> I am not
> > using this as a reason to treat patterns in a specific way, only to
> > explain why we should not automatically assume that methods we have
> > used to treat matter shouldn't automatically be applied to patterns.
>
> You say there's a difference, but you're not using that difference as a
> reason to treat patterns in a specific way. If that is true, then please
> stop doing it. Since the nature of our conversation is how we're going to
> treat patterns versus atoms, then you can see why by your own words this so
> called 'difference' is irrelevant to the conversation we're having.
>
> If you want to use the 'difference' in your arguments, which it is clear
> that you do, then you need to find justification for why that difference
> should cause us to treat patterns in a specific way. Please stop giving
> with one hand and taking away with the other.
You are both playing the rhetorical game of trying to put the burden of proof
on the other.
Each one agrees that information goods have differences from material
goods, in that they can be reproduced cheaply, practically for free.
And each agrees that there are similarities, in that they can be expensive
to produce.
Each one then challenges the other to explain why the conventions used
for material goods should or should not apply to information goods.
I suggest that you each take on the burden of proof to make your own
point, instead of pretending that a failure on the other's part is a
victory for you.
If you believe that the differences between information and physical
goods justify treating them differently, then make an argument for it.
If you believe that the differences don't justify such differential
treatment, then make the argument for why the differences are irrelevant.
Don't try so hard to make the other guy look bad, worry more about making
your own case strong.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:49 MDT