I know.

Neither am I, despite your claims that I am. And I never claimed you were.

I agree.

Again, I agree. That's why I asked that you do not interpret my words as an attempt to continue debating.

I've been ready at least since the moment you first said that there is no reason or purpose to further debate.

Actually, I do not believe that there's another life, but that's a bit off topic (wait, do we still have a topic here? don't answer, it was a rhetorycal question).

As I said, stop misrepresenting my words as an attempt to continue (or in this case, reopen; the difference between the two terms is largely irrelevant) some non-existant debate.

Refer to the previous paragraph.

I didn't. I simply stated that I did not see how that was related to what looked like a case of you being unable to understand me (regardless of you agreeing with me or not; in case you hadn't noticed, one can agree with things he/she understands and with things he/she doesn't understand, as much as one can disagree with things he/she understands and also with things he/she doesn't understand). Anyway, that's a moot point by now since you have stated that you understood me, and I'm willing to believe that if it'll help to end this rather idiotic argument we're having.

Then stop misrepresenting my words as an attempt to continue some non-existant debate. I believe I already said that's never been my intention, and if I haven't (probably because I thought it was implied or sufficiently obvious) or if you need me to explicitly state it, I'll do it now: that was never my intention.

Come to think of it I marked you as a friend precisely because you had marked me as a foe for some reason. Meh, I think I'll keep you as a friend, you're a nice guy.

But then we get into the not so obvious question of quantifying the effect of everything on everything (for example, I suggest that the effect of lighting over sales of brand clothing is lesser than the effect of advertising)... And frankly I believe both of us have better things to do.

Agreed, but note that there's a difference betweeen "exclusively implemented by" and "the responsibility lies with". The first wording may be interpreted as you saying that there are no external influences, whereas the second can only be interpreted as "there may be influences, but ultimately it's up to the consumer and his willpower to resist those influences". But you've clarified what you meant, so yeah, not much to discuss here. ;)

Oh, don't worry. That sentence of mine may in fact have been a little too vague, I'll just try to be more precise from now on...

I assume you mean "would not necessarily be available", since obviously one could still release source code he/she creates. Authors of derivative works, of course, wouldn't have to release the code, but even under the GPL in its current form (with copyright and all) they'd only be required to do that if they distribute the modified binaries. But none of that is absolutely dependent on copyright, which brings me to my next point:

Couldn't there be a sort of contract to which you have to agree before you can use the software, that could exist without copyright? I'd think it's possible, but I might be missing something.

So you agree that it's not "implemented exclusively by the consumers", since those consumers can de influenced.

Quite the opposite actually, I mentioned "those that don't choose to buy last year's fashion" as an example of people who might be influenced by companies. But after all, even those that choose to buy last year's fashion might choose that because they were influenced...

True. But I never claimed that the proof of your inability to understand was your disagreement, did I?

By that logic, almost nothing could ever be discussed. Or in other words: I disagree.

But I must say that was a nice try to convince me of letting you say the last word. Which I might end up doing if your self-esteem requires it so badly, after all I'm not here to do harm.

But I am not debating or disputing your disagreement (originally I was, but you're too stubborn, so it's not worth my time). Where did you get such a ludicrous idea?

I believe I've sufficiently adressed all of that already.

Once again, I'm not failing to understand your position. Where did you get such a ludicrous idea?

True. But I never claimed that it was "asserting your opinion" that made me think that you are a troll, did I?

As I said, there's no reason to insult anyone, take a chill pill and be a little more respectful of your audience (and notice that I said "audience" and not "me", by now it seems quite obvious that you can't treat me respectfully).

OK, make that two chill pills. Heck, better take a bucketload of them. Maybe then you'll calm down and notice that it's precisely things like this that make me think that you don't understand me and that you're a troll (on that topic, maybe I should remind you who was the first one of us to call the other a troll).
Me, forcing my opinion on you? Yeah, sure. I wonder what opinion exactly am I forcing on you...

And those that don't, they all choose to do so out of their own free will, completely unaffected by any external influence? Frankly, I doubt that, and therefore doubt that "this system is implemented exclusively by the consumers". Brands wouldn't spend as much as they do on advertising and marketing if didn't have an effect on at least some people.

First, there's no need to insult anyone, take a chill pill. Second, I'm not retarded, and your inability to understand is no reason to think I am.

Yet the criticism is reasonable (but you're entitled to disagree, and I won't dispute that), specially considering how it doesn't imply "explicitly holding the audience's hand". Also, the fact that you think that additional clarity in the presentation of your hypothesis immediately implies that you'd be treating the audience as "individuals of deficient mental capability"... Well, let's just say it's a little bit on the disrespectful side towards said audience.

Now you're being silly for no reason, unless you're really unable to read, which I doubt since your replies are somewhat consistent with my comments. Let me ask you something: did I ever say that I needed such explicit explanations? In case you hand't noticed despite me stating it many times, it was merely a suggestion, not something I needed. Again, I refer you to my comments, as they show I've understood yours and therefore I don't need any explicit explanations other than the ones you gave on your original post.

Did that clarify the difference between "suggestion" and "necessity" to you?

Such apologies are not needed. It's me who should be apologizing to the rest of the slashdotters for continuously feeding the troll.

But I do.

I already knew that. So what? What does you disagreeing with me have to do with your inability to understand me?

I believe I've sufficiently adressed that topic in my previous posts. I suggest that you read them.

On the contrary, I understand your point just fine, reading my posts (provided that you understand them, of course) will prove that to you just fine. What you don't seem to understand (apart from my point) is that not once have I said that your post (the original one about the plant, the guest and the subpoena, that is) didn't prove the point you were trying to make. And that's like the third time I state this, which makes me even more convinced that you have no intention whatsoever to understand or make any effor to understand.

No, it's just that certain assumptions are more likely to be correct. Yours is not, specially since it includes irreversible changes.

Great step forward you made here: you've at least admitted that, should the efforts succeed, their effects could eventually be reversed.

Refer to the first paragraph of this message.

Irrelevant. Until those "efforts" crystallize into a real change in laws, what you're engaging in is nothing more than gazing into a crystal ball to make predictions. You're taking for granted that such efforts will succeed and that once they do, nothing can be done to revert the changes they cause.

Also, I see that telling you in advance that I wasn't implying that you're wrong, and that therefore trying to refute my words on the assumption that they meant that you're wrong, was futile.