Report Offensive Message
Funny, I was trying to tune a clear signal.
If I remember correctly you were injecting noise into my comment regarding my prediction that there will be those that think it "unfair" that people who only purchase subsidized goods will be subjected to seemingly endless advertising whereas those who pay more for unsubsidized goods will not.
You made two predictions, in separate paragraphs, the purpose of which is to imply some conceptual separation. You were not clear that the prediction in your second paragraph was meant to apply only to complaints about cheap products "subsidized one way or another by advertising."
It's long been a prediction of mine...
...that eventually, most of the products that we use will end up being subsidized one way or another by advertising. We've already seen this in the form of cheap PCs that come loaded with crapware. Also expect to see it in other forms of consumer electronics as well.
It's also my prediction that in the upcoming decade(s), a new civil rights movement will emerge because it will be perceived that only the wealthy will be able to afford to live with and in an environment without advertising bombarding them every second of the day.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=261342&messageID=2480734
Also, being subjected to an environment of "advertising bombarding them every second of the day" is a totally valid complaint, whether "subsidized" or not.
You could not seem to differentiate between my observation and prediction and my supposed advocacy, which are not the same thing.
I was hoping you're a decent enough person to recognize the legitimacy of the complaints you predict. I'm sorry to learn you're such an ******.
2: I agree in that the health care industry as practiced in this country is hopelessly screwed up by government intervention (either directly via mandate or indirectly via the tax code) and gross ignorance by a substantial percentage of the population as to what "insurance" really is. (What most people today consider "insurance" is actually a "payment plan"; economically, two very different concepts)
Did a "substantial percentage of the population" whose "gross ignorance" you mention in passing, introduce that false nomenclature, or did providers of health care payment plans do that?
3: It will not be "Advertising" in and of itself that will be protested. It will be the fact that there will be people who are able/willing to pay more (a premium, if you will) to exist with products and in environments that will be free of advertising, while there will be many who choose not.
Ah, you mean like people who can afford an Apple Macintosh don't get infested with "free" (for a limited period) ISP services that renew automatically, and provide no notice at the time that bills begin, and aren't encumbered with Norton software that won't un-install without downloading rnav.exe or rnis.exe from symantec.com. I understand exactly what you're saying. The complaints are leveled appropriately against the package-dealers of crapware, not against purchasers of Macintosh computers, and the complaints are valid, as has been found by some courts already. Google it. You don't have a right to crap on my lawn, nor my computer.
(In much the same way that those who choose not to purchase health insurance resent those who do) This will be promulgated by those forwarding the "wealth envy" political agenda.
Envy is not the correct word. Recipients of corporate welfare and of political bribes are despised, and rightly so.
You made two predictions, in separate paragraphs, the purpose of which is to imply some conceptual separation. You were not clear that the prediction in your second paragraph was meant to apply only to complaints about cheap products "subsidized one way or another by advertising."
It's long been a prediction of mine...
...that eventually, most of the products that we use will end up being subsidized one way or another by advertising. We've already seen this in the form of cheap PCs that come loaded with crapware. Also expect to see it in other forms of consumer electronics as well.
It's also my prediction that in the upcoming decade(s), a new civil rights movement will emerge because it will be perceived that only the wealthy will be able to afford to live with and in an environment without advertising bombarding them every second of the day.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=261342&messageID=2480734
Also, being subjected to an environment of "advertising bombarding them every second of the day" is a totally valid complaint, whether "subsidized" or not.
You could not seem to differentiate between my observation and prediction and my supposed advocacy, which are not the same thing.
I was hoping you're a decent enough person to recognize the legitimacy of the complaints you predict. I'm sorry to learn you're such an ******.
2: I agree in that the health care industry as practiced in this country is hopelessly screwed up by government intervention (either directly via mandate or indirectly via the tax code) and gross ignorance by a substantial percentage of the population as to what "insurance" really is. (What most people today consider "insurance" is actually a "payment plan"; economically, two very different concepts)
Did a "substantial percentage of the population" whose "gross ignorance" you mention in passing, introduce that false nomenclature, or did providers of health care payment plans do that?
3: It will not be "Advertising" in and of itself that will be protested. It will be the fact that there will be people who are able/willing to pay more (a premium, if you will) to exist with products and in environments that will be free of advertising, while there will be many who choose not.
Ah, you mean like people who can afford an Apple Macintosh don't get infested with "free" (for a limited period) ISP services that renew automatically, and provide no notice at the time that bills begin, and aren't encumbered with Norton software that won't un-install without downloading rnav.exe or rnis.exe from symantec.com. I understand exactly what you're saying. The complaints are leveled appropriately against the package-dealers of crapware, not against purchasers of Macintosh computers, and the complaints are valid, as has been found by some courts already. Google it. You don't have a right to crap on my lawn, nor my computer.
(In much the same way that those who choose not to purchase health insurance resent those who do) This will be promulgated by those forwarding the "wealth envy" political agenda.
Envy is not the correct word. Recipients of corporate welfare and of political bribes are despised, and rightly so.
Posted by $$$$$$$$$$
Updated - 30th Apr 2008
