Phil Deakins

Jo Yardley wrote: This takes me back to an old discussion in which we completely disagreed. I wish you'd posted the above pics at that time because they actually prove the point I was making; i.e. you can't see what's under your feet, which makes a huge difference in an enclosed space. You've forced yourself to use SL without being able to see what's near you but it's not the most convenient way of using SL, and it's why things need to be bigger in SL than in RL - unless you force yourself, of course..

You certainly can

I would do exactly what the others have suggested - post a reply to him:- "You don't time to deal with more orders. You haven't yet delivered <my stuff> and it's been <weeks> since I paid you for it. Before you stopped communicating with me altogether, you kept telling me you were very busy with order, so when exactly do you think you'll be able to deliver mine?". - with some details. And I'd post it every time he posts in this and other forums.

Just a thought... Are you certain that the whole page goes white. It's possible that the main page content is pushed below the bottom of the screen by something that shouldn't be there. See if you can scroll down below the screen after it's gone white. If that's what's happening you need to do something about it. LL does place a banner ad across the top of pages but it's not big enough to push the main page below the screen. The ad-blocker that I tried left white space where ads were, which is a poor implementation of ad-blocking.

Perrie Juran wrote: “They are telling this of Lord Beaverbrook and a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if be paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.” (mis-attributed to Winston Churchill) I remember it being attributed to Winston Churchill and I also remember learning that that was wrong when I learned that it was someone else who said it, but it wasn't Beaverbrook. I think it was Noel Coward but I'm not certain. Whoever said it, it's brilliant

As well as what's been said, you could create an alt for those times when you want to be alone. Remember though that if you buy something with your alt, make sure it's transferable so you can pass it to your main avatar.

Funny you should mention that. It's only recently that I learned the expression 'bucket list', and I though it's a good idea. The one thing that I've thought to put on such a list if I make one is to see the northern lights. Maybe I will one day.

You should be able to set the distance that the security device deals with. If you platform is away from the rest of the stuff, you should be able to set up so that it covers only the platform area. The security device that I sell does everything you want. ETA: And judging by Lucretia's last post, which was posted while I was writing this one, so does the one you already have.

Czari Zenovka wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: I honestly don't see why these threads bother you so much, Phil. Everyone has their own opinions and are entitled to them. I'm quite sure if someone started a thread saying "Stop <talking about something that you enjoy>" you'd jump right in there and say, "Don't like it, don't read it." I'm jumping in. Sorry, Phil - methinks thou dost protest too much. They don't really bother me. It's just that new threads keep getting started, saying the same thing which is effectively that LL should not put ads on their own website. The idea is stupid and self-centred and I posted an opinion. Hai there Phil. Quick break from the Jodi Arias trial...I'm not commenting on your posting your opinion on the threads, just that it sounded like a "command." I actually was thinking I wish there was a way to gather all these new threads into one big thread on the subject, so I'm with you on that point, but we've seen that happen with other subjects as well...I think it's the aftermath of reaction from people who didn't catch it the first time around. Ie. - A year after the mixed listings bug was discovered (which still continues a year later as well) people are still posting on the Merchant Forum that they "just discovered" this. Point taken, Czari - so I've changed the title of the thread by adding the word 'please' and it no longer gives the impression of being a command It would have been better at the front but I put it at the end because putting it at the front would reduce the title's impact - I think

Melita Magic wrote: Phil: Not enough bots in this thread! Not nearly enough bots. Well we must do something about that, Melita. How about you spank my bot and I'll spank yours

I disagree with you about the ads cheapening the site, but whether it does or not is just personal opinion. As for the ads you mentioned, LL can choose not to have the ads of specific sites on the pages, just as advertisers can choose that their ads are not displayed on specific sites. It's up to LL to deal with the problem of SL alternatives, or any other sites they think are not good, advertising here.

My V3 screen looks no different with the upgrade. I separated that chat box straight away because I'm used to local chat being separate, and it behaves just like it did before. It doesn't take up more space, or if it does, it's so little extra that it certainly wouldn't generate the 'too much space' posts. I tested the rest of the box with an IM from an alt, and the space that box takes up is no more than before. I did slide part of the box off the left of the screen to get rid of the unwanted part. What I haven't done is check it with multiple IMs but, even if it takes up more space than before with multiple IMs, it's no big deal for me because I close IMs when they conversation is finished. I honestly don't see what the problem is. So, apart from maybe multiple IMs, there really isn't much screen space difference than before.

This thread is nothing to do with whether or not people like the ads. It is entirely to do with people starting threads because they actually believe that they have right not to have ads on the website, and so LL is in the wrong for putting ads on the site. Unbelievably, they actually think that, because they use the site, they have right not be advertised to when using it. They whine about it because they believe they are being wronged. This thread is saying stop whining about it.

LillyBeth Filth wrote: "The ads are nobody's business but LL's. They are not your business and they are nothing to do with you, so get over it" That's a contradiction if ever I read one! lol They're everything to do with "us" they're aimed at "us" in the hopes that "we" will be swayed by them. <Sigh> I don't know if one or two people are intentionally twisting what I write in this thread, but it is obvious that "nothing to do with you" in that sentence means that whether or not the ads are placed on the website is nothing to do with you. I.e. it's not your decision, you don't get a vote, etc. It's as much 'nothing to do with you' as the colour of carpet that I choose for my own living room.

Alright, I'll rephrase it... Finally, my only argument has been that the website owner (LL) can put whatever they want, within the law, on their site. It is entirely their own business and nobody else's. And that argument is cast is stone. Now it's cast in stone.

Just to tidy it up... Seeing ads threads doesn't bug me a bit. Seeing so many 'LL is in the wrong because I don't want to be advertised to' threads is what bugged me. Finally, my only argument has been that the website owner (LL) can put whatever they want on their site. It is entirely their own business and nobody else's. And that argument is cast is stone.

16 wrote: people complain about things they don't like. whine. yell. scream. is ok to do this and to say that its wrong. like wrong for them/me/whoever. and to whine that is somehow going to make the planet fall into the sun even You've misunderstood, 16. Of course people can air their views. They can even whine about things. But the negative views that have been expressed about the ads have been written by self-centred people who imagine that they have rights that they don't have. E.g. 'I don't want to be advertised to, therefore LL is wrong to place the ads' and 'I pay LL for a premium account, therefore LL is wrong to place the ads'. Idiotic stuff like that. I started a thread to say stop being so self-centred about something that's none of your business. One or two threads is ok but new threads like that were appearing almost daily. I didn't stay stop posting comments about the ads. I said stop posting that LL is wrong (because of the poster's self-centred desires) to place the ads in their own site. Words to that effect.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: What they change on the website is their business alone, and nothing to do with any of us. We can at least, then, agree to disagree. My understanding of UGC and services that encourage profiting from UGC leads me to believe that there is a real dependancy on the service provider to present itself in a way that protects its profit-builders. In my view, setting up an engine that sets SL's userbase in direct eye-focus competition with outside brands and services is a decision that adds value to zero (0) users of the platform. If a system adds no value to existing users (0), but may reduce value to prospective users (and a small subset of existing users) (0,-1), then the system has little cause to be integrated into the userbase(0,[0,-1] = -1). I see this as reason enough. It seems you're not saying no-one should be able to critique this decision, and only that you're bored of reading it. This is why I suggested you ignore threads that contain 'whining'. Just as LL has no requirement to change its website because of an opinion given by any one of its users, the users of the forum have no requirement to 'stop' anything that doesn't break the rules laid out by the service provider. This all seems like linear logic to me. And thanks for stating that impressions are free on this ad-engine. I only have limited knowledge of Google AdWords (which does cost per impression). Then your understanding is wrong. Your understanding of what I'm saying is also wrong. AdWords ads only appear in the Google search results. These are not those.

Czari Zenovka wrote: I honestly don't see why these threads bother you so much, Phil. Everyone has their own opinions and are entitled to them. I'm quite sure if someone started a thread saying "Stop <talking about something that you enjoy>" you'd jump right in there and say, "Don't like it, don't read it." I'm jumping in. Sorry, Phil - methinks thou dost protest too much. They don't really bother me. It's just that new threads keep getting started, saying the same thing which is effectively that LL should not put ads on their own website. The idea is stupid and self-centred and I posted an opinion.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Your understanding is wrong. If something is 'not any of your business', it means that it is nothing to do with you. I understand your definition. Orca's seems to be that it is not a business that I own, so I have no reason to be concerned. What they change on the website continues to be our business, as users of the service. What they change on the website is their business alone, and nothing to do with any of us.

I accepted some self-centred threads about the ads, and commented in them, but every day there seems to be a new one, and none of them were written as, 'Don't you think that the ads cheapen the site?' or other such genuine comments. There are all of the nature of, 'I don't want to be advertised to so LL shouldn't do it', and 'I pay LL so they shouldn't send me ads' - that sort of self-centred stuff. Coby's observations were interesting, of course, but the ads she saw didn't have a negative effect. They only had an amusing effect. The advertisers don't pay for impressions. They only pay for either click-throughs or sales/signups. So it costs them nothing when their ads are displayed in this site.

Teagan Tobias wrote: Giggles, “Me,Me,Me!” is in fact one of my tags in world, a lot of the time And I am the one that said, it makes my pages jump around. hehe. I'd forgotten who it was. At the time you said it, I replied that the problem is at your end, but I've since modified that a little - not in a post though, so I'll say it here... The problem really is at your end, in your browser, but it is probably caused by the LL webdesigner(s) for not testing the design well enough in different browsers. It's not an uncommon fault, but it is very bad practise.

Freya Mokusei wrote: My understanding of the phrase "This is not any of your business" is that no-one can offer critique, typically because they aren't in a position to understand the mechanism, or because it does not effect them. Forgive me for again replying to a post that you wrote to someone else. Your understanding is wrong. If something is 'not any of your business', it means that it is nothing to do with you. I'll give you an example. If I choose to change the carpet in my living room from red to blue, it is 'not any of your business'. It is nothing to do with you, even though you (hypothetically) visit my living room quite often. It is entirely my business what colour carpet I have on the floor. Understand now? LL chose to change their website. It's not your website and it's not my website. It's LL's website. Therefore, what they change on the website is not any of our business, provided that it isn't about your or me. E.g. It would be my business if they put something like "Don't buy from Phil Deakins' store" on the website. Then it would be my business. But the ads are the business of nobody but LL.

Janelle Darkstone wrote: I don't see any ads and I don't much care. But when someone comes on and tells other people to stop complaining if they feel the need to, I might take exception to that... even if it is getting a bit out of hand they still have the right to speak their minds. Go play with your bots, Phil. Yes, everyone has a right to speak their minds, Janelle. It's a pity that some people's minds are just so self-centred (e.g. I don't want to be advertised to so LL is wrong to have the ads). And there's no need for me to go and play with my bots. I'm speaking my mind here. Anything wrong with that?

Maybe not always, Coby. But such ads aren't negative, even if you're not interested in what they are offering I'll rephrase my statement and say that contextual ads are generally good.