Re: virus: Re:The law and what might have been

From: athe nonrex (athenonrex@godisdead.com)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 14:25:57 MDT

  • Next message: athe nonrex: "virus: Re:Jobs and Human History"

    [quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
    I have to wonder why I am replying in this thread. I suppose it's
    because I can easily show you where some of your misinformation is
    located without wasting more than a minute or two of my time. Though I
    am willing to bet this goes in one ear and out the other.

    I suppose I will just point out where you are wrong on this. Suffice it
    to say that there is not a correct statment except possibly the math,
    which I did not check, in relation to the following paragraphs.

    funny, you merely said i was wrong...you never said "why" or "how" i was wrong, or misinformed...just that i was wrong and misinformed.

    [quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
    You are wrong on who pays for studio time, production and music videos or distribution.
    You are wrong about where the money goes as well - you seem to have just lumped them together in the form of \"money to the record company\".
    You completely ignore the main sources of a musician's income. hint - it is not CD sales! In fact, CD sales, unless you are someone like Madonna or the Stones, play a tiny part to completely indignificant part. We all knew when signing our contracts that the money wouldn't come from CD's, and even plotted ways to take over more of the production and distribution (a mistake - as distributers are near-impossible to deal with without label backing).

    as hermit pointed out, we weren't even discussing musicians' source of income, we were discussing revenue from sales of media, i chose to elaborate on the musician side, as i am one. never mind that ad hominem, though, just support your claims. i gave rough estimates, and i stated this. and from what hermit dug up, i was not only close to the stats i gave, i was actually being a bit generous with the stats..

    [quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
    My guess is that whoever originally strated spreading this misinformation has zero actual experience in the field and ahs spent too much time reading from others with the same level of experience - none. The blind leading the blind.

    yet you say that you personally have had no experiance in the field, so you discredit your own arguement. is this the whole "self defeating" tactic? i think it could be classified loosely as "ad misericondum" (i think that's what the fallacy is called).

    [quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
    I'm not going to go into the detail for you guys, as you are still trying to figure out that the \"wheel is round\" so to say. I just have to wonder who would give out such poor info and then who would be sucker enough to believe it. Anyone willing to believe the paragraphs I quoted, is going into the discussion completely ill prepared and with false information. Anyone person that made the statements listed in the quoted paragraphs at an industry gathering would look quite the fool. It's my advise that you actually speak to pros aside from a \"knownothing\" like me. (an electronic or punk musician with no main stream appeal are NOT the people to be talking to as they are very far from the actual business end of music - and usually idealistic dreamers to boot - as in they think their product is far more valuable than it is). Letting musicians that were in the Sex Pistols, or any other non-selling band give industry tips and advise is like asking a ditch digger to explain the science of geology.

    your arguement is hollow. you provide no proof or evidence, real or imagined, and you profess this yourself in the arguement. therefore, given your arguement, and using your arguement as my source of evidence, i declare your arguement moot for the same reasons you dlaimed that my arguement moot (though the difference is that i have "proof"). i also place upon your arguement the stigma that you attempted to place upon my arguement (that anyone believing it is a "sucker" and is "ill prepared...with false information" as you put it.) this is because for someone to logically accept your arguement, they have to accept that your arguement is self denounced by the proclamation that you are a "know-nothing" yourself, and is only compounded by the fact that you provide no real information, only an assertation.

    [quote from: billroh@churchofvirus.com on 2003-07-24 at 16:49:44]
    I typed this fast without error checking - sry in advance for typos or grammar errors.

    and, were it not for this last note you had...i would have been petty and corrected every little spelling error, and signed...

    - the grammar nazi strikes again!
    athenonrex

    ----
    This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
    <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28770>
    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 14:26:18 MDT