You know that you’re talking to someone who does not understand or
seeks to understand the network, with someone who is, as they say
Anglophones, “on denial” if:

Boasts fully understand these issues, “because it carries a
particular device. ”
Openly despises the participation of users and all types of
content that may be generated. “The comments are for geeks,
for people with lots of free time. ” “Participation is
manipulated by vested interests ”
He refuses to admit a possible change in the critical elements
business or user preferences, your business has rules
are immutable and from the beginning of time (and
fiercely defends obviously).
“What we do can not be replaced, no one else does”
“What we do costs money,” and must be paid
You see a person who does not pay for a service as an advantage, a
journal, a pirate or an enemy directly … “those are not my
customers do not pay me. ”
Speaks constantly of the need to close with payment barriers
content business, because “advertising does not come”, and refuses
to consider that perhaps there may be other forms of advertising,
advertising or business take years to fund much larger
than yours.
He refuses to set new cost structures more appropriate to
circumstances of the network. And if one asks them, “bad”, “no
quality “,” not comparable “or” does not respect the law. ”
States that “protecting intellectual property is effectively
only a matter of political will “, uses analogies
fallacious between physical and virtual, and used with great profusion
the words “theft”, “pirate” or “piracy.”
Consider the policy “a scourge of the Internet” and refuses to answer
someone using a pseudonym.
Speaking of networks, services and platforms, always says that “since
are there “as people collect cards, but never refers to
“What exactly do there.”
Believes that “Free invariably degrades the perception of
quality.
Rate Internet firms as “authentic
irresponsible “for” not respecting the rules. ”
Talk about all the services and network platforms as a “fashion
passing. ”
Sees a need “to regulate the network” and that “as it is not
can go on much longer. ”
States that “the police used to everything and can detect everything,” and
proposes to use them or the judicial system steadily.
“What can not stem the tide? You’ll see and do! ”
Calls “solutions, not analysis, and reacts bland – or
directly with disdain – when he plants circumstances
comparable or proven facts.
Surely escape me at all, and surely thou art crossed with
raised similar or similar ways (add them in
comments please … always good to have them present as
alarm signals).

Two or more items from this list mentioned categorically in
a discussion by the same person are proof of a disability
patent to understand or accept new ideas. In a group, can
dynamic trigger, whether or not assumed by the whole or
even by a majority of the group, lead the discussion
Disqualifications uncomfortable or impossible to resolve situations. Y
In this case, the only solutions are either to change the subject to avoid
frustration if circumstances permit, or remember that
we will always Galileo.

It reminded me a lot to that cartoon of Jesus Martinez del Vas, MVP.
🙂