 | | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I would trust you on this had you not brought up Animal Farm. (...) Where did I say you did? You dropped a comment on Animal Farm in reference to Doublespeak, I pointed out that it was from 1984 alone. (...) It doesn't have to mean the (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I didn't "bother to correct it" because I recognize that the term "doublespeak" has largely entered the public vocabulary as a result of Orwell's work, even if he himself didn't coin the term. Likewise, the Wikipedia article that you cited (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Not to mention underscores in FTX URLs along the way, and un-matched footnotes ;) Well OK there was only </off-topic/debate/?n=28373 one of each>, I guess I like the occasional hyperbole. Is that Orwellian???? ROSCO (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Yeah I noticed that ;) I also missed out a 'd' on an 'and' in my subsequent response. --snip-- Tim (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) says the man who used the word 'now' where the word 'no' should be... :) (...) <snip> (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's why I retroactively added the word "perceived" :) (...) Um, I still have to disagree (unless you're saying that this IS an issue for YOU). At least from my standpoint. I know I wasn't upset that "person X" had the power, I was (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I'd stress the word "appearance" since I continue to believe there was no power abuse at that time. But the notion certainly had a lot to do with the ensuing chaos. To me, it comes down to, "I don't believe that person X should have power over (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Agree. From my standpoint, people involved at the heart of the debate didn't so much object to the existance of that power, they mostly objected to the perceived misuse of that power. Certainly, the possibility of moderation was objectionable (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
--snip-- (...) OK (...) OK. I was pretty much a lurker at that time so I really didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. (...) From my observations that wasn't the only reason nor even the main reason. From my solo, lurking position (as in (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I'm not advocating it be changed, at this point. A couple of years ago, I tried. Now... no. Lugnet will continue to be Lugnet for the forseeable future. (...) Actually, Todd was fully behind the push that Lenny and I were involved with, but I (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) As I'm sure you remember the internet used to be a great bastion of free speech and self-policing. In some ways that attitude has lived on in Lugnet and I'm glad it has. I'd like to know why you think Lugnet should be changed? If it was still (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I find it amusing, in a sad sort of way, that cries of censorship continue to crop up on Lugnet, which is one of the most unmoderated and self-policing communities on the web (at least that I've frequented). The complaints about censorship (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) And you didn't bother to correct it even while commenting that I hadn't read the book (and doublethink is (URL) most definitely 1984> so I'm wondering if you've read a single book by Orwell). Since your argument seemed to involve arguing that (...) (17 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (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)
|
