> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: iaamoac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: woensdag 20 november 2002 18:58 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: NASA
> > >By posting entire articles, those people will now have no reason to > > >go out and buy a copy of the latest edition; therefore, you may very > > >well have deprived the owners and publisher of _The Economist_, as > > >well as the owner of the newsstand, of income. > > > > I have considered this possibility also, and rejected it. > > Why have you rejected this possibility? (This is not a rhetorical > question.) > > Me: > It is highly unlikely. Why is it highly unlikely? (This is not a rhetorical question.) I think it is in fact very likely that people will not go out to buy a magazine if they have already read it for free on-line. > > >(To take this into extremes: maybe the newsstand owner's wife will > > >die because of your actions, because the revenue of those last few > > >sales would finally have given her family enough money to pay for her > > >life-saving operation.) > > > > I did not consider this possibility, but I have rejected it also. > > Why have you rejected this possibility? (This is also NOT a rhetorical > question.) > > And how can you *reject* a possibility without first *considering* that > possibility? (This is also not a rhetorical question.) > > ************************************************ > Me: > Pardon me. I meant to say: I did not consider this possibility, but > I have now considered this possibility and rejected it. So, you are absolutely sure that something like that could not happen? > I posted the articles, because I have estimated the denied revenue to > be $0 . Even allowing for the actual denied revenue to be several > standard deviations from the estimated denied revenue, the actual > amount of denied revenue simply cannot approach such a level of > significance, with 99.9999% confidence. In other words, nobody has been deprived of income because of your actions, right? > > >And why do you refuse to answer simple questions on-line? (This is > > >also not a rhetorical question.) > > > > Because I love seeing how many times you will violate basic Netiquette > > by reposting my personal e-mail back to the List.... > > Personally, I think you have a quite different reason for it. But > anyway, I will take a discussion back on-list whenever and as often as I > deem necessary. > > *********************************************** > Me: > So long as you don't care what effect these actions have on other's > relative impression of you and of other's relative trust of you, then > I guess that I can't stop you, other than to again remind you that it > is considered impolite to repost this private message from me in a > public forum. Given your history on this list, you are not exactly in a position to complain about someone else violating Netiquette. Actually, I do not even think that, given your history, you should have an e-mail address that has "iaamoac" in it. > Finally, I noticed you ignored one of the questions in my previous post, > so I will repeat it here: > > Why is it wrong if others deprive companies of income, but not wrong if > *you* do the same thing? (Again, this is not a rhetorical question.) > > ********************************************* > Me: > I did not answer it because my estimate of the denied revenue is $0, to > one significant figure, thus the question makes no sense to me. I do > not see myself as denying revenue - whereas my estimate of the denied > revenue from ad-blocking software is >$0 to one significant figure. Please show us the data that supports your claim that companies are denied revenue because of ad-blocking software. Jeroen "Put up or retract" van Baardwijk __________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
