I have no doubt you, and many others, would. This is tragic, though. You could, as an alternative, take an interest in what their issues are and see if there is any progress to be made. Instead you ridicule, because that's easy. Partisanship makes people do some really stupid things, doesn't it?
The onus is on the organizers of the movement to put their best face forward. If they allow inflammatory people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to represent them, then it's easy for the movement to quickly become about those representatives rather than the issues. The movement's issues inevitably bend towards their own, and it speaks to the flimsy nature of the movement and its organization in the first place.
You should be asking yourself why they thought they needed any of those people speaking for them in order to succeed.
Does anyone know if that includes expansions, like Mines of Moria?
Expansions and quest areas like Eriador are going to be pay-to-access, and Mines of Moria will still be a separate expansion you have to pay for.
They've outlined their general tiers of use here: http://www.lotro.com/betasignup/vipchart.html
Do you even realize the insane irony of making the "we don't want your advancements" argument on the internet?
I don't think he was trying to be so specific as to say advancement is wrong, but was instead raising a point of contention. He was trying to point out that we accept that many things are progress as a given, without being able to comprehend the scope of what has been created.
Penicillin and the internet are interesting examples. We tend to think of them currently as a net gain. And they have indeed brought many good things into our lives and homes. But they've also raised thorny issues that we have only begun to address. Resistant bacterium and child pornography rings are part and parcel of these two issues, respectively. Is it all progress? Or is it just mostly progress?
It's pure conceit to think we can package revolutionary ideas in that way.
Koechlin and his colleagues had 32 subjects complete a letter-matching task while they had their brains scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The subjects saw uppercase letters on a screen and had to determine whether those letters were presented in the correct order to spell out a certain word. They were given money if they performed the task with no errors.
But then they made the task more difficult. In addition to uppercase letters, the subjects were also presented with lowercase letters, and had to switch back and forth between matching the uppercase letters to spell out, say, T-A-B-L-E-T, and lowercase letters to spell out t-a-b-l-e-t.
To make things even more complicated, the researchers introduced a third letter-matching task. Here, they saw the subject's accuracy drop considerably. It was as though, once each hemisphere was occupied with managing one task, there was nowhere for the third task to go.