In reply to Chuck.

Chuck,

I appreciate your speaking up.

If I may put a fine point on it: an ad hominem is an argument that criticizes the messenger and not the message. "Scolding" was a criticism of the message. Also, to claim to be misunderstood is not an ad hominem. And there is no way that failing to respond to something can be an ad hominem.

I also think I've respond to almost everything you've said. I've responded in two ways: I told you that I wasn't making the points you were refuting, and I asked you questions to make sure I was understanding what you were saying.

Let me illustrate. These statements:

"It seems like you’re saying that the people who pirate aren’t relevant, and that the idea of converting their behavior is pointless. Do I have that right? That’s an interesting thing to say."

Are not the equivalent of this statement:

"HBO should be spending time trying to convert pirates into customers."

In fact, even this statement:

"HBO should be concerned about the sentiments expressed by pirates"

Is not the equivalent of the previous statement, which was:

"HBO should be spending time trying to convert pirates into customers."

In fact, if you want to get technical, asking you if you think the idea of converting pirate behavior is pointless is pretty near the opposite of saying the idea of converting pirate behavior is purposeful. It's a question, not a statement, and it invites elaboration on the opposite point of view.

So yes, I see no reason to respond to this:

"So whenever you push either of those to qualifications, “well, if I could get it on my terms and at a price I’m willing to pay”, what I hear is “I’m lying to you, but I think you’re too stupid to notice.”"

Or this:

"That’s awesome, but to say that what works for what is essentially a one-man show with really low overhead that’s already been paid for and made its money is going to work for something with a FAR higher budget and has to pay a lot of people, regularly, without fail, BEFORE it is seen by person one, is ridiculous... It’s idiocy on every level, yet THAT is the thinking you’re telling HBO to seriously consider?"

Or this:

"So once again: you appear to be saying that the “pirating masses” are a potential untapped market. "

Because I'm not saying that. What I am in fact doing is trying to understand your argument better.