Re: Johnnie Fallacy (was: Re: Downlad The Hulk for FREE!)

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 08:58:27 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

>In article <>,
> (Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:
>
>> >I see it went over your head, as most things seem to do. Any thoughts on
>> >chaos theory?
>> >
>> >You see, your 'logic' is based on the assumption that there would never be
>> >a revenue stream from him to the producers of the movie anyway, hence a
>> >download wouldn't alter this. The point is that if he watches the movie in
>> >any way that moves money from him to the producers (ssuch as rental or TV),
>> >then he has paid to see the movie, which you said would never happen.
>> >
>> >As you probably (not) realise, this means that once this person has paid to
>> >see the movie, your entire premise falls apart.
>>
>> Wrong. Once the movie is on a video producers shelves, and once the rights
>> to air a movie have been purchased, it matters not to the producers whether
>> one more individual rents the movie, or watches it on tv.
>
>Incorrect. The amount of money the producers recieve is in direct relation to
>the number of times it gets rented and the amount of viewers a TV channel has.
>
>Sorry, son.

Wrong. Video stores are not honest in reporting the numbers of
rentals they have, and since I am not included in Nielson ratings
surveys, no one knows what my tv is switched to.

Sorry gramps, you lose!

Johnnie Kendricks

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:15:22 GMT, (Johnnie Kendricks)
Gave us:

>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 08:58:27 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
>
>>In article <>,
>> (Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:
>>
>>> >I see it went over your head, as most things seem to do. Any thoughts on
>>> >chaos theory?
>>> >
>>> >You see, your 'logic' is based on the assumption that there would never be
>>> >a revenue stream from him to the producers of the movie anyway, hence a
>>> >download wouldn't alter this. The point is that if he watches the movie in
>>> >any way that moves money from him to the producers (ssuch as rental or TV),
>>> >then he has paid to see the movie, which you said would never happen.
>>> >
>>> >As you probably (not) realise, this means that once this person has paid to
>>> >see the movie, your entire premise falls apart.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Once the movie is on a video producers shelves, and once the rights
>>> to air a movie have been purchased, it matters not to the producers whether
>>> one more individual rents the movie, or watches it on tv.
>>
>>Incorrect. The amount of money the producers recieve is in direct relation to
>>the number of times it gets rented and the amount of viewers a TV channel has.
>>
>>Sorry, son.
>
>Wrong. Video stores are not honest in reporting the numbers of
>rentals they have, and since I am not included in Nielson ratings
>surveys, no one knows what my tv is switched to.
>
>Sorry gramps, you lose!

If you are on cable, they cab tell what channel you have on, twerp.

(Johnnie Kendricks) wrote in message news:<>...
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 08:58:27 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
>
> >In article <>,
> > (Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:
> >
> >> >I see it went over your head, as most things seem to do. Any thoughts on
> >> >chaos theory?
> >> >
> >> >You see, your 'logic' is based on the assumption that there would never be
> >> >a revenue stream from him to the producers of the movie anyway, hence a
> >> >download wouldn't alter this. The point is that if he watches the movie in
> >> >any way that moves money from him to the producers (ssuch as rental or TV),
> >> >then he has paid to see the movie, which you said would never happen.
> >> >
> >> >As you probably (not) realise, this means that once this person has paid to
> >> >see the movie, your entire premise falls apart.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Once the movie is on a video producers shelves, and once the rights
> >> to air a movie have been purchased, it matters not to the producers whether
> >> one more individual rents the movie, or watches it on tv.
> >
> >Incorrect. The amount of money the producers recieve is in direct relation to
> >the number of times it gets rented and the amount of viewers a TV channel has.
> >
> >Sorry, son.
>
> Wrong. Video stores are not honest in reporting the numbers of
> rentals they have, and since I am not included in Nielson ratings
> surveys, no one knows what my tv is switched to.
>
> Sorry gramps, you lose!

Im curious about something here - with the advent of digital cable,
that I know is not completely available everywehere yet, but
nevertheless is out there, here is my question regarding the Nielson
rating system....I have a router hooked up to my digital cable which
also provides me broadband internet, and I see that my activity light
is in constant fluctuation, showing all sorts of activity inbound due
to the web-based interactivity of my digital cable service - It is
reasonable to assume, possibly very likley, that some of this activity
may also be outbound as well...resulting in the hypothesis, that
anyone who has digital cable service, attached to an addressable
digital cable Set-Top Box (which is nothing more than alternatively
packaged computer system with RAM, and possible mini hard drive, and
several modems built-in, confirmed by a cable-technician), is
transmitting back to the cable routing station, date, time, channel
watched, length of time, vieweing habits, name, address, account
number, phone number, etc, and whatever else is in the individual
customer database for that unit(s)...

So it begs the question....does one really NEED to be a Nielson Rating
viewer to even be involved in determining show ratings at all?

On 23 Jun 2003 11:17:52 -0700, (Geo H) wrote:

>So it begs the question....does one really NEED to be a Nielson Rating
>viewer to even be involved in determining show ratings at all?

Yes, because data from digital cable subscribers would not provide an
accurate sample of the entire population.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:51:14 -0700, DarkMatter
<> wrote:

>>Wrong. Video stores are not honest in reporting the numbers of
>>rentals they have, and since I am not included in Nielson ratings
>>surveys, no one knows what my tv is switched to.
>>
>>Sorry gramps, you lose!
>
> If you are on cable, they cab tell what channel you have on, twerp.

That doesn't determine ratings, ****nut.

In article <>,
(Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:

> >> Wrong. Once the movie is on a video producers shelves, and once the
> >> rights to air a movie have been purchased, it matters not to the
> >> producers whether one more individual rents the movie, or watches it on
> >> tv.
> >
> >Incorrect. The amount of money the producers recieve is in direct relation
> >to the number of times it gets rented and the amount of viewers a TV
> >channel has.
> >
> >Sorry, son.
>
> Wrong. Video stores are not honest in reporting the numbers of rentals they
> have,

Isn't it nice that your entire premise is resting on the notion that rental
stores all ALWAYS dishonest.

You're getting weaker by the second. And given how limp you were to begin with,
I think you're starting to become a fluid.

> and since I am not included in Nielson ratings surveys, no one knows
> what my tv is switched to.

So you don't pay for TV?

> Sorry gramps, I lose!

I know.

--
Sandman[.net]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:41:37 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

>In article <>,
> (Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:
>
>> >> Wrong. Once the movie is on a video producers shelves, and once the
>> >> rights to air a movie have been purchased, it matters not to the
>> >> producers whether one more individual rents the movie, or watches it on
>> >> tv.
>> >
>> >Incorrect. The amount of money the producers recieve is in direct relation
>> >to the number of times it gets rented and the amount of viewers a TV
>> >channel has.
>> >
>> >Sorry, son.
>>
>> Wrong. Video stores are not honest in reporting the numbers of rentals they
>> have,
>
>Isn't it nice that your entire premise is resting on the notion that rental
>stores all ALWAYS dishonest.

You only believe that because you don't really understand the
argument. This is really only an irrelevant tangent.

How much money do you think a movie studio makes off of each video
rental? A totally inconsequential amount.

What if a friend of yours rented the video, and you went to his place
to see it? This would give the same end result as if you had
downloaded the film, and skipped going to your friend's to watch his
rented movie.

More importantly, why are you so obsessed with making sure the studio
benefits from your seeing a film?

You are a brainwashed, oversocialized, anal retentive robot. Loosen
up, and try enjoying life WITHOUT being a slave to the system.

>> and since I am not included in Nielson ratings surveys, no one knows
>> what my tv is switched to.
>
>So you don't pay for TV?

What difference would that make? Nielson ratings are accomplished by
survey.

>> Sorry gramps, you lose!
>
>I know.

At least you finally understand that you lost, you senile old coot.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:07:45 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

>In article <>,
> (Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:41:37 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <>,
>> > (Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Wrong. Once the movie is on a video producers shelves, and once the
>> >> >> rights to air a movie have been purchased, it matters not to the
>> >> >> producers whether one more individual rents the movie, or watches it
>> >> >> on tv.
>> >> >
>> >> >Incorrect. The amount of money the producers recieve is in direct
>> >> >relation to the number of times it gets rented and the amount of viewers
>> >> >a TV channel has.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorry, son.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. Video stores are not honest in reporting the numbers of rentals
>> >> they have,
>> >
>> >Isn't it nice that your entire premise is resting on the notion that rental
>> >stores all ALWAYS dishonest.
>>
>> You only believe that because you don't really understand the argument.
>> This is really only an irrelevant tangent.
>>
>> How much money do you think a movie studio makes off of each video rental?
>> A totally inconsequential amount.
>>
>> What if a friend of yours rented the video, and you went to his place to see
>> it? This would give the same end result as if you had downloaded the film,
>> and skipped going to your friend's to watch his rented movie.
>>
>> More importantly, why are you so obsessed with making sure the studio
>> benefits from your seeing a film?
>>
>> You are a brainwashed, oversocialized, anal retentive robot. Loosen up, and
>> try enjoying life WITHOUT being a slave to the system.
>>
>> >> and since I am not included in Nielson ratings surveys, no one knows what
>> >> my tv is switched to.
>> >
>> >So you don't pay for TV?
>>
>> What difference would that make? Nielson ratings are accomplished by
>> survey.
>>
>> >> Sorry gramps, I lose!
>> >
>> >I know.
>>
>> At least you finally understand that I lost, you senile old coot.
>
>I see you, luckily, choose not to argue with the facts. Thanks for agreeing.

Wow, Assman, has given up even trying to argue his losing position,
and has resorted to transparetnly editing my words.

You lose, asswipe!

In article <>,
(Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:

> >> At least you finally understand that I lost, you senile old coot.
> >
> >I see you, luckily, choose not to argue with the facts. Thanks for agreeing.
>
> Wow, Assman, has given up even trying to argue his losing position,
> and has resorted to transparetnly editing my words.
>
> You lose, asswipe!

We all know you had no way to win this losing argument, Johnnie, no need to
underscore it further.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article <>,
(Johnnie Kendricks) wrote:

> >> >> At least you finally understand that I lost, you senile old coot.
> >> >
> >> >I see you, luckily, choose not to argue with the facts. Thanks for
> >> >agreeing.
> >>
> >> Wow, Assman, has given up even trying to argue his losing position, and
> >> has resorted to transparetnly editing my words.
> >>
> >> You lose, asswipe!
> >
> >We all know you had no way to win this losing argument, Johnnie, no need to
> >underscore it further.
>
> Wrong. You have been unable to demonstrate a single reason why anoyone
> should not download a movie off the 'net, if the urge to do so hits him.

Hint: Just because you can't wrap your brain around the explanation doesn't
mean it's not there.

But hey, keep digging.

--
Sandman[.net]