Advertising is everywhere...and now on the moon?

I almost agree with you. Countries can define their own laws of course, but this is an issue that can't be globally banned by any nation. A laser can be beamed from anywhere on earth (or space). You can't stop someone from moonvertising any more than the U.S. could have stopped the Russians from launching Sputnik.

Haha too funny. I doubt we cuold have seen it even if they tried. The worst part was, they really must have shelled out some dough to go to all this advertising. I've seen billboards around town, commercials on TV, and apparently so have alot of other people. Why would you go to all this trouble to pull of a hoax?

Maybe they'll take my advice and try it at the next new moon.

Wow Candace, I never imagined that someone could misread the thesis of my article, try to rebuke me for taking such a stand that never existed, and then restate my own conclusions while sounding like a total fool in the process.

I'm guessing you only paid attention to the first half of the article, because your analysis is just flat our wrong. I'm now going to disseminate every factual statement you just made and point out your hypocrisy.

"Your dismissal of an ethical arguement about moonvertising was shallow and unencompassing of what could be lost here." -First of all, it's spelled A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T, not arguement. And I'm sorry but I didn't DISMISS the ethical argument, I freaking POSED the question so my readers could think about it. "who's to dictate WHAT is advertised or even said?" (And by the way, unencompassing is not even a word)

"You dismissed it as something a finatic would do, rather than any reasonable person." -it's spelled F-A-N-A-T-I-C, not finatic, there's a little button called "check spelling" you should use next time. And secondly if you think I'm a fanatic for writing an informative and opinionated article on a new advertising process, you should read the tabloids more often and take up beef with their writers.

"Advertising has encroached on every aspect of our lives, ads are everywhere!" - Just because this statement is true, it has no bearing on the validity of your argument, which is why I didn't make this statement in my article.

"There is a huge problem with the assumption that companies may think they have the right to pollute the moon as well." - Fortunately for me, I didn't make this assumption, and if you can find it anywhere in the article where I said "companies have the right to advertise on the moon" I'll gladly pay you $100.

"The moon is a spiritual, nuetral symbol in the sky, soothing and reflecting the wonder of the universe." - SPEAKING of assumptions, this "statement" is full of them. You assume that A) because some people consider the moon a spiritual symbol then it is universally defined as one, B) as a neutral symbol; the moon never presents itself as a beneficial or harmful symbol to anyone, (think of the 2nd monthly blue moon giving people the idea of luck or the blood red eclipsed moon striking fear into the hearts of some.) C) Because of these aforementioned fallible statements then the moon must be both universally soothing and the universe wonderful. If these are your personal opinions then that's fine, but don't even talk to me about the error of assumptions. (And by the way, its spelled neutral, not nuetral)

"I don't think that rolling rock or anyone else has the right to pollute the minds, vision and the moon itself with it's advertising." - not a statement but an opinion, and something I would agree with in the tone of my writing. Unfortunately for you, you've adamantly argued against my own opinion which is really equivalent with your own.

"I don't really expect you to understand, but it should be said none the less." - Kind of ironic to say when it's you, yourself, who really doesn't understand the implications of you're own words.

"Besides, beyond the huge ethical problems with this..." - Wow... again, you're trying to argue against me using the same reasoning that I've already posted to support myself. Indeed I wrote: "But all this mere talk about "moonvertising" has some questioning whether or not its ethical to advertise on the moon."

"...Rolling rock isn't even a good beer, it sucks..." - And by injecting this, it leads me to believe that you've taken a biased approach to constructing your argument and would not have held the same reservations had we been talking about a different product.

And finally, In the last part of my writing, the part where the writer usually draws his conclusions, I say: "moonvertising may be first step in our destruction of the natural beauty of space." I'm going to couple this with your final statement that says: "Maybe they should spend more time brewing better beer and less time trying to scheme polluting everything that's beautiful and pure."

Given the above evidence I'm going to ascertain that we have essentially the same thoughts on this matter, except I have a much less biased more intelligent way of saying it.

Essentially what you've done is construct a "Straw Man Argument" that falls victim to the "appeal to ridicule." I don't really expect you to understand, but it's a type of logical fallacy, look it up.

And the next time you want to lay into a writer on newsvine who's presenting his opinion in a lighthearted and insightful way...don't.

Swear words are not tolerated

a rehash of million dollar homepage...nice. And if you ever bought something from million dollar homepage,you'll remember just how well those advertisers spent their money.