4 ms·

So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade?

rosser 11y ago
When they give me a way to, yes, I actually do. I pay for recurrent subscriptions, plural, to sites that offer and warrant it. At least one of them has been running for a decade or more. Regardless, calling it a "crusade" is the same kind of argument-poisoning that the GP uses with his "people with morals" quip. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue." Apparently using correct words is now argument poisoning charged rhetoric. Okay. Sorry if you don't like when the definitions of words match what you are doing. "If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point." Let's look at who is using rhetoric here: "morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than " Yeah, i guess i couldn't agree more with you.
cyphar 11y ago
> So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. > Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade? Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. " So if it's not, you just view it anyway? "Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade. " It's pretty rich to make a moral argument the way the parent did and have a problem with a term like crusade, which is a precise and correct term to describe this.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    > > "Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. " > So if it's not, you just view it anyway? Yes, because I decide what authors and publications I choose to support based on what they publish. You might think I'm "taking free samples too far", but you can always flick through a magazine before buying it in a store -- what is the difference here? Paying for a publication when you have no idea what they produce is just being a bad consumer. > > "Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade. " > It's pretty rich to make a moral argument the way the parent did and have a problem with a term like crusade, which is a precise and correct term to describe this. Well, to be fair GP made a similar moral argument, so I guess they also have a crusade?
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      "Well, to be fair GP made a similar moral argument, so I guess they also have a crusade? " Sure. I don't discriminate.
anon1385 11y ago
Of course you think people who block ads are engaged in a "crusade": you work for an advertising company.

rosser 11y ago

When they give me a way to, yes, I actually do. I pay for recurrent subscriptions, plural, to sites that offer and warrant it. At least one of them has been running for a decade or more. Regardless, calling it a "crusade" is the same kind of argument-poisoning that the GP uses with his "people with morals" quip. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point.

DannyBee 11y ago
"crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue." Apparently using correct words is now argument poisoning charged rhetoric. Okay. Sorry if you don't like when the definitions of words match what you are doing. "If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point." Let's look at who is using rhetoric here: "morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than " Yeah, i guess i couldn't agree more with you.

cyphar 11y ago

> So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. > Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade? Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade.

DannyBee 11y ago
"Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. " So if it's not, you just view it anyway? "Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade. " It's pretty rich to make a moral argument the way the parent did and have a problem with a term like crusade, which is a precise and correct term to describe this.
- cyphar 11y ago
  > > "Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. " > So if it's not, you just view it anyway? Yes, because I decide what authors and publications I choose to support based on what they publish. You might think I'm "taking free samples too far", but you can always flick through a magazine before buying it in a store -- what is the difference here? Paying for a publication when you have no idea what they produce is just being a bad consumer. > > "Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade. " > It's pretty rich to make a moral argument the way the parent did and have a problem with a term like crusade, which is a precise and correct term to describe this. Well, to be fair GP made a similar moral argument, so I guess they also have a crusade?
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "Well, to be fair GP made a similar moral argument, so I guess they also have a crusade? " Sure. I don't discriminate.

anon1385 11y ago

Of course you think people who block ads are engaged in a "crusade": you work for an advertising company.