Well done EA. Lastest Update: Jack Thompson responds

[Ted Wolff]

First off, property is owned by the one who claims it, be it land or resources. Now in the past, you killed or stole from the one who owns property so you can gain it yourself, in todays modern world, there are laws safeguarding that. I can't go into a brewery and steal hops and secret recipies because it is the intellectual property of the brewers, and illegal to do so. Simply put, everything is owned, and now almost everything is protected.

Your argument here is a strawman, and it confuses the fundamentals of property. If you were to go into a brewery and steal property â€â€

 

[NickKmet]

And the current "mixed American economy" is not viable. What society is viable that prohibits an individual's free exercise of property?

Umm...its the only working economy that's every existed. Communism has never existed and never will. Yes, the USSR and China aspired to be communist, but never were able to acheive a perfect communist society/economy. A perfect Capitalistic economy is not viable either. No regulation means a revertion to the era of Morgan, Rockefeller, and Carnegie. That cannot be argued because thats what there was. And there is also no perfectly socialistic society either. It just doesn't work. The only thing that does work is a mixed society/economy. How can you say it doesn't work? The United States is one of the most powerful and richest countries in the world. China is on the rise. Everything in history shows that a mixed economy is the only thing that can and will work. And the US economy does not prohibit the free exercise of property. It merely makes sure you only use your own property, not someone elses.

As for arguing with you on intellectual rights, i'm not even gonna waste my time anymore. The simple truth behind it is this: If there's no protection simply because you're gonna assume its not needed, trust me, someone will find a way to take advantage of the system and fuck the rest of us over. You claim that people would notice the strong arm tactics and change where they put their money. This didn't happen before regulation existed. At a certain point, no regulation allows for these companies to do whatever they want to anyone. Before the federal government created the SEC to monitor the stock market, companies LIED about the profits the made, and it was COMPLETELY LEGAL. You couldn't do anything about it. And nobody knew until it was too late. You can't trust people; they're greedy and in it for themselves.

You seem to think that the only thing that matters is marketing. And you're right, its the single most important thing in business. But you also have to realize, how does a small start up company even advertise when they don't have the money to compete against a company like microsoft. Its not their fault they're just starting out and Microsoft is already established. Microsoft could easily advertise and claim it was their idea originally, and because they could afford more ad space they would be able to wipe out that company. There needs to be protection because this would lead to a manopoly.The reason Rockefeller made his fortune is because he controlled 95% of the oil market at one point. 95%. You just can't compete with that unless you have as much or more money than he does. You can't out advertise a company like that unless you have more money than them. Good luck attempting to out advertise a company who has 900 billion dollars to spend when you only have 5 thousand. Its just not gonna happen.

You claim that people would realize there was a monopoly and stop giving their money to those large companies. I'm sorry, but i don't think you understand what a monopoly is. Its where there are NO other companies marketing your goods. NONE. ZERO. If you wanted to buy a toilet, and there's only one company that makes them, well, you're gonna buy your damned toilet from them. You don't have a choice.

And btw, i'm not sure if you noticed, but the average person is RETARDED. Americans are so stupid these days, you can tell them complete shit and they'll believe it. For example, the justification for the war in Iraq. Total bull and most people ate it up. Not everyone is as smart as you and me. There's a reason you will not find a single serious, accredited economist who shares your views. No protection is not viable.

Now, believe what you want. This is the last attempt i'm going to make at this, because from what i've seen, there really is no chance of changing your mind. The last thing i'm gonna say is this, intellectual protection laws are in place for a reason. They didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were past for a reason. And probably a good one at that. Not all politicians are as dumb as you would think.

 

[Ted Wolff]

A perfect Capitalistic economy is not viable either. No regulation means a revertion to the era of Morgan, Rockefeller, and Carnegie. That cannot be argued because thats what there was. And the US economy does not prohibit the free exercise of property. It merely makes sure you only use your own property, not someone elses.

No one is claiming no regulation. Property rights are regulation. Please do not put words in my mouth. For someone so concerned about the protection against deception you sure are being deceptive. Furthermore, the rich bankers you mention did not achieve their dominance on their guile alone. They were assisted with the help of government. That is not a perfect capitalistic society.

And surely U.S. laws prohibit the use of property: that's what intellectual property laws do. Have you yet established a property right of individuals in intellectual property? No; you have argued that intellectual property has always existed and that it needs to be protected because any other result would be chaos. Please, tell us how property rights are established in intellectual property?

As for arguing with you on intellectual rights, i'm not even gonna waste my time anymore.

Why is this a waste of time? Is it not intellectual stimulation? A furtherance of your intellect? A productive discussion about the fundamental operation of society? I cannot say I will be entirely disappointed by your forfeiture, though, as you seem prone to deceive other readers by putting words in my mouth, failing to back your claims with evidence, fail to refute my claims on the ground of logic, and continue to contradict your own claims.

The simple truth behind it is this: If there's no protection simply because you're gonna assume its not needed, trust me, someone will find a way to take advantage of the system and f*** the rest of us over.

I am not claiming the system I propose is foolproof. But you seem to imply as if your system safeguards against all deception. It does not, and this point is moot. What should be discussed is a system that allows for the maximum exercise of just and rightful property owners. Your system deigns to control the thoughts and ideas of individuals under the unproved belief in intellectual property, whereas my system allows individuals to act freely within established property rights.

You claim that people would notice the strong arm tactics and change where they put their money. This didn't happen before regulation existed. At a certain point, no regulation allows for these companies to do whatever they want to anyone. Before the federal government created the SEC to monitor the stock market, companies LIED about the profits the made, and it was COMPLETELY LEGAL. You couldn't do anything about it. And nobody knew until it was too late. You can't trust people; they're greedy and in it for themselves.

Again, I am not advocating no regulation; only just regulation of property rights, and the property right in intellectual property has not yet been established. Where is the evidence that deception went completely unchecked before the so-called regulation? How could it go unnoticed and spur an entire industry committed to protection against deception? And if people are too greedy and "in it for themselves," how do you justify establishing a giant government organization, full of greedy and egotistic people, to regulate more greedy and egotistic people? Your assertion on the debilitating nature of man contradicts itself when it proposes to have greedy people regulating greedy people.

You seem to think that the only thing that matters is marketing. And you're right, its the single most important thing in business. But you also have to realize, how does a small start up company even advertise when they don't have the money to compete against a company like microsoft. Its not their fault they're just starting out and Microsoft is already established. Microsoft could easily advertise and claim it was their idea originally, and because they could afford more ad space they would be able to wipe out that company. There needs to be protection because this would lead to a manopoly.The reason Rockefeller made his fortune is because he controlled 95% of the oil market at one point. 95%. You just can't compete with that unless you have as much or more money than he does. You can't out advertise a company like that unless you have more money than them. Good luck attempting to out advertise a company who has 900 billion dollars to spend when you only have 5 thousand. Its just not gonna happen.

Maybe I seemed to think that, but I did not state that. I merely stated that the success of an idea hinges more on its existence as an idea. How do small start-up companies succeed against giants? How have they in all of history? How did Google ascend over Lycos and Yahoo? To profess that small start-ups have no chance to succeed is to profess a contradictory regression: Going back in time, has it always been the same big-name companies dominating the market? Of course not. Companies go by the wayside every day, and new ones step in to satisfy old and new interests. Did Rockefeller own the oil market on his own guile? That is, without any government assistance? No.

You claim that people would realize there was a monopoly and stop giving their money to those large companies. I'm sorry, but i don't think you understand what a monopoly is. Its where there are NO other companies marketing your goods. NONE. ZERO. If you wanted to buy a toilet, and there's only one company that makes them, well, you're gonna buy your damned toilet from them. You don't have a choice.

I fully understand what a monopoly is, and I know that not one natural monopoly â€â€

 

[NickKmet]

Ok....i'm now really, really unhappy. Well, not with you. I had this really long and good explanation of a few things, and before i could finish my computer died. And i mean died. Hopefully it just needs to cool off. I'm actually using my other computer right now instead. Now, i'm way too lazy to actually rewrite anything i had prepared in response, so i'm just gonna condense it really, really quickly.

I actually think we're arguing on two different ideas right now. and by that i mean two different definitions of itellectual property rights. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe i'm right, i don't know. It just seems that everytime you refute me, or i refute you, our explanations seem to be about slightly different topics. And i apoligize for not being clear about a lot of thing i said before. Umm...simply put, its damned hard to put everything i want to say down on paper at the speed i think it and the complexity i think it in. So that really doesn't help when i'm trying to explain things.

One thing i would like to say:

It is tragic you end your involvement in this discussion on a sour end with this claim: "intellectual protection laws are in place for a reason....And probably a good one at that." This is not a sound argument. This is like a child answering his mother's question with, "Because I said so."

Sorry this was too ambiguous for you. What i meant is that those laws were put into place by the government at some point because something happened that was unfair to some business. There's a reason those laws were signed into place. The reason i didn't specify that reason? I don't have the time or energy to pour over thousands of documents produced by the US government just so i can continue to argue with someone about it on a GR forum. lol.

Oh, and i'm not simply quitting because i don't think i can change your mind or because my argument sucks. Its just that i'm too lazy to actually put in the time and effort to formulate a good, clear argument that makes sure that you understand everything from my point of view. The only way i could do that is if i included all the background information i already know. Thats way too much for me to do in the time i have. If i ever met you in person, i would love to talk with you about this stuff. But the internet simply is not capable of capturing emotions, facial expressions, sarcasm, etc., nor can it explain things as fast as you can in person. oh, and there's also this rather large stack of homework i've been putting off that i really should be doing instead of this.

 

[Ted Wolff]

I actually think we're arguing on two different ideas right now. and by that i mean two different definitions of itellectual property rights.

This might be because you never defined what intellectual property is, and how rights in intellectual property are determined.

I don't have the time or energy to pour over thousands of documents produced by the US government just so i can continue to argue with someone about it on a GR forum. lol.

Come now: What's so offensive about arguing on the Internet? Why does the mere location of an argument change an intellectual exchange?

But the internet simply is not capable of capturing emotions, facial expressions, sarcasm, etc., nor can it explain things as fast as you can in person.

I think you underestimate not only the power of text as a communicative medium, but the rest of the Internet as an integration of media with argumentation. Emotion is captured by textual force: a harsh-sounding adjective to describe something, or specific use of punctuation, and so forth. Facial expressions are replaced by the design of text: is it terse and tight or long-winded and loose? The reading of a text supplements its own facial expression. And while text may not be as swift as live oration, its argumentative capabilities are still as apparent: it allows time for the digestion of the text, to mull arguments and ponder responses, to revise, edit and refine.

Despite what Greek and Roman philosophers and orators said about the destructive power text has on memory, it is still functional and useful.

 

[EdEdEd]

Thing about ideas: they aren't really infinite.

This is most apparent in music. Let's say we've got fifteen notes, which is more than enough to make a recognizable chunk of melody. Of those fifteen, there are only so many possible notes that can be used, before we get to the upper or lower limits of human hearing. It's not really an infinite spectrum of sound, because at some point we can't differentiate the difference between minutely different tones; it's a sizable but finite number, meaning there's a massive, but finite, number of possible combinations in this melody. A very small subset of which sound good. A subset of which are distinguishable from each other. To be fair, this is still a massive number of potential tunes, but it's limited. If I create one, and plant my flag on it, so to speak, it should be mine because it is scarce property. Scarce INTANGIBLE property.

Likewise, recipes. Likewise, text. Likewise any intellectual property. The government regulates it for the same reason it regulates radio broadcasting: there are only so many possible frequencies, and just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't scarce.And they act the same way: you have the right to listen to the radio whenever you want, but if you go down to the station and start moving the furniture around, you'll be arrested. You can hear/eat/read/whatever intellectual property, but if you appropriate it, you are stealing from someone the flag they have planted on the scarce sliver of a vast, but finite, field of potential works.

You say that "Property cannot be simultaneously held," a while back. This is wrong, for one thing (or divorce would be so much simpler), but misses the point. By holding an idea you no more own it that you own the roller coasters when you buy a ticket to a theme park. One can buy the right to use another's property, it happens all the time. Just because I let you use it does not make it yours.

Seriously, if I invite you to my house for tea, you don't live there, now. You are allowed in under my terms, and if you violate them, I can take legal action. Thus, intellectual property.

Oh, and this is an oldie but it's been bugging me: "News outlets should always tell the truth, even be forced to truth, because people are busy? What next? Restaurants should cut its customers' food up because the customers are busy?" you said back on page two. Answer: no, but restaurants should prepare and cook food, because their customers are busy. Most services exist because some people lack the time and inclination to do them on their own: plumbers, janitors, window washers, short order cooks... they all do a task that others could if they had the time and inclination, but do not. So do reporters.

Anyway, I don't think this will convince you, because I am a suspicious sort. But I'd like to hear your take on it.

 

[NickKmet]

This might be because you never defined what intellectual property is, and how rights in intellectual property are determined.

Well, i think Ed pretty much did it for me. Besides, like i said, my computer died as i was writing a post with that explanation in it. I actually was listing my concept of intellectual property, and was then asking you what you meant. But, when my computer died, i didn't exactly have the ability to re-write that from memory or the time to do it.

Come now: What's so offensive about arguing on the Internet? Why does the mere location of an argument change an intellectual exchange?

Umm....i didn't say arguing on the internet is offensive. I just said i didn't have the time or energy to actually pour over the thousands of government documents on the issue to find you the exact reason intellectual property laws were passed, because arguing with you on this issue isn't really the most important thing in my life. Yeah, it can be really enjoyable and insightful, but its not like i need to spend all that time doing research so that i can prove every little point i make and argue with someone i really don't know.

think you underestimate not only the power of text as a communicative medium, but the rest of the Internet as an integration of media with argumentation. Emotion is captured by textual force: a harsh-sounding adjective to describe something, or specific use of punctuation, and so forth. Facial expressions are replaced by the design of text: is it terse and tight or long-winded and loose? The reading of a text supplements its own facial expression. And while text may not be as swift as live oration, its argumentative capabilities are still as apparent: it allows time for the digestion of the text, to mull arguments and ponder responses, to revise, edit and refine.

Ok, let me make myself clear. I do not underestimate the power of text as a communicative medium. I completely understand that concept. Really, my english teacher pounds that into us everday. The problem is, i don't have the time to sit down, write a rough draft, edit, re-write, and re-read what i'm going to post on here so that i can make sure with 100% absolute certainty that you're not going to mis-interpret the meaning behind what i actually wrote.

In writing, the reader is ultimately who decides the emotion from the author. Yes, the author can leave clues for the audience so that they have an easier time with that. But i really just don't have the time to augment my own writing style so that will happen.

For example, any great literary work, like The Lord of the Flies, works just like this. If you were to read the book straight through and take what William Golding wrote literally, you would take it to be story about some boys trapped on an island. If you attempt to take what Golding wrote and imagine that he was trying to send a message to the reader through the use of themes, motifs, etc., then you would understand it to be a commentary on human civilization. The way the audience takes it is up to them.

You could take the tone i've adopted through my word choice to be very offensive towards you, even though thats not what i've felt towards you through the whole argument we've been having. Likewise, i could take some of the things you've said about me and the way i've tried to argue or the arguments i've made very personally. But i don't, because i really don't think that's your intention.

Written text simply cannot emulate voice inflection, volume, facial expression, body gesture, etc. as well as you can in person. Why do you think people are cuationed about how they write e-mails all the time? Its to make sure they don't write something that can be interpreted much differently from how it was meant. Writing can do some things that oral presentation can't, but it also can't totally replicate the power of oral presentation either.

 

[Ted Wolff]

Why should any written presentation attempt to emulate, or fully emulate, an oral presentation?

It cannot!

And because it cannot, why should this be viewed pejoratively?

It shouldnot!

 

[rappaj]

Hey folks-

Long time reader here (on the order of ~10 yrs) spurred into joining the GR community by this conversation. I just had to toss in an argument that nobody seems to have mentioned.

First, "Ideas" (as mentioned before) are NOT infinite. Ideas are not infinite because they require time and resources to develop, neither of which are infinite.

People, as "retarded" as they may sometimes be, are generally rational. They will usually do what serves them best. That said, a person will only take the time and effort to develop an idea if it will profit them in some way. In other words, the payoff for coming up with and developing this idea (writing a song, a book, making an invention) must be greater than the cost involved in developing it. Simple microeconomics. There has to be incentive.

If an individual takes the time and energy to create a new product and it is immediately ripped off by a larger company or even another individual, that person will have made no profit whatsoever. This will only happen so many times before the inventor gives up inventing new things, because it only costs him. On a grand scale, this means no new products, no new anything, no development, no growth. Bad news for everyone. If people cannot profit from invention then invention will not exist.

Now, there is the counterargument that competition drives up innovation and improves the manufacture of existing products, while lowering prices all around. This is also true, which is why patents (in the US at least) only last for a few years, depending upon the patent.

So, in summary: It is true that competition is essential to innovation and lowering of prices. However, without protection of intellectual property, there is no chance for profit in invention and therefore no incentive to invent at all, only to steal.

There. Hit me with your best shot.

Oh, one last thing, Silent_Player. A Natural Monopoly exists because of an economy of scale: that is, if larger amounts of an item are cheaper to produce(per unit) than smaller amounts of said item. A large company will have much lower costs. A start-up company does not stand a chance against a larger company because its costs are so much higher, no matter what the reputation of the larger company.

Cheers

 

[Ted Wolff]

First, "Ideas" (as mentioned before) are NOT infinite. Ideas are not infinite because they require time and resources to develop, neither of which are infinite.

Ideas are infinite. There's no limit to the number of ideas that can be thought of; any number of people can hold the same idea â€â€

 

[rappaj]

Nice work. I don't have any formal education in economics so I cannot retort what you've said about economies of scale, this was merely my understanding of the ideal situation for the existence of natural monopoly.

However, allow me to clarify. By profit I did not necessarily mean monetary profit. I meant improving one's situation. That just often happens to be in the form of cash.

 

[rappaj]

Also, I seem to have spoken in extremes. And in that, I was sorely mistaken. I don't believe in extremes.

However, I stand by the notion that incentive to produce is at the very least greatly reduced without protection of intellectual property.

 

[TheZoomZoomKid]

What FOX News did was slander. End of story. Their statements were completely false. In advertising claims are made that things are better than others, but that's called opinion. It is not opinion when you outright lie i.e. FOX News.

 

[Ted Wolff]

What debate are you joining?

 

[Ted Wolff]

However, I stand by the notion that incentive to produce is at the very least greatly reduced without protection of intellectual property.

How so? Do inventors sit around thinking, "I wish I could create such-and-such, but I'm frankly afraid of doing so because I can't get legal protection?"

Hardly! More likely, people sit around thinking, "I wish I could create such-and-such, but I'm frankly afraid of doing so because of legal protection."

That is, intellectual property rights prohibit and dissuade would-be creative people from acting upon their creativity for fear of legal repercussions. Have a fabulously well-to-do movie idea that happens to have a 10-second Disney clip in the background? Oops! Sorry, you can't make that movie unless you pay Disney precious royalties.

Put simply: Intellectual property rights prohibit the free, noninvasive use of expression in body and mind, preventing the copious span of ideas that could otherwise see fruition.

 

[EdEdEd]

How so? Do inventors sit around thinking, "I wish I could create such-and-such, but I'm frankly afraid of doing so because I can't get legal protection?"

Hardly! More likely, people sit around thinking, "I wish I could create such-and-such, but I'm frankly afraid of doing so because of legal protection."

...based off of what, exactly? Common sense? Because it would seem to me that people would sit around saying "I would like to create such-and-such, but odds are I won't make any money, so what's the point of putting any time and effort into it?" Obviously there are those who don't think like that, but you can't assume no one has a profit motive.

Have a fabulously well-to-do movie idea that happens to have a 10-second Disney clip in the background? Oops! Sorry, you can't make that movie unless you pay Disney precious royalties.

Put simply: Intellectual property rights prohibit the free, noninvasive use of expression in body and mind, preventing the copious span of ideas that could otherwise see fruition.

... if you have an idea that requires a ten second Disney clip, than it is NOT entirely yours. It is like building an addition to a house; yes, it may have its own structure, it might be much larger and better than the house, but it needs that other property to exist or else it's missing a wall somewhere.

And I think that helps prove my point, that the grand list of ideas is NOT infinite, as you keep insisting. There are only so many stories, there are only so many tunes, and if Disney created the ten second clip that your movie needs as a jumping-off point, they deserve to be compensated for that.

Why should any written presentation attempt to emulate, or fully emulate, an oral presentation?

It cannot!

And because it cannot, why should this be viewed pejoratively?

It shouldnot!

Does ignoring somebody's actual point by shouting your opinion in a vaguely insulting manner constitute a valid argument?

It does not!

(And to not be deemed entirely hypocritical: NicKmet is not ragging on written for for not being oral communication, he's saying that it is different, and much harder to make yourself understood. Not a bad thing inherently, but something to be concerned with. Meanwhile, you're the one who said that text can and should emulate oral communication:

Emotion is captured by textual force: a harsh-sounding adjective to describe something, or specific use of punctuation, and so forth. Facial expressions are replaced by the design of text: is it terse and tight or long-winded and loose? The reading of a text supplements its own facial expression.

... which you then argue AGAINST. Text replaces facial expressions and emotion, and text cannot emulate oral communication. Which is it?)

 

[Ted Wolff]

it would seem to me that people would sit around saying "I would like to create such-and-such, but odds are I won't make any money, so what's the point of putting any time and effort into it?" Obviously there are those who don't think like that, but you can't assume no one has a profit motive.

Let's not take things I say and remove key words and insert your words in an attempt to validate your argument. Protection by the law does not equate to making money and profit. No one has a right to a profit. Your creation of something does not entitle you to having someone buy it, which is about the only way you could make money and turn a profit. Protection of intellectual property says this: If someone uses "your idea" then you are entitled to a court hearing and perhaps the results of any ruling.

Everyone knows that if they were to produce and market an idea, a product, that they are fully assuming the responsibility of recurring no income to offset the production of said idea or product. But not even protection of intellectual property guarantees a producer to a profit on his invention.

... if you have an idea that requires a ten second Disney clip, than it is NOT entirely yours. It is like building an addition to a house; yes, it may have its own structure, it might be much larger and better than the house, but it needs that other property to exist or else it's missing a wall somewhere.

How is the idea not entirely that person's? Has someone else made a movie in such a manner that uses that Disney clip in such a manner? No. Your following analogy is not clear. What other property are you talking about? Clarify. A proper analogy would be this: Person A has a table he built with his own wood. He has an idea for a new table that requires the wood of Person B. Person A uses Person B's wood and creates a new table. Is this the analogy you're trying to make? If so, I would agree: Person A's new table is not his because Person A has no right to Person B's; it is not his. Person B's wood is his established property.

You have not established how Disney's clip is Disney's property. Is it the film it is recorded on? Is it the exact sequence of film? How is an idea instantiated as property? This has not yet been clarified by any defender of intellectual property: Viz., how ideas are property that can be owned.

And I think that helps prove my point, that the grand list of ideas is NOT infinite, as you keep insisting. There are only so many stories, there are only so many tunes, and if Disney created the ten second clip that your movie needs as a jumping-off point, they deserve to be compensated for that.

Again, please don't take things I've said and change the wording in an attempt to validate your argument. I never said the Disney clip was a jumping-off point. I left it entirely ambiguous. In fact, one such movie has encountered production difficulties because the documentary contains a clip of the Simpsons in the background, not even an integral part of the film, but part of it nonetheless, and royalties would have to be paid. Why should the owner of the Simpsons deserve to be compensated? Because they created the clip? (Not even that; Matt Groehning said the clip's use was OK by him, but the corporate owner overruled this.) Creation is not sufficient for property rights. If I bust into your house and make a life-size statue of myself from the wood in your house does that mean I deserve the rights to it? No, because I do not own the wood itself. The same goes: Disney would have to own the ideas that were used to create such an expression. How does Disney own these ideas?

Further, ideas, again, are infinite. Can new property be created simply by the work of your imagination? That is, can you create new houses, new tables, new shoes, simply by thinking about them? No, because the actual resources needed to make houses, tables, and shoes are scarce and limited, and these resources can be properly owned because they cannot be held by multiple people simultaneously. However, new ideas can be created simply by the work of your imagination. Let's not get semantical and argue over "new" and whether the so-called new ideas haven't been thought of before. Have they? Can this be proved? Not satisfactorily. Further, these "new" ideas can be held by multiple people simultaneously. If you come up with an idea for a new table and tell it to me then I can think of this new table at the same time you are. That is, this idea is not rivalrous, it is not limited, it is not scarce. Further, I might imagine this table of yours differently. Do I imagine it in the same shade of brown as you do? With as rounded edges as you do? Not unless you are painfully detailed, and this demonstrates just how ideas differentiate and are infinite.

Does ignoring somebody's actual point by shouting your opinion in a vaguely insulting manner constitute a valid argument?

It does not!

When did this occur? I did not ignore somebody's actual point. I was responding to another discussion. And there was no shouting involved. My exclamation point was a sign of excitement. CAPITAL LETTERS ARE A SIGN OF SHOUTING. You see, to properly use text as a valid medium of communication some rules of the medium must be understood by those involved, just as a heightened voice indicates shouting. Also, please illustrate where the insult was made. There was no insult intentioned, and these misunderstandings again show how ideas are infinite, how you perceive and imagine a textual argument differently than I.

(And to not be deemed entirely hypocritical: NicKmet is not ragging on written for for not being oral communication, he's saying that it is different, and much harder to make yourself understood. Not a bad thing inherently, but something to be concerned with.

No one said he was. My questions were for informational purposes, not derogatory, so please stop insinuating. I said just as much that it was different, and it is obvious we agreed on this point. And text is only harder to make yourself understood through if you yourself do not understood the rules by which the medium operates.

Meanwhile, you're the one who said that text can and should emulate oral communication:

Emotion is captured by textual force: a harsh-sounding adjective to describe something, or specific use of punctuation, and so forth. Facial expressions are replaced by the design of text: is it terse and tight or long-winded and loose? The reading of a text supplements its own facial expression.

... which you then argue AGAINST. Text replaces facial expressions and emotion, and text cannot emulate oral communication. Which is it?)

My argument is this: That emotion and expression are not inherently displayed better orally or textually, or even displayed inherently in one manner: they are displayed differently in both mediums; both mediums allow for a variety of emotion and expression. I then proceeded to illustrate this with examples.

 

[mooseodeath]

your still going on about this crap? silent player you are destined to get nowhere in life, everytime you create something and refuse to copyright it, it will be misappropriated.

everytime you invent something and refuse to patent it, a korean R+D office will have cheap mass produced versions in a week.

every piece of art you paint will be copied and sold without your consent.

if you have no aspirations to create and expand our society, then you have no right to tell others we have no rights to what we create.

if all you are is a lawyer hopeful with some "fresh" new ideas to help protect mega corporations from their own greed. all the best luck to you. you embody everything worng with our society

 

[EdEdEd]

your still going on about this crap?

... good lord, you're right. Man, first time I've been officially suckered into an argument with a guy on the Internet. Sorry, folks... I did no small part in keeping this argument going. I have a tendency to be obstinate when confronted by unrelentingly stubborn people. So, apologies to the most of you, and Silent_Player, I really suspect you're just pulling one over on us, and if so, well done. If not, good luck with all that. Toodles!

 

[NickKmet]

your still going on about this crap?

... good lord, you're right. Man, first time I've been officially suckered into an argument with a guy on the Internet. Sorry, folks... I did no small part in keeping this argument going. I have a tendency to be obstinate when confronted by unrelentingly stubborn people. So, apologies to the most of you, and Silent_Player, I really suspect you're just pulling one over on us, and if so, well done. If not, good luck with all that. Toodles!

Exactly why i gave up and stopped responding.

Mooseodeath, I love you man.