I see what happened here. My original post was meant as something like "That quote is from someone who is not part of the film industry, thus attributing it to

I see what happened here. My original post was meant as something like "That quote is from someone who is not part of the film industry, thus attributing it to the film industry is wrong." You seem to have mistaken that for something more like "The quote is correct because it is from the president of the Author's Guild, who is in no way, shape, or form connected with film." I knew who Turow was the president. I knew Turow who was. I knew there were films of a few of his books. I did not consider any of that relevant given that he was speaking on behalf of the Author's Guild and not the MPAA or some other film industry organization. This is obvious from the article. Only if the quote is taken out of context to do people assume that the source is someone speaking on behalf of the film industry, as Jack Valenti was. I did not foresee that some would considered adaptations of Turow's books relevant, but I should have. I should have been explicit in my original post that the problem I had with the parent was not really this trivial point but with digging up the Valenti quote as a lazy argument done evidently in lieu of reading even the first sentence of the article. It doesn't matter how wrong Turow is, he's not so wrong that mis-attributing his position for the sake of recycle something that a different person representing a different organization at a different time in a different context can be considered a mature reaction. So yes, I was disputing from the start exactly something you thought I wasn't:that having a novel adapted makes you part of the film industry. Likewise, I mistook you for addressing an argument I thought obvious but hadn't been explicit about. I apologize for wasting your time.