Can't we get Joe Wilson's picture off the DU homepage?

[TheCowsCameHome]

I've got whiteout over 90% of my monitor and he's still showing up. And I can't see through the paper bag I tried.

Seriously, get rid of this idiot - please. Your 15 minutes is up, Joe.

[ShortnFiery]

1. After Joe Wilson is censored. To do LESS will encourage every right wing crazy and racist

to foment hate and violence.

After censure by the House is fine by me. :thumbsup:

[Zywiec]

2. You're obviously not using Firefox with Adblock Plus

I don't see Joe Wilson or any other ads. Using FF with Adblock makes your whole browsing experience better.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

3. +1

The only way to surf !!!

EDIT: I don't think I ever go to the home page anymore... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/

[no limit]

6. By blocking ads you are stealing from the web site you are on

In this case DU. But that never seems to bother anyone.

[tekisui]

7. Aren't the advertisers still paying whether we see the ads or not?

[no limit]

8. Nope.

Not sure why that would make it ok though, you are then stealing from the advertisers. But even in the case of fixed advertising that price is set based on the impressions those ads will receive; if you are blocking them your views don't count toward that total.

[tekisui]

10. I dont' have a problem at all with 'stealing' from advertisers.

Is it stealing from advertisers when I mute my tv during a commercial? What about when I change my radio station to avoid the ads? The advertisers are choosing to pay to put up ads, understanding that the ads are not going to be paid attention to by many or most. I have no sympathy for wasted ad dollars.

[no limit]

12. In this case you aren't stealing from NBC or Fox, you are stealing from DU

They pay for bandwidth here and I can assure you those costs aren't cheap (thousands of dollars each month). To pay for that bandwidth they display ads. Every time you block those ads yet you continue to use the information on this web site you are stealing from them; plain and simple.

[tekisui]

15. I dont block any ads, other than the ones I don't see,

because I have a star and donate to every fund drive. It doesn't seem logical to me that by blocking ads means the advertisers don't pay. If it is that way, though, so what? The cost is passed on to other advertisers or raised in the DU fundraisers. It isn't my responsibility to worry about how DU funds their site. I give when they ask. If everyone wanted to block every ad, they would be forced to fund a different way. No one is obligated to look at ads.

[no limit]

16. How does it not seem logical that if you block ads advertisers don't pay?

It's perfectly logical. More impressions means more clicks which means more money. And you aren't the one paying the thousands of dollars each month for DU's bandwidth so it really isn't your call what their business model should be. They provide you with a ton of great information, all they do in return is place some ads on the site. When you block those ads you steal from them.

If you dontate and don't see any ads then good for you, but that doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong. A lot of people never donate but still block the ads.

[daninthemoon]

4. why do you have an ad promoting him in your post?

[JohnnyLib2]

5. Persevere: another week should produce another fool.

[SIMPLYB1980]

9. Not yet he has to pay first. nt

[Better Today]

11. It should have been up 2 secs after he screwed up, this is just nuttery to

give him so much attention which has in turn lead to a fund raising boon for him. Yes, his opponent also, but that started happening before DU became obsessed with this non-issue.

[bigwillq]

13. It's amazing

that it bothers someone that much.

[lunatica]

14. Or can someone photoshop a shoe in his mouth?