|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/19/05 05:28
> From: "Greg N." <yodel_dodel@yahoo.com>
>
> dorayme wrote:
>
>> Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
>> as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
>> view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
>> could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
>> choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
>> One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
>> stage.
>
> Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to be
> helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not all
> potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without saying false
> things.
>
> I would say that uncontrollable acoustic content, though some may like
> it in some cases, *will*, without any doubt, annoy a percentage of visitors.
>
> The question remains, should a civilized person do things that might be
> offensive to a part (however small) of the audience, without giving them
> a choice. I think the answer is no.
>
OK Greg N...
What exactly out of my paragraph, in which I said a number of
things, is not true? Were they all wrong? I'd be shocked to have
got /everything/ wrong!
In order for it to be nice for some (like those of us without
this old fuddy-duddy, precious, hoity-toity attitude commonly
exhibited about being intruded upon), it is important that some
sounds and images be part of an unannounced package of a
website! It has to be embedded or forced played in order for it
to be a nice surprise on anyone. That it is not nice for all is
one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
this price in a moment.
Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We both
generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say it is
never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.
About civilization old chap... this is quite wrong. If you had
your way, no one would be able to do anything publicly because
it would offend some people. This is, to put it bluntly, stuff
and nonsense. I hate to do this because some naturally cynical
minds will think that somehow I am trying to push my views on
other matters but you do not have to read it all: there is quite
a reasonable explanation about the balance in these matters of
the limits of freedom in my
http://dorayme.150m.com/opinionFolder/drugLaws.html Perhaps you
can look at the first quarter and adapt the sort of reasoning to
this. And then go read Mill for more.
I imagine that if you (in your present mood) ever become king,
you would ban anyone in a public street from playing a guitar
because it is annoying to some! I say this: I would ban it if
people had no chioice but to listen, as outside a private house.
Now, this is about the price, unlike the private house, one can
be rid of an unwanted website at the click of a mouse. So the
price is not as dramatic as you make out.
dorayme
(Would people please refrain from contradicting me unnecessarily
as it causes me to get severe RSIin my tendons from replying at
length.)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|