 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) In the case of a cancelled or deleted post, one can often still see the subject line and the author, but the content is gone forever. The reader can only imagine what horrible nastiness warranted such a scrubbing, and each reader will mentally (...) (20 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) While murfling may not equate to cancelling or deleting a post, I find it hard to comprehend that anyone would not consider it a form of censorship. Though it has not been used widely on LUGNET, and as a result there are few examples of actual (...) (20 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I find it interesting that you describe it this way because murfling was never meant to be the same as cancelling or deleting a post. The idea is that questionable posts are visibly separated but still accessible - in essence, a compromise (...) (20 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
**Snip** (...) **snip more** (...) See? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. **grins** And if y'all don't knock it off, I'm gonna hold my breath 'till I turn bley! Play Well and Prosper, Matthew (20 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Confused with mfuss? Shoot me now! There's no reason to continue breathing... (Actually, despite Mark's acerbic style, he and I get along pretty well.) (...) Not knowing which site(s) were the genesis of this discussion, I subconsciously (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
