Mine is: it's 99 percent noise but there are potentially broad historical and anthropological conclusions to be drawn from the noise, or from whatever remains of the 1 percent. Fair?

I am trading in evidence. You are trading in opinion. I say "Facebook is trivial." You say "I THINK it isn't." Think what you want. I've demonstrated my point.

It's an opinion.

Fine. I'm not sure why you think your opinions and my facts are equivalent.

Everything else you say is "I think." I'm more of an "I can prove" kinda guy. So think what you want.

You're wrong.

None of them are very good, but odds are the next Poet Laureate of the United States is out there writing poetry on his wall.

So what do we need Facebook for?

ou say talent will out, but you commit a logical fallacy in doing so. The fact that throughout history much talent has survived in the form of Shakespeare or Van Gogh or Homer is not representative, because it fails to take into account how much great art or writing we've lost to time in the process (a lot).

"Art is the act of creating something out of nothing and selling it." -Frank Zappa

If it wasn't sold, it wasn't art.

End of line.

Facebook may even be a bad example, because as you say it has a much higher percentage of chaff than many other possible sources of information for future humans.

So in the end, you agree with me while reserving the right to accuse me of fallacious thinking.

Nice.