 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Perhaps you should re-read our own words then, before you dust off your old copy of Animal Farm. It was you who "assumed" that Richie was referring to doublespeak when he invoked Orwell. (...) Fair enough. But if we're going to start policing (...) (19 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I've read 1984 but it was a long time ago. The (URL) wikipedia article> shows that you obviously haven't read it to recently either since the term doublespeak never actually appears. You may also want to check a dictionary for the spelling of (...) (19 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Nice try, but you might want to actually read Orwell before you start using him to back you up. Doublespeak does not refer to the simple use of euphamism. To qualify as doublespeak, a phrase must use words in a disingenuous way to imply their (...) (19 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Given the conext of its use and the lack of mention of 'Big Brother' I would assume that Richie is using Orwellian to refer to doublespeak. In this case murfling is Orwellian. It's a 'nice' way of saying censored. Tim (19 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (19 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
