 | | 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 (...) (17 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 (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (17 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 (...) (17 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) True, that. All sites have their troublemakers, or those who don't play well together. I mentioned Lugnet because unlike all other sites mentioned, there is no active moderation here - the only recourse is murfling, which happens rarely and (...) (17 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I now stand with egg on my face. I had you confused with Mark Pappenfuss. I did a quick scan before posting but wasn't as thorough as I ought to have been. My most sincere apologies for not being more careful and thus casting unfair (...) (17 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) The word has been adopted by the AFOL community (or some of us anyway) and is used in a more general sense to refer to the actions of admins or other personnel of any website. It's a great word, useful and colorful, and more descriptive than (...) (17 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
