Perhaps you can highlight the important parts, then? What I see is an agenda propped up by some poorly thought-out arguments. I simply want to find the logical extrapolation of your claims. I do this so that everybody can easily see where the logic you use takes you.
I don't think I have to quote the post where I pointed out this fallacy. Remember, even free mud administrators can pay for advertising. Furthermore, you're using flawed circular logic to back up your points: You state that P2P muds are occupying an advertisement slot; I ask why it matters that they're P2P muds occupying an advertisement slot, as opposed to a free mud; and you reply that this is because they're occupying an advertisement slot that a free mud could use! You're going to have to do better than that if you're going to convince anybody. In particular, we need to know what attributes of P2P muds make it immoral.
Can the person who wants to give his goods away go a block down the street, pay a moderate fee, and give them away? This is the second time I've had to point out this fallacy.
I love this quote =).
All those points that I've shown were irrelevant and that you didn't refute? =)
So what if the free MUD administrator is a wealthy executive? This is the third time this fallacy has reared its ugly head.
|