Fox, NBC, and CBS: Skipping ads is illegal

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

How can that possibly be illegal? Is flicking channels during commercial breaks also illegal? That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

Ultratwinkie:

Giftfromme:
Makes sense. Take away ads and you can no longer support free viewing tv, they will just have to sell tv channels outright

People skip ads all the time, but I don't see things like Youtube going out of business.

Is it possible to not view the ads at all on Youtube? Like skip them altogether? If businesses realise that they are not making money off ads on Youtube, than Youtube won't be free for much longer

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Oh this is fun. Point out where I make any semantic arguments there.

Btw, expecting you to actually have substance behind an argument isn't intellectual masturbation. I know you've kind of come across as the type to spew irrelevant things like a broken record, but please, do think whether things apply before you say them.

It would be much cooler than your insistence on baseless attacks.

What exactly needs to be proved? Seriously. Look at my post and find any given claim and ask me to prove it. It's all either pretty self evident or conditional. If you disagree, go ahead, pick an example out, and I'll point out why.

It had substance. Just substance you personally did not like. So instead of attempting to address that, you state that it *must* be inaccurate because it did not have to the letter factual evidence on hand, regardless of any circumstancial or supporting evidence provided.

Liar. I didn't say it must be inaccurate.

Common sense is not a very good source. Prove that they have to tell them the number of viewers and that they record who views what parts.

In which case your point really doesn't work very well. If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them. If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point. It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

By the way,

It would be much cooler than your insistence on baseless attacks.

Who exactly is using a strawman now?

Lol? Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. There's no strawman there.

Right. But what alternative did you leave? Read it again.

You clearly state that without clear factual proof none of my claims can be true by leaving no other alternative to that conclusion. Either I have proof, or my conclusion cannot be correct. You never leave room for the possibility of it being correct without supporting factual evidence.

Btw attempting to paint me as someone predisposed to baseless attacks to make me appear to be unreliable or of inferior intelligence is the definition of strawman. You've done it at least three times now. That was one. Here's #2:

Based off an assumption of 'common sense' from someone who didn't even read my post right the first time.

Here you imply that I argue without bothering to read posts. Unless this was intended to be some sort of statement of fact, in which case you must have proof that there is no way I could have read your post right, but went ahead and posted anyway. Which obviously, is entirely impossible to do because you can't have that information. Here's #3:

I know you've kind of come across as the type to spew irrelevant things like a broken record, but please, do think whether things apply before you say them.

Again, without undeniable proof that I cannot be a reliable source of information, all you've done is attempt to make my position appear weaker than it is with personal attacks.

Don't bother crying strawman if you can't stay away from them yourself.

So go ahead. Don't sidestep. Prove anything everything you said in that last post is true. No "self evident" or "conditional" nonsense applies, apparently, by your own decree. Apparently anything that could possibly be subjective can not be correct.

You don't seem to understand much. I mean, you quoted a part where I asked you to prove something. It is utterly asinine to ask me to prove that when it wasn't a claim. I simply want you to list out which parts I need to prove.

Not only that, you then quoted a segment that starts with a sentence I support with further logic.

Your claim is that my claim must be incorrect without factual proof readily on hand. And whether you support anything inside with logic or not is irrelevant, because i asked you to prove that logic as well.

Hell, following those rules, prove that anything is true, ever. You will inevitably be forced to backstep yourself into everything being false. That's why I called it intellectual masturbation. You couldn't simply respond to my opinion on the situation, you had to sidestep it with all this logical fallacy nonsense.

What rules? That you can't just say 'common sense' and think that works as evidence?

This bizarre rule you made up that has been the entire point. You know, the one where any statement without factual proof on hand must be inaccurate. You have yet to address it at all, merely pretend it does not exist.

Zaik:

It's nice to hear from someone who at least seems to actually know anything whatsoever about the situation.

What's your opinion on the whole thing?

I've picked up a few things about TV distribution, yeah. Even worked (indirectly) for Verizon FIOS. Wouldn't call myself an expert, but I know a few things.

I think they're whining over nothing, and their idea that skipping ads == copyright infringement is absurd. Fact is, we've been skipping TV ads for decades now, and it hasn't brought about some sort of TV apocalypse. Well, okay, I guess that might be debatable.

The advertisers already know that people often skip ads entirely either by simply being out of the room, taping it and fast-forwarding, or just plain not paying attention. From the advertiser's perspective these are all almost equivalent, reducing the impact of their ad to practically zero (except the last case, which might have some subliminal value). Because they know this, they factor it into their ad buys.

Incidentally, I found this on the Dish Hopper website:

Commercial-free TV feature only available for playback of certain HD primetime shows on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC with PrimeTime Anytime feature. Functions must be enabled by customer and are subject to availability.

Apparently, this ad-skipping only applies to those four networks (all OTA networks, mind) and only during primetime. It's a good bet that's probably when the networks make most (or close to it) of their ad revenue. Even so, given these limitations I don't really think it's going to hurt them all that much. For one, Hopper is only available on Dish as far as I can tell. Dish customers (and hell, pay-TV customers in general) most likely already have a DVR and skip ads themselves. This won't really change that. It might encourage some new users to get Dish (okay, it probably will net a few converts) but I really don't think it'll be all that significant overall.

The interesting thing (to me) about the Hopper is its ability to record all four of those networks at once using a single tuner. This is due to the way Dish transmits them. I find myself wondering if this might be part of the reason the networks are so pissed. I'm... not quite sure why it'd matter or how it might hurt them but media execs often use strange, unfathomable logic.

evilneko:

Zaik:

It's nice to hear from someone who at least seems to actually know anything whatsoever about the situation.

What's your opinion on the whole thing?

I've picked up a few things about TV distribution, yeah. Even worked (indirectly) for Verizon FIOS. Wouldn't call myself an expert, but I know a few things.

I think they're whining over nothing, and their idea that skipping ads == copyright infringement is absurd. Fact is, we've been skipping TV ads for decades now, and it hasn't brought about some sort of TV apocalypse. Well, okay, I guess that might be debatable.

The advertisers already know that people often skip ads entirely either by simply being out of the room, taping it and fast-forwarding, or just plain not paying attention. From the advertiser's perspective these are all almost equivalent, reducing the impact of their ad to practically zero (except the last case, which might have some subliminal value). Because they know this, they factor it into their ad buys.

Incidentally, I found this on the Dish Hopper website:

Commercial-free TV feature only available for playback of certain HD primetime shows on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC with PrimeTime Anytime feature. Functions must be enabled by customer and are subject to availability.

Apparently, this ad-skipping only applies to those four networks (all OTA networks, mind) and only during primetime. It's a good bet that's probably when the networks make most (or close to it) of their ad revenue. Even so, given these limitations I don't really think it's going to hurt them all that much. For one, Hopper is only available on Dish as far as I can tell. Dish customers (and hell, pay-TV customers in general) most likely already have a DVR and skip ads themselves. This won't really change that. It might encourage some new users to get Dish (okay, it probably will net a few converts) but I really don't think it'll be all that significant overall.

The interesting thing (to me) about the Hopper is its ability to record all four of those networks at once using a single tuner. This is due to the way Dish transmits them. I find myself wondering if this might be part of the reason the networks are so pissed. I'm... not quite sure why it'd matter or how it might hurt them but media execs often use strange, unfathomable logic.

Ah, so it's much more likely to be a ruse to do some legal attack with lawyer finagling nonsense over the recording than it is to be a legitimate issue with lost ad revenue or something related.

Zaik:

Ah, so it's much more likely to be a ruse to do some legal attack with lawyer finagling nonsense over the recording than it is to be a legitimate issue with lost ad revenue or something related.

It is certainly a possibility. I'm not quite sure how likely. Like I said, strange logic. They could be worried over loss of revenue that I don't think will materialize or be significant if it does. It's kinda like say, a local phone company complaining about a new IPhone--several years now after IPhones started selling. At this point, most people who want one, have one, and the new model isn't really going to change much. Hmm, that's a good analogy I think. Having an IPhone (DVR) doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't have landline service (sometimes watch commercials), despite the option being there.

Mortai Gravesend:

What rules? That you can't just say 'common sense' and think that works as evidence?

I always love your posts, so much proper discussion and arguing, as opposed to rhetoric.

As an addition, here, have some support: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#commonsense

An appeal to common sense is not a rational argument, and is more usually a case of an unsubstantiated justification for an assertion. Saying something is common sense does not help if your opponent disagrees: Clearly it is not common. And things which are common do not necessarily make sense: Argument ad Populous, Bandwagon fallacy, take your pick.

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

It had substance. Just substance you personally did not like. So instead of attempting to address that, you state that it *must* be inaccurate because it did not have to the letter factual evidence on hand, regardless of any circumstancial or supporting evidence provided.

Liar. I didn't say it must be inaccurate.

By the way,

Who exactly is using a strawman now?

Lol? Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. There's no strawman there.

Right. But what alternative did you leave? Read it again.

You clearly state that without clear factual proof none of my claims can be true by leaving no other alternative to that conclusion. Either I have proof, or my conclusion cannot be correct. You never leave room for the possibility of it being correct without supporting factual evidence.

Clearly state? No, I never stated that your claims could not be true. Your ability to pull shit out of nowhere is impressive.

Let's go through it line by line, for those who apparently need help reading it:

In which case your point really doesn't work very well.

Doesn't say that you can't be right, says that if you can't prove it your point doesn't work very well. So failure for you so far.

If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them.

A true statement. Conditional statement, doesn't say that you're necessarily wrong, states that if you are then certain consequences follow.

If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point.

No point, which is different from saying you're outright wrong. Continued failure for your lie.

It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

Speculation on my part, none of why says you are necessarily wrong. Total failure for your lie.

Btw attempting to paint me as someone predisposed to baseless attacks to make me appear to be unreliable or of inferior intelligence is the definition of strawman. You've done it at least three times now. That was one. Here's #2:

No, that would be an ad hominem attack at worst. Like I said, don't use words you don't know the meaning of. Lol.

Based off an assumption of 'common sense' from someone who didn't even read my post right the first time.

Here you imply that I argue without bothering to read posts. Unless this was intended to be some sort of statement of fact, in which case you must have proof that there is no way I could have read your post right, but went ahead and posted anyway. Which obviously, is entirely impossible to do because you can't have that information. Here's #3:

You're making shit up again. I said you didn't read it right the first time. And you didn't, you got it all wrong. I never said you didn't read it, I said you didn't read it right. I am casting aspersions on your judgement. Get it right. And btw, I have evidence you read it wrong. Your reply had jack shit to do with what I said and was arguing against things I didn't say. More fail on your part.

I know you've kind of come across as the type to spew irrelevant things like a broken record, but please, do think whether things apply before you say them.

Again, without undeniable proof that I cannot be a reliable source of information, all you've done is attempt to make my position appear weaker than it is with personal attacks.

It's a request in a snide format. Also, prove that was my motive. My motive was simply to express my ill opinion of you. It was never linked to your position.

Don't bother crying strawman if you can't stay away from them yourself.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's opinion that you argue against. You really have no clue what you're talking about.

So go ahead. Don't sidestep. Prove anything everything you said in that last post is true. No "self evident" or "conditional" nonsense applies, apparently, by your own decree. Apparently anything that could possibly be subjective can not be correct.

You don't seem to understand much. I mean, you quoted a part where I asked you to prove something. It is utterly asinine to ask me to prove that when it wasn't a claim. I simply want you to list out which parts I need to prove.

Not only that, you then quoted a segment that starts with a sentence I support with further logic.

Your claim is that my claim must be incorrect without factual proof readily on hand. And whether you support anything inside with logic or not is irrelevant, because i asked you to prove that logic as well.

Nope, I never claimed it must be incorrect. My argument is that it was worthless, not false. Pure speculation and thus worthless.

You're demanding proof without thinking. It's silly. Your demands make no sense since some of what I said doesn't need proof. You're shouting without even considering it, just throwing a tantrum.

Hell, following those rules, prove that anything is true, ever. You will inevitably be forced to backstep yourself into everything being false. That's why I called it intellectual masturbation. You couldn't simply respond to my opinion on the situation, you had to sidestep it with all this logical fallacy nonsense.

What rules? That you can't just say 'common sense' and think that works as evidence?

This bizarre rule you made up that has been the entire point. You know, the one where any statement without factual proof on hand must be inaccurate. You have yet to address it at all, merely pretend it does not exist.

I never made that claim. You're simply lying. Or maybe trying this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.376174-Do-you-ever-catch-yourself-trying-to-BS-your-way-out-of-poor-statements-you-made#14663675

Zaik:

This bizarre rule you made up that has been the entire point. You know, the one where any statement without factual proof on hand must be inaccurate. You have yet to address it at all, merely pretend it does not exist.

Just out of curiosity, what rule? If someone asks that you back up an assertion with evidence, they're simply obeying the fundamental rules of rational discourse with a reality based perspective. If you can't substantiate your claims, then they're not worth accepting. It's fallacious to take them as false (Which he doesn't seem to do, he dismisses them), but how logical discussion works is that claims which cannot be given logically, and supported by evidence are dismissed until proven.

Also, on the note of Strawmen: If you misread his post, and misinterpreted and misrepresented him, then you have commited the Straw Man fallacy.

What he has done by his statements is not to depict your position incorrectly, which would be a straw man. He's come close to implying your arguments aren't valid due to your failings, which would be almost Ad Hominem, but really, all he's done is insult you, rather than actually argue that you're wrong because of the insult, or to misrepresent your claim/position, which would actually be a Straw Man.

So, he's being short with you. A bit impolite. Which, given you Straw Man'd him, I'd think is entirely appropriate.

/leaves room during commercial
/arrested by FBI

Makes sense, yo.

(Note: When people try to ensure that certain laws are enforced they must be taken to the logical extremes in order to pass my scrutiny.)

But people don't even pay attention to ads on TV. Whenever I'm watching something and ads come on, I either get something to eat or check on here for a couple of minutes. Does that count as breaking the law?

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Liar. I didn't say it must be inaccurate.

Lol? Don't use words you don't know the meaning of. There's no strawman there.

Right. But what alternative did you leave? Read it again.

You clearly state that without clear factual proof none of my claims can be true by leaving no other alternative to that conclusion. Either I have proof, or my conclusion cannot be correct. You never leave room for the possibility of it being correct without supporting factual evidence.

Clearly state? No, I never stated that your claims could not be true. Your ability to pull shit out of nowhere is impressive.

Let's go through it line by line, for those who apparently need help reading it:

In which case your point really doesn't work very well.

Doesn't say that you can't be right, says that if you can't prove it your point doesn't work very well. So failure for you so far.

If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them.

A true statement. Conditional statement, doesn't say that you're necessarily wrong, states that if you are then certain consequences follow.

If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point.

No point, which is different from saying you're outright wrong. Continued failure for your lie.

It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

Speculation on my part, none of why says you are necessarily wrong. Total failure for your lie.

Btw attempting to paint me as someone predisposed to baseless attacks to make me appear to be unreliable or of inferior intelligence is the definition of strawman. You've done it at least three times now. That was one. Here's #2:

No, that would be an ad hominem attack at worst. Like I said, don't use words you don't know the meaning of. Lol.

Based off an assumption of 'common sense' from someone who didn't even read my post right the first time.

Here you imply that I argue without bothering to read posts. Unless this was intended to be some sort of statement of fact, in which case you must have proof that there is no way I could have read your post right, but went ahead and posted anyway. Which obviously, is entirely impossible to do because you can't have that information. Here's #3:

You're making shit up again. I said you didn't read it right the first time. And you didn't, you got it all wrong. I never said you didn't read it, I said you didn't read it right. I am casting aspersions on your judgement. Get it right. And btw, I have evidence you read it wrong. Your reply had jack shit to do with what I said and was arguing against things I didn't say. More fail on your part.

I know you've kind of come across as the type to spew irrelevant things like a broken record, but please, do think whether things apply before you say them.

Again, without undeniable proof that I cannot be a reliable source of information, all you've done is attempt to make my position appear weaker than it is with personal attacks.

It's a request in a snide format. Also, prove that was my motive. My motive was simply to express my ill opinion of you. It was never linked to your position.

Don't bother crying strawman if you can't stay away from them yourself.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's opinion that you argue against. You really have no clue what you're talking about.

You don't seem to understand much. I mean, you quoted a part where I asked you to prove something. It is utterly asinine to ask me to prove that when it wasn't a claim. I simply want you to list out which parts I need to prove.

Not only that, you then quoted a segment that starts with a sentence I support with further logic.

Your claim is that my claim must be incorrect without factual proof readily on hand. And whether you support anything inside with logic or not is irrelevant, because i asked you to prove that logic as well.

Nope, I never claimed it must be incorrect. My argument is that it was worthless, not false. Pure speculation and thus worthless.

You're demanding proof without thinking. It's silly. Your demands make no sense since some of what I said doesn't need proof. You're shouting without even considering it, just throwing a tantrum.

What rules? That you can't just say 'common sense' and think that works as evidence?

This bizarre rule you made up that has been the entire point. You know, the one where any statement without factual proof on hand must be inaccurate. You have yet to address it at all, merely pretend it does not exist.

I never made that claim. You're simply lying. Or maybe trying this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.376174-Do-you-ever-catch-yourself-trying-to-BS-your-way-out-of-poor-statements-you-made#14663675

I already asked you to actually read what you said. Don't break it up into a million mini quotes you can misrepresent by pulling it out of context, read it from top to bottom. You logically leave absolutely no conclusion other than my claim must be incorrect because there is no factual evidence on hand to present to you personally immediately.

Also you're still dancing in circles over the proof thing. I ask you: how can I take you seriously when you do not practice what you preach?

Loonyyy:

Zaik:

This bizarre rule you made up that has been the entire point. You know, the one where any statement without factual proof on hand must be inaccurate. You have yet to address it at all, merely pretend it does not exist.

Just out of curiosity, what rule? If someone asks that you back up an assertion with evidence, they're simply obeying the fundamental rules of rational discourse with a reality based perspective. If you can't substantiate your claims, then they're not worth accepting. It's fallacious to take them as false (Which he doesn't seem to do, he dismisses them), but how logical discussion works is that claims which cannot be given logically, and supported by evidence are dismissed until proven.

Also, on the note of Strawmen: If you misread his post, and misinterpreted and misrepresented him, then you have commited the Straw Man fallacy.

What he has done by his statements is not to depict your position incorrectly, which would be a straw man. He's come close to implying your arguments aren't valid due to your failings, which would be almost Ad Hominem, but really, all he's done is insult you, rather than actually argue that you're wrong because of the insult, or to misrepresent your claim/position, which would actually be a Straw Man.

So, he's being short with you. A bit impolite. Which, given you Straw Man'd him, I'd think is entirely appropriate.

What dog do you even have in this race?

Obviously you cannot read the entire post history, don't jump in halfway through just to ask questions that have already been addressed 10 times. I've clearly pointed out where the problem is, if you both want to dance around the issue and pretend it isn't there, by all means, go right ahead. I asked if he wanted to play the semantics and intellectual masturbation game before I started.

Apparently he does, so we'll just logic troll each other until one of us gets bored with it or we both get suspended or banned.

Giftfromme:

Ultratwinkie:

Giftfromme:
Makes sense. Take away ads and you can no longer support free viewing tv, they will just have to sell tv channels outright

People skip ads all the time, but I don't see things like Youtube going out of business.

Is it possible to not view the ads at all on Youtube? Like skip them altogether? If businesses realise that they are not making money off ads on Youtube, than Youtube won't be free for much longer

Actually, there are ways.

There is the regular skipping, then there is adblock which reportedly blocks ads.

You seem to misunderstand how ads work.

A person who wishes to advertise on a medium pays the medium and provides the ad. This is mostly how it works on the internet. There are ways such as clicks, viewing, and such but those are heavily exploited with no guarantee it will work. Its about exosure, thats what ads DO. To expose you TO their service. Money doesn't come into it until the person ACTS on that exposure.

From what I see of Facebook, no one reads their ads but that doesn't mean advertisers will suddenly drop Facebook and it will suddenly be a subscription service.

Skipping ads will not destroy anything. People have been skipping ads since they were invented.

[/b]If the VHS/Betamax didn't kill ads, neither will this.[/b]

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Right. But what alternative did you leave? Read it again.

You clearly state that without clear factual proof none of my claims can be true by leaving no other alternative to that conclusion. Either I have proof, or my conclusion cannot be correct. You never leave room for the possibility of it being correct without supporting factual evidence.

Clearly state? No, I never stated that your claims could not be true. Your ability to pull shit out of nowhere is impressive.

Let's go through it line by line, for those who apparently need help reading it:

In which case your point really doesn't work very well.

Doesn't say that you can't be right, says that if you can't prove it your point doesn't work very well. So failure for you so far.

If they aren't reporting it to them then the point is completely moot since from the networks' point of view someone who watches a recording with ads and someone who watches a recording without ads are indistinguishable to them.

A true statement. Conditional statement, doesn't say that you're necessarily wrong, states that if you are then certain consequences follow.

If you can't show that they're working together to that degree then you have no point.

No point, which is different from saying you're outright wrong. Continued failure for your lie.

It seems doubtful they would anyway since they clearly aren't getting along very well.

Speculation on my part, none of why says you are necessarily wrong. Total failure for your lie.

Btw attempting to paint me as someone predisposed to baseless attacks to make me appear to be unreliable or of inferior intelligence is the definition of strawman. You've done it at least three times now. That was one. Here's #2:

No, that would be an ad hominem attack at worst. Like I said, don't use words you don't know the meaning of. Lol.

Here you imply that I argue without bothering to read posts. Unless this was intended to be some sort of statement of fact, in which case you must have proof that there is no way I could have read your post right, but went ahead and posted anyway. Which obviously, is entirely impossible to do because you can't have that information. Here's #3:

You're making shit up again. I said you didn't read it right the first time. And you didn't, you got it all wrong. I never said you didn't read it, I said you didn't read it right. I am casting aspersions on your judgement. Get it right. And btw, I have evidence you read it wrong. Your reply had jack shit to do with what I said and was arguing against things I didn't say. More fail on your part.

Again, without undeniable proof that I cannot be a reliable source of information, all you've done is attempt to make my position appear weaker than it is with personal attacks.

It's a request in a snide format. Also, prove that was my motive. My motive was simply to express my ill opinion of you. It was never linked to your position.

Don't bother crying strawman if you can't stay away from them yourself.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's opinion that you argue against. You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Your claim is that my claim must be incorrect without factual proof readily on hand. And whether you support anything inside with logic or not is irrelevant, because i asked you to prove that logic as well.

Nope, I never claimed it must be incorrect. My argument is that it was worthless, not false. Pure speculation and thus worthless.

You're demanding proof without thinking. It's silly. Your demands make no sense since some of what I said doesn't need proof. You're shouting without even considering it, just throwing a tantrum.

This bizarre rule you made up that has been the entire point. You know, the one where any statement without factual proof on hand must be inaccurate. You have yet to address it at all, merely pretend it does not exist.

I never made that claim. You're simply lying. Or maybe trying this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.376174-Do-you-ever-catch-yourself-trying-to-BS-your-way-out-of-poor-statements-you-made#14663675

I already asked you to actually read what you said. Don't break it up into a million mini quotes you can misrepresent by pulling it out of context, read it from top to bottom. You logically leave absolutely no conclusion other than my claim must be incorrect because there is no factual evidence on hand to present to you personally immediately.

I read through it fully as well.

Also, don't cry "out of context" unless you're willing to show that I take things out of context. So go on, demonstrate how I took things out of context. If you're not just lying that is.

And no, the logical conclusion is that since your claim lacked evidence, your point was worthless since that left it with no support. Nowhere in there is the word 'incorrect' used. You are simply lying.

If not, go on and prove that it is the only logical conclusion from what I said.

Also you're still dancing in circles over the proof thing. I ask you: how can I take you seriously when you do not practice what you preach?

Dancing in circles? Not at all. I pointed out that the standard you're holding me to isn't the one I used. You simply lied about it.

Loonyyy:

Mortai Gravesend:

What rules? That you can't just say 'common sense' and think that works as evidence?

I always love your posts, so much proper discussion and arguing, as opposed to rhetoric.

As an addition, here, have some support: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#commonsense

An appeal to common sense is not a rational argument, and is more usually a case of an unsubstantiated justification for an assertion. Saying something is common sense does not help if your opponent disagrees: Clearly it is not common. And things which are common do not necessarily make sense: Argument ad Populous, Bandwagon fallacy, take your pick.

I'm not sure if you're being somewhat sarcastic there with the first bit because, well, my points tend to have lots of distracting rhetoric alongside them XP

It will never work in the long run and they should just change the way they work instead of changing the world. But is there any chance of that happening? Are dolphins innocent in the schemes to bring down the human race?

the answer, is no.

I have been skipping ads with my Sky Plus box for years. In fact, on Sky Anytime, the programs don't even have ads, bar one or two before it starts.

Ultratwinkie:

Giftfromme:

Ultratwinkie:

People skip ads all the time, but I don't see things like Youtube going out of business.

Is it possible to not view the ads at all on Youtube? Like skip them altogether? If businesses realise that they are not making money off ads on Youtube, than Youtube won't be free for much longer

Actually, there are ways.

There is the regular skipping, then there is adblock which reportedly blocks ads.

You seem to misunderstand how ads work.

A person who wishes to advertise on a medium pays the medium and provides the ad. This is mostly how it works on the internet. There are ways such as clicks, viewing, and such but those are heavily exploited with no guarantee it will work. Its about exosure, thats what ads DO. To expose you TO their service. Money doesn't come into it until the person ACTS on that exposure.

From what I see of Facebook, no one reads their ads but that doesn't mean advertisers will suddenly drop Facebook and it will suddenly be a subscription service.

Skipping ads will not destroy anything. People have been skipping ads since they were invented.

[/b]If the VHS/Betamax didn't kill ads, neither will this.[/b]

And if they didn't believe such ads worked, they wouldn't bother paying Youtube would they?

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Clearly state? No, I never stated that your claims could not be true. Your ability to pull shit out of nowhere is impressive.

Let's go through it line by line, for those who apparently need help reading it:

Doesn't say that you can't be right, says that if you can't prove it your point doesn't work very well. So failure for you so far.

A true statement. Conditional statement, doesn't say that you're necessarily wrong, states that if you are then certain consequences follow.

No point, which is different from saying you're outright wrong. Continued failure for your lie.

Speculation on my part, none of why says you are necessarily wrong. Total failure for your lie.

No, that would be an ad hominem attack at worst. Like I said, don't use words you don't know the meaning of. Lol.

You're making shit up again. I said you didn't read it right the first time. And you didn't, you got it all wrong. I never said you didn't read it, I said you didn't read it right. I am casting aspersions on your judgement. Get it right. And btw, I have evidence you read it wrong. Your reply had jack shit to do with what I said and was arguing against things I didn't say. More fail on your part.

It's a request in a snide format. Also, prove that was my motive. My motive was simply to express my ill opinion of you. It was never linked to your position.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's opinion that you argue against. You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Nope, I never claimed it must be incorrect. My argument is that it was worthless, not false. Pure speculation and thus worthless.

You're demanding proof without thinking. It's silly. Your demands make no sense since some of what I said doesn't need proof. You're shouting without even considering it, just throwing a tantrum.

I never made that claim. You're simply lying. Or maybe trying this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.376174-Do-you-ever-catch-yourself-trying-to-BS-your-way-out-of-poor-statements-you-made#14663675

I already asked you to actually read what you said. Don't break it up into a million mini quotes you can misrepresent by pulling it out of context, read it from top to bottom. You logically leave absolutely no conclusion other than my claim must be incorrect because there is no factual evidence on hand to present to you personally immediately.

I read through it fully as well.

Also, don't cry "out of context" unless you're willing to show that I take things out of context. So go on, demonstrate how I took things out of context. If you're not just lying that is.

And no, the logical conclusion is that since your claim lacked evidence, your point was worthless since that left it with no support. Nowhere in there is the word 'incorrect' used. You are simply lying.

If not, go on and prove that it is the only logical conclusion from what I said.

Also you're still dancing in circles over the proof thing. I ask you: how can I take you seriously when you do not practice what you preach?

Dancing in circles? Not at all. I pointed out that the standard you're holding me to isn't the one I used. You simply lied about it.

You sure like to throw that word around a lot. Lie. You make it a point to not say anything else, such as misrepresent, obfuscate, deceive, etc. Let me explain something to you: I can't lie to you about something you just said.

I could lie to someone else in or out of the debate. I could lie to a crowd about your intentions. But I can not lie to *you*. I can misrepresent you, but if you said that it wouldn't be as strong of a personal attack, would it?

Furthermore, you demand answers to your own questions, while refusing to ever directly answer any of mine. What kind of debate skill is that, exactly?

Then you attempt to misrepresent your own position by pulling your own words out of context.

Unless you can show otherwise, it looks like all you are here to do is win by attrition. Let me assure you, I'm pro at attrition. You might want to find another way to win this, like being right.

Giftfromme:

Ultratwinkie:

Giftfromme:

Is it possible to not view the ads at all on Youtube? Like skip them altogether? If businesses realise that they are not making money off ads on Youtube, than Youtube won't be free for much longer

Actually, there are ways.

There is the regular skipping, then there is adblock which reportedly blocks ads.

You seem to misunderstand how ads work.

A person who wishes to advertise on a medium pays the medium and provides the ad. This is mostly how it works on the internet. There are ways such as clicks, viewing, and such but those are heavily exploited with no guarantee it will work. Its about exosure, thats what ads DO. To expose you TO their service. Money doesn't come into it until the person ACTS on that exposure.

From what I see of Facebook, no one reads their ads but that doesn't mean advertisers will suddenly drop Facebook and it will suddenly be a subscription service.

Skipping ads will not destroy anything. People have been skipping ads since they were invented.

[/b]If the VHS/Betamax didn't kill ads, neither will this.[/b]

And if they didn't believe such ads worked, they wouldn't bother paying Youtube would they?

They know facebook ads don't work, yet they still get paid.

The networks are just bitching because their medium is circling the drain.

Giftfromme:

Ultratwinkie:

Giftfromme:
Makes sense. Take away ads and you can no longer support free viewing tv, they will just have to sell tv channels outright

People skip ads all the time, but I don't see things like Youtube going out of business.

Is it possible to not view the ads at all on Youtube? Like skip them altogether? If businesses realise that they are not making money off ads on Youtube, than Youtube won't be free for much longer

There is a way, and there has been since Youtube first started showing ads. I can't however, tell you what it is, because it's against the Escapists rules to mention it (P.S read the rules and you will see how to skip it.)

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

I already asked you to actually read what you said. Don't break it up into a million mini quotes you can misrepresent by pulling it out of context, read it from top to bottom. You logically leave absolutely no conclusion other than my claim must be incorrect because there is no factual evidence on hand to present to you personally immediately.

I read through it fully as well.

Also, don't cry "out of context" unless you're willing to show that I take things out of context. So go on, demonstrate how I took things out of context. If you're not just lying that is.

And no, the logical conclusion is that since your claim lacked evidence, your point was worthless since that left it with no support. Nowhere in there is the word 'incorrect' used. You are simply lying.

If not, go on and prove that it is the only logical conclusion from what I said.

Also you're still dancing in circles over the proof thing. I ask you: how can I take you seriously when you do not practice what you preach?

Dancing in circles? Not at all. I pointed out that the standard you're holding me to isn't the one I used. You simply lied about it.

You sure like to throw that word around a lot. Lie. You make it a point to not say anything else, such as misrepresent, obfuscate, deceive, etc. Let me explain something to you: I can't lie to you about something you just said.

You're lying because I didn't actually say it. I asked you to demonstrate that I said it, now go on and get to it if you're not lying about it. Should be easy enough if I supposedly said it.

I could lie to someone else in or out of the debate. I could lie to a crowd about your intentions. But I can not lie to *you*. I can misrepresent you, but if you said that it wouldn't be as strong of a personal attack, would it?

Yes, you can lie to me by telling me information that is clearly false. Which you did.

Furthermore, you demand answers to your own questions, while refusing to ever directly answer any of mine. What kind of debate skill is that, exactly?

Your 'question' was poorly stated and when I pointed that out you refused to address the criticism.

Then you attempt to misrepresent your own position by pulling your own words out of context.

Show how I pulled them out of context. Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make the lie true.

Unless you can show otherwise, it looks like all you are here to do is win by attrition. Let me assure you, I'm pro at attrition. You might want to find another way to win this, like being right.

I did show otherwise. You then claim that I took things out of context without demonstrating it as a retort. So far it's pretty clear that you're just throwing a tantrum because you didn't like the way I spoke.

This entire thread makes me so incredibly happy that I do not watch TV.

Thank you all, from the bottom of my heart.

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:
[quote="Zaik" post="18.376547.14664201"]
I did show otherwise. You then claim that I took things out of context without demonstrating it as a retort. So far it's pretty clear that you're just throwing a tantrum because you didn't like the way I spoke.

If I were throwing a tantrum, I just use google to find out your youtube name is RQX79 and that on May 30th, 2011 you felt the need to share your half naked realdoll with the internet.

And shit youtube up with more bland lets plays.

Or I'd point out that your forum health bar is even worse than mine is, obviously pointing out a long history of trolling. That is...here:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Mortai+Gravesend

or here:http://mythos.warcry.com/profiles/view/Mortai+Gravesend

So, you wanted tantrum, here it is.

I don't in fact have any youtube videos posted, and my account name is something I've forgotten. But, yes, my health bar is worse. For flaming.

But anyway, you should avoid that kind of post in the future because it's definitely reported.

Edit: Oh and don't think you can escape by editing it away or something, I'm just going to screenshot the PM notification I got of it. Or forward it to them if possible.. I know that if they actually caught it and found it worth deleting you'd be suspended since your health bar was yellow before that post.

wow, really? they want to make it illegal to ignore annoying commercials on a recorded TV show? how in the world would they even enforce such a law. that's just dumb.

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:
[quote="Zaik" post="18.376547.14664201"]
I did show otherwise. You then claim that I took things out of context without demonstrating it as a retort. So far it's pretty clear that you're just throwing a tantrum because you didn't like the way I spoke.

If I were throwing a tantrum, I just use google to find out your youtube name is RQX79 and that on May 30th, 2011 you felt the need to share your half naked realdoll with the internet.

And shit youtube up with more bland lets plays.

Or I'd point out that your forum health bar is even worse than mine is, obviously pointing out a long history of trolling. That is...here:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Mortai+Gravesend

or here:http://mythos.warcry.com/profiles/view/Mortai+Gravesend

So, you wanted tantrum, here it is.

I don't in fact have any youtube videos posted, and my account name is something I've forgotten. But, yes, my health bar is worse. For flaming.

But anyway, you should avoid that kind of post in the future because it's definitely reported.

Edit: Oh and don't think you can escape by editing it away or something, I'm just going to screenshot the PM notification I got of it. Or forward it to them if possible.. I know that if they actually caught it and found it worth deleting you'd be suspended since your health bar was yellow before that post.

Go for it, dont care. By the time they sift through this shitpile we're both going down, and you've got a lot more to lose.

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

If I were throwing a tantrum, I just use google to find out your youtube name is RQX79 and that on May 30th, 2011 you felt the need to share your half naked realdoll with the internet.

And shit youtube up with more bland lets plays.

Or I'd point out that your forum health bar is even worse than mine is, obviously pointing out a long history of trolling. That is...here:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Mortai+Gravesend

or here:http://mythos.warcry.com/profiles/view/Mortai+Gravesend

So, you wanted tantrum, here it is.

I don't in fact have any youtube videos posted, and my account name is something I've forgotten. But, yes, my health bar is worse. For flaming.

But anyway, you should avoid that kind of post in the future because it's definitely reported.

Edit: Oh and don't think you can escape by editing it away or something, I'm just going to screenshot the PM notification I got of it. Or forward it to them if possible.. I know that if they actually caught it and found it worth deleting you'd be suspended since your health bar was yellow before that post.

Go for it, dont care. By the time they sift through this shitpile we're both going down, and you've got a lot more to lose.

I'm going to be reporting it every time you say things like that, dude.

Also, you can't really hide your post because it clicking on your name in the notification directly links to your post. And they don't even delete posts here, they would just edit it.

Lionsfan:
So by their logic, if I leave the room during commercial breaks then what I'm doing is illegal?

image
in all seriousness this is stupid because while i understand where they're coming from, you can't stop people skipping or avoiding adds unless you tie them down and tape their eyes open

Giftfromme:

Ultratwinkie:

Giftfromme:
Makes sense. Take away ads and you can no longer support free viewing tv, they will just have to sell tv channels outright

People skip ads all the time, but I don't see things like Youtube going out of business.

Is it possible to not view the ads at all on Youtube? Like skip them altogether? If businesses realise that they are not making money off ads on Youtube, than Youtube won't be free for much longer

It's simple, open up a whole heap of vids, turn off sound and do something else (like post on a forum) for a couple of minutes, flick back to the vids and hey! NO ADS!

Who really watches adds these days anyway? I always channel surf, read or take a break whenever an commercial slot appears.

You know, as much as I can understand why commercials and ads are a vital part of business to television companies and stores/places altogether .. I think this should be handled differently. Instead of getting on people for skipping ads and not being drawn into commercials, why not try making the ads and commercials worth watching?

Some commercials and ads are so funny, they make me wonder why don't I go get the product (unless it's a car commercial.. for shame I don't have the money for that). Still, if they placed a lot of effort and great jokes or something unique into these ads/commercials, they would really get people to not mind watching them or even enjoy seeing them. The problem is that the companies focus to much on the product itself and thus the commercial/ad lacks anything creative or interesting about it.

Besides, commercials/ads are usually a sign of "time to take a break and use the bathroom".

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

I don't in fact have any youtube videos posted, and my account name is something I've forgotten. But, yes, my health bar is worse. For flaming.

But anyway, you should avoid that kind of post in the future because it's definitely reported.

Edit: Oh and don't think you can escape by editing it away or something, I'm just going to screenshot the PM notification I got of it. Or forward it to them if possible.. I know that if they actually caught it and found it worth deleting you'd be suspended since your health bar was yellow before that post.

Go for it, dont care. By the time they sift through this shitpile we're both going down, and you've got a lot more to lose.

I'm going to be reporting it every time you say things like that, dude.

Also, you can't really hide your post because it clicking on your name in the notification directly links to your post. And they don't even delete posts here, they would just edit it.

Whatever, if the heat is too much for you i'm out.

I leave you with this:

image

Zaik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Zaik:

Go for it, dont care. By the time they sift through this shitpile we're both going down, and you've got a lot more to lose.

I'm going to be reporting it every time you say things like that, dude.

Also, you can't really hide your post because it clicking on your name in the notification directly links to your post. And they don't even delete posts here, they would just edit it.

Whatever, if the heat is too much for you i'm out.

I leave you with this:

What heat? You mean your blatant attempts to provoke me by pointing out my health bar? I can deal with it. I'll go right on, report it, and forget about it. Best way to deal with it.

So far you just turned it into you flinging shit at me instead of replying with an actual argument. You've consistently made accusations and refused to substantiate them. If anything, it seems like you're the guy who can't handle this since you stooped to insulting me and trying to edit your post with yet another lie to cover your ass. Feel free at any time to actually point out how I took things out of context or how my argument logically is equivalent to saying that you're incorrect because you failed to provide evidence.

While I understand why they are doing it, I have no sympathy at all for the television companies. I skip ads by changing the channel. I never wait for the ads to be over, so They lose no money on me.

Latinidiot:
While I understand why they are doing it, I have no sympathy at all for the television companies. I skip ads by changing the channel. I never wait for the ads to be over, so They lose no money on me.

I'm curious if networks charge more for the first and last commercials in a break and less for ones in the middle. Since channel flippers like yourself and I are more likely to catch a part of those two commercials.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked