That's funny, I equate someone who uses intrusive ads on his website to someone who writes a free BASIC interpreter that stops after every 12 lines and PRINTs an ad to my console.

If you're going to put something out there, free or otherwise, it's your problem to make sure that it's fit for my purpose.

For any product there will always be someone who feels its not fit for their purpose. Its not your problem or the author's problem, its inevitable.

If it's not fit for your purposes, fine. Don't use it.

If it's not fit for my purpose, then I'm somewhat less than interested in hearing you whine about how I didn't pay for it, or about how I used AdBlock to get what value I could out of it.

You're not entitled to my money, and I'm not entitled to your content. The difference is, though, I didn't dangle my wallet on the Internet with the intent of wasting everybody's time.

So, it's ok to steal from someone, so long as you're only stealing the stuff that's of value to you?

If someone builds a website and puts it out there with advertising, they're saying "Hey everyone, feel free to enjoy what I've built without paying me for it, because I've got these other guys paying for it. Just look at the ads and click on them if you find them interesting, ok?" When you come along with AdBlock, you're making use of the website without allowing the author's arrangement with the advertisers to work. Ultimately, the advertisers will stop paying, and the website must either disappear or become paid-subscription only.

Of course, most people don't like ads, and the more obnoxious they are the more we dislike them and want to block them. But I think we'd like Xanadu less, where every website would have micropayments required to view it. I know that I'd rather put up with ads, especially the less obtrusive ones.

It's funny to see people getting self righteous about evading the intent of content owners. I'm not entitled to your wallet. But if you leave it on the table in my office...