Would have been much simpler to just serve ads from your own domain, or through a proxy etc to thwart adblock, without the need for any client side shenanigans.
The blocks, I believe, basically disabled most of his site period.
I know I visited it late in the afternoon when I heard there was a load of issues and had trobule navigating - and certainly could not install NoScript from the site (oh, obv this is with ABP and Easylist2 installed)
That was most likely the end result of the Easy List update war. Had the NoScript author not entered into such a battle, only the Ads would have been blocked.
I dont know: you see he does have a point about choosing what to block. Given a choice I would allow ads to be displayed on noscript sites because:
a) I trust the site owner not to show me crap
b) It is his revenue stream and I am willing to support causes I like
The best solution was for ABP to fix the flaws that allowed the ads on noscript to slip through the filters. Instead the maintainer chose to rope Ares2 into updating Easylist2 to deliberately target the site.
Whatever the motives or the arguments for each side that smacks of the "wrong way to do it" to me :)
Yes, I agree that fixing ABP would have been a much better solution to the problem. At the same time though, NoScript specifically targeted ABP, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise that ABP specifically targeted NoScript (through EasyList2).
The whole "choose" business is just word play that can be slanted either way. And it's misleading, because the conflict was over NoScript's obtrusive default setting, not the ability to choose what you wanted to block or unblock after the fact.
According to his side of the story, AdBlock went to great lengths to block ads specifically on his site, which is what prompted him to eventually take such extreme countermeasures.
