That's one lame "Javascript is off" warning, on the former.
Degrade gracefully, and let the client see something of what you have to offer. They might actually decide it's worth their while, and gather sufficient trust, to enable Javascript.
I understand the complaint completely, but be sure to look at it from a cost/benefit viewpoint as well. People with JS off are likely significantly less than 1% of their users. They would likely benefit more from supporting IE6, and maybe IE5, than supporting JS-off.
It's a redirect to a warning page. If you pause the load (Escape key) before the redirect, the initial/front page is plenty visible and ok looking.
I keep JS disabled because there's just too much random/nasty cr*p out there. I'll do JS for some sites, but it's definitely "opt-in", for me.
Yeah, I'm a corner case. I just found the deliberate redirect away from a presentable page (with JS disabled) to a content-devoid warning/advisory, to be rather pointless, from my perspective.
hah, yeah, that's pretty annoying. I prefer un-announced failure to drop-everything-and-berate-user. I didn't realize it was that bad, I retract my earlier remark - this likely cost them additional time to be more annoying (though was probably done for people on ancient browsers, and not voluntary no-JS-ers).
Degrade gracefully, and let the client see something of what you have to offer. They might actually decide it's worth their while, and gather sufficient trust, to enable Javascript.