Of course I read your post, please don't be condescending and spare me the piecemeal quoting. Not everything in my post was supposed to be a refutation of yours.
Suggesting we protect privacy through politics just sounds ridiculous to me. It was never even clear what was defined as tracking by DNT. DNT wasn't less intrusive, it was empty and symbolic. So, here's my question: why did we need an empty, symbolic regulation to show that ad companies are tracking people?
Back to your original point though, the ad industry seemed to be ready to support DNT until MS made the default setting on, which clearly wasn't a user's "wishes". This wasn't a display of the advertising industry's unwillingness to regulate themselves, it was their unwillingness to let MS dictate terms to them.
Additionally, the NAI has long had an opt out system: http://www.networkadvertising.... (long before DNT). Saying they failed to self-regulate strikes me a misinformed at best.
Also, you might want to consider your own knowledge level on a subject before accusing others of not understanding, it might improve "your persuasion skills".