operate on firmly established laws that are not wholly understood how they connect to the laws of the more basic sciences

    Biology plays with chemicals using physics; whilst there are areas of biology that are yet to be understood (like the circutry of the brain), our lack of knowledge doesn’t provide a mechanism for nature to break laws under the guise of uncertainty if the laws are rigorously upheld – laws aren’t obeyed merely because we discovered them if they existed all along and were unbreakable (concerning intervention)

  11. So let me get this straight:  If I get up and walk out of the room during a commercial break, by this clown’s logic, I’m stealing.  If I tape a program and skip through the commercials, I’m stealing.

    Given that I don’t turn the TV *at all*, I’m surprised that the cops haven’t shown up at the door to cuff me for my wholesale larceny.  Snatching food from the mouths of hungry ad execs an’ ev’rything…

  12. According to http://jacklewis.net/weblog/about.htm, “Jack Lewis” is a.k.a. Danny Carlton

    Part of his bio says;

    My background goes all over the place. I have a Bachelor degree in Broadcasting from John Brown University. I worked for a while in television as studio crew, then as a producer for a television ministry, and years later as a radio announcer at a local Christian station. Broadcasting jobs seemed too scarce so I picked up an Associate degree in Accounting, and another in Business Administration, but by the time I finished that, God called me to Seminary.

    I think that he also does several other web pages, including http://america.needsyourprayers.com/ which lists a whole bunch of Republicans to pray for.

    He is just another fucking christian right Republican nut job.

  13. CG: So let me get this straight:  If I get up and walk out of the room during a commercial break, by this clown’s logic, I’m stealing.  If I tape a program and skip through the commercials, I’m stealing.

    Him and Ted Turner both.  Time Warner’s supposedly coming out with a DVR that won’t let you skip commercials unless you pay (if I remember correctly).

  14. Bahamat,
    Skepticism
    Scientism
    Empiricism
    Materialism
    Naturalism
    Solipsism
    Nihilism
    These are decent unnuanced one sentence summaries.  Pay special attention to the philosophical definitions.

    Bahamat: If something was 100% particle it would be a point in space, a single snapshot would give 100% certainty on position but no information on how fast it was travelling, whereas something 100% wavelike would have no fixed position (being equal along an infinite range), but it’s speed would be certain.

    Maybe I’m having trouble getting my mind off of classical mechanics, but it would seem to me that if you can determine the exact position of an obeject then you should have no trouble determining its velocity.  Vice versa, how could you determine the velocity of an object without determining any kind of position?  How could you derive any information from an object that was “100% wavelike”?  If its infinite and uniform there would be no reference point to measure from.

  15. Theocrat – thanks for the definitions, will be useful reference smile

    how could you determine the velocity of an object without determining any kind of position?

    I think a different method is being used for very small-scale things that only takes one snapshot and basically assesses it’s speed on how smudgy it looks, the smudger the faster, but also the less defined it’s position.

    The idea of single snapshot might look to contradict my earlier paragraph starting with:

    (me) The typical way of measuring something’s speed is to take 2 photographs of it (as speed cameras do), from the 2 photographs you can determine how far something’s moved in a given period of time.

    But that is because I myself was a little confused and applying uncertainty to a classical method, nethertheless what I described in that chapter causes, lets say, error, but it’s a completely different effect than the smudginess thing I said in this comment.

    How could you derive any information from an object that was “100% wavelike”?  If its infinite and uniform there would be no reference point to measure from

    Without reference point you can still determine frequency, which tells you the energy the thing has, from which you get speed. It depends also on the mass of the thing, hence something with 0 mass should travel at the speed of light, but something with non-zero has to obey the kinetic energy equation:
    Ke = 0.5*mass*(velocity)^2

    Here’s a contradiction I can’t explain: why is the speed of things with 0 mass capped off at the speed of light? The kinetic energy equation, predicts infinite speed to have any hope of making up for multiplying by 0, but that equation is still a primitive classical one I think, which may explain. In addition, you have to wonder why light of supposedly 0 mass cannot escape a black hole’s gravity, I suspect that light doesn’t have a precisely 0 mass, supported somewhat because it certainly isn’t 100% wavelike (it has spin). Light is theorised to have 0 mass because otherwise it would take energy to accelarate, and is never measured at anything else (at least within detector range). I find it difficult to explain why light should carry energy if it’s not kinetic, if it is, then it’s frequency should affect it’s mass, as relitivity might predict, in turn this might explain red-shift and why it might not be an equal effect on frequency across the whole spectrum.

    Since a 100% wave is infinite length and infinitely equal (and smudgy all along) you can determine nothing about it’s position, but a compromise between particle and wave is a finite, smudgy blob from which you can narrow down a little it’s speed and position, but not completely.

    If a second snapshot were taken as in classical, perhaps this could be avoided by comparing the midpoint of smudges, but perhaps second snapshot isn’t done for the reason in the paragraph I quoted of myself – that the measurement changes the result too significantly to make that method viable.

  16. Hi, I read this article you wrote and another one about whether or not to ban pop-up ads.  I’m currently doing some indepth research for software that blocks ads and research against software such as Ad Block Plus for a class debate.  I appreciate the input you offer on your blog and your links, both of which I printed.

    Just out of curiosity, what is your biggest stand for banning anti-pop-up software such as Ad Block Plus?

    Sorry, I realized that this posting is a few years old, however I would appreciate any input from you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.