As a disclaimer, let it be known that I would not be attempting to force this dead horse to drink if not for the need to take my mind off the heat of this room.
You're arguing that Flash does not belong on a Web site for anything more than multimedia, when in reality there are a ton of successful, professionally built Flash Web sites.
Because it is common sense that if you see everyone else jumping off a bridge, there must be a treasure chest at the bottom of the lake. You seem to be basing much of your argument off the fact that a few large corporations use flash websites now and again. I fail to see how these can be deemed by you successful. Of course people go to them, they don't know of any other option.
You're arguing in favor of your likes and dislikes.
Of course I am, but look at the rest of the thread and the writings of accomplished web designers in it. I am arguing in favor of what the majority wants. You are arguing in favor of what you, and apparently you alone (and a few other idiots here and there) think is better.
I understand that some people don't like Flash Web sites, but I also acknowledge that some people do like Flash Web sites.
You have stated this numerous times, no one cares, you are still a troll. We are all well aware that a few people with graphics fetishes like you exist, but they are an extreme minority who can be satiated without killing the majority via flash, so why bother screwing them for your sake?
Even Microsoft has developed full Web sites in Flash (and possible other similar technologies).
To the best of my recollection, every site that Microsoft has developed fully in Flash have been nothing short of commercials, which, as has already been stated, Flash is well suited towards. There is no real content to any of these sites and, if there is, it could be replaced by something with one fifth the loading time. Flash can, and frequently does, look better, but that does not mean it is better. Yes, I know that you have been brought up your whole life to believe that the price tag is a direct measure of quality, but it isn't, plain and simple.
Recently I've seen a couple of major Microsoft campaigns where the Web site was a Flash application.
Whether or not you like Microsoft you can't deny that they know a thing or two about user-friendliness and marketing.
This seems to remind me of something... oh yes, see above.
I often see major automotive companies (American, European, and Asian) using Flash to provide rich environments to explore their product line.
Give me a few links, I would be glad to tell you why these "rich environments" are crap wrapped in tin foil. Flash cannot provide a better environment than HTML or some variant. It can provide a better looking environment, but appearances are worthless when seeking content.
The kinds of things companies do with Flash to both grab your attention and present information would be very difficult without Flash.
Grabbing attention seems like something suited to a commercial. Using Flash is basically making a website that makes some loud noise when you open it--it grabs your attention, but then fails to do anything useful with it. I am going to assume that you aren't trying to argue that Flash is better at presenting meaningful content than HTML, density of that level would truly frighten me.
You're arguing that Flash shouldn't be used to develop an entire Web site or system, rather should be used as a multimedia projector for smaller roles.
Good job, aren't you observant.
I'm arguing that Flash can be used to develop a rich Web site that's user-friendly and effective at getting the information across, often even more attention grabbing than a non-Flash site.
The problems with fully Flash websites have already been stated, I see no need to reiterate them. Alright, I am lying. I know you have eyes that are quite picky about what you read. I am too lazy to reiterate how Flash can never be as, and especially not more, user friendly than DHTML. You are wrong, it is just that simple.
Why don't you do some research?
My very existence outside of the Internet has frequently been brought into question--I can cite examples of this if you like--I think I know what I am talking about.
Here's an interesting site: Best Flash Sites Vote - Best Flash Animation Site.com V2.2
A site holding votes for the best web sites written in Flash. Pray tell, how exactly is that supposed to be any argument that Flash is better than HTML?
I'm done now, but it is still too hot in this room.