You just refuse to back down. You just can't say "yeah, all right, I see what you're saying" and let that be the end of it.
I have understood all along - I DO see what you're saying, at what dan was saying HOWEVER - I'm not so sure you see what I'VE been saying as far as the literal use of the word "take" - more than one person has used this to describe the transaction between artist/entertainer and consumer - now I KNOW that it's not meant literally because I KNOW the artist doesn't just come and take one's money - the fact that it continues to be used to describe the action is the problem, since, if one stopped supporting artists that "lecture", they would then be spared the lecture I mean, especially if everyone agrees that artists don't literally "take" money from you, why continue to say they do? because it contributes to the perception that the artist is somehow at fault for not being able to read the consumer's mind and figure out exactly what the consumer can and can not stand to hear? another thing that you're not understanding is that self-expression IS speaking out! read what I said earlier about poems regarding beauty and paintings, etc. lastly, I NEVER criticized dan and called him pathetic for needing to be entertained - in fact I defy you to find one instance of me calling someone pathetic on this list but the truth is, I don't need to "win" this argument, because the battle was won a long time ago - artists will continue to speak out, entertainers will continue to speak out, mccartney will continue to sell veggie food, babs will still tell people to conserve energy and off-topic stuff that KLF fans feel is relevant (enough) to post will continue to be posted score one for the open minds!