Re: [tlug] RMS is at it again

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

2008/6/17 Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>:

> On 2008-06-17 10:15 +0900 (Tue), Josh Glover wrote:
>
>> 2008/6/16 Gernot Hassenpflug <aikishugyo@example.com>:
>>
>> > I was chatting to some people in Kyoto, and they discovered I have no TV
>> ...
>> Televisions can be used to display other things besides broadcast TV,
>> you know.
>
> Look, I know you know all this already, so let's just do the quick
> review. "A television" is of course the box that shows pictures
> and plays noises. However, "television," in appropriate contexts,
> refers to the medium.

See above; you quoted the wrong bit, or were not paying attention when
you read Gernot's original email. He made a clear statement that he
had no TV the physical device, and then linked that to respecting
people more for disapproving of TV the medium.

> Geeks tend to like, in arguments like this, to assign a single meaning
> to a word, and claim that other uses are invalid.

Which is not what I was doing at all.

>> If you don't want a television, fine, but I have always found it
>> annoying when people wear "no TV" like a badge of honour....
>
> Paul Graham recently said that, "Television...has after 50 years
> of refinement reached the point where it's like visual crack."
> (http://paulgraham.com/distraction.html)

I read that; my RSS reader is subscribed to his essays.

> And he's right; any reasonable study of the medium will reveal how truly sophisticated it is in
> inducing addictive behaviour.

But just like alcohol, responsible use should be the business solely
of the imbiber. Wouldn't you be annoyed by someone who stands up in
the middle of the bar and proclaims, "there is no rum in my rum &
coke, I don't drink!". Your response would vary from "how very nice
for you" (and then you would turn back to your own rummy rum & coke)
to "up yers, dickhead!" (at which point you would light your rum &
coke on fire and throw it at said person).

>> ...there is a lot of content on television that is better than that
>> found in printed sources....
>
> Sure. _The Wire_ is an amazing piece of work, worth of being called
> "art."

Here we agree.

> But notice two things about it: first, it comes from people who
> made their careers in print, and second, it needed a production system
> like HBO, which subverts the standard economic model of television, to
> get made.

Points both well-made, but having nothing to do with my argument:
being that content is content, regardless of the medium, and to state
"I don't even have a TV" proudly is rather like stating "I don't own
any books" proudly; it is your own preference, don't judge me because
I don't conform.

-- 
Cheers,
Josh