> Thankfully, I do not get such ads, but I do use two layers to stop them: blocking at the proxy, and browser level.
> Ads like that are the main reason that I do: They are Blatently Dishonest. An ad should look like an ad. If it looks like a dialog box, then dishonest is the least one could call it.
> Yes, any site owner that permits such ads to be displayed from their site is participating in such dishonest behavior. Sorry Sam, but that's the way it is!
> And ads using spyware fears to get people to install more spyware - well, do I need to go further?

You don't have to apologize for criticizing me, but I have a very different view of what "the way it is" is, despite appreciating (though not entirely agreeing with) your ultimate concerns.

1. The "your computer may be infected with harmful spyware" ad that you're talking about is not for "more spyware" but a legitimate spyware removal tool, at least so far as I understand. If it isn't legitimate, it's slipped by Burst's own policies insofar as I understand them. If you know more details about the spyware products RinkWorks advertises, please share them, and I will act upon that information promptly. If not, you go too far in your criticism of me, Burst, and in particular the advertiser.

2. "Ads like [ads that don't look like ads] are the main reason that I do" sounds to me like a rationalization after the fact of your actions. You don't need to justify ad blocking to me -- I'm not going to condemn it any more than I'm going to condone it -- but if you're going to, make it a sound argument. Yours is akin to boycotting donation to charities because of one or two with questionable financial practices. (It's also counterproductive: if your issue is with the ads themselves, the best way to fight them is *not* to block them but to refuse to click on them. Then the advertiser has to pay for unproductive exposure, whereas blocking them only increases the average click-through rate for the ad campaign as a whole, making it *more* attractive an option for advertisers!)