 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Unoriginal parents? Tim (18 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Wait a minute--I just realized that in this little discussion we have a Leonard, two Daves, and three Tims, one of whom qualifies as both a Tim and a David. What's going on here?!? Dave! (18 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Hey, we don't want any mention of THAT place here! ;-) Tim (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) What's the standard, then? Does censorship cover anything that doesn't include everything? That would define "censorship" so thinly that it would have no meaning at all. But if we insetad define "censorship" to be an action of government, then (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) So, you're arguing that censorship can only be effected by a government, or illegally? By illegally, I'm suggesting that a private citizen/organization violates an agreement such as public free speech or their own TOS. Essentially, I think (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Just because something is a legal restriction of free speech doesn't make it not censorship. Free speech is not a complimentary set of censorship and the two can in fact overlap, likewise the absence of one does not guarantee the presence of (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bible as a literal source?
|
|
(...) Then perhaps we are more closely in agreement than I had realized. (...) Well now you are assuming that I literally believe the Genesis account of creation, which would be a stretch. Given that Western cultures still believed that the Earth (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Nope. The child and parents can still read the book at the local library or at the bookstore or even online. The private school is choosing not to carry a particular book on private property, which isn't censorship. Suppose I write a book that (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) I definitely disagree. If a private school wants to exclude any and all books from its premisis talking about Darwin's evolutionary theory, that's censorship! Everyone involved might be totally fine with it, and they might have made you aware (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) In case anyone is interested, I assume you mean this thread: (URL) Of course, BL posts are purged every 6 months so don't bother clicking on any of those links. (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Defining censorship
|
|
(...) Agree! I set up the example to intentionally sound like the type of government that we would be more anxious to call "censoring". Arguably, I could've done without the lengthy applications and fingerprinting and such, and I would *still* call (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Hey, that's pretty good. In essence, omission is not censorship; restriction is. That works at least in the public arena, but it still doesn't apply IMO to a private forum. Still, it's a good rule of thumb. Dave! (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) I think that you misread me. I was referring to such an outlet that does allege that responsibility. I'm not referring to news outlets in general, which may or may not allege responsibility. Those seem to be two very different cases. (...) (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) On the contrary, people have said it is bad. Describing something as "Orwellian" is making a judgment call about it- "Orwellian" is not good. And Todd's coining of the term was because he felt this particular solution had never been developed (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) From what (and how) I've read no-one has claimed that murfling is eroding anyone's rights. They have claimed that the term is a euphemistic way of saying censored and that the use of euphemism is bad (at least from my reading). From your (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Censorship implies a bit more active restriction, I think. Censorship of the news would be when a party involved in delivering the news attempts to delivery a particular piece of news but is denied by their editor, manager, network, the FCC, (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Actually it doesn't have any such responsibility. It may be prudent to broadcast unaltered information (although it usually isn't, political slant is a good way to differentiate yourself from your competitors) but I'm willing to bet that if (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Todd coined it. Altho it has since become a "bad" word, he intended it to sound a little silly. The rest of the admins loved it, expecting that the community would accept it as a compromise between no cursing and free speech. It still amazes (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Defining censorship
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: -snip- (...) I like your example. It provides a descent example of how restricting access, but not denying access, can be censorship. (...) What bothers me about your example is the accumulation of (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Nope. It comes back to the TOS. I can dig up the link if you'd like, but a year or so ago there was a big discussion regarding someone's ouster from Bricklink for violating the TOS of that site. Great was the outcry on his behalf, though I (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) For these purposes I think that censorship refers to an action taken contrary to the wishes of the person supplying the content. A discussion of news outlets necessarily expands the debate beyond LUGNET and similar websites, such as the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
--snip-- (...) I think this hits the nail firmly on the head. Censorship is most definitely not always a bad thing. Child pornography is, and should be, censored in almost every country in the world. Ones anti-virus email filter censors ones email (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) It depends largely on their reasons for doing it. If it is to purposefully bias the news (eg. render something not-true through omission) then it is censorship. But as I said it's not the best analogy. Tim (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Disagree, especially in the event that the enforcement is on subjective issues. For example, Lugnet's TOS specifies that you shouldn't post that which is "profane" or "vulgar". Let's say the administration deems the word "evolution" as (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Every news show leaves out bits of news. Is all news censored? Every library excludes some books. Is that censorship? Tim (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Does that apply to pay-to-view television channels too? If they purposefully leave out bits of news is it not censorship? I agree it's not the best analogy but the private=noncensored argument is a dangerous one. (...) Why not? Is it not (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bible as a literal source?
|
|
(...) You obviously miss my point. I'm not arguing that my interpretation is the correct interpretation, merely that I can construct an interpretation of Genesis that disagrees with the facts as we know (insofar as we know anything) them. (...) If (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Well, maybe if you're taking a totally uncritical look at it. As far as current scientific understanding goes, the process didn't unfold by having the Earth and seas and vegetation precede the formation of the Sun and Moon. Sure, we can blame (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Where I come from, critical thinking requires actual thinking, not dogmatic obedience. Sadly, dogmatic obedience is not dying in this country. Citing mythos as fact and expecting to be taken seriously is not critical thinking. (...) To the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | What Censorship Isn't
|
|
When a privately-owned website enforces the TOS to which posters have explicitly agreed, that's not censorship. If it results in posts being deleted, hidden, altered, or flagged in some way, it still isn't censorship. Alternatively, if it is (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Bible as a literal source? was Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I don't see any timeline in that quotation that precludes "the beginning" from spanning a very, very long time. (...) It doesn't actually say there was no light anywhere, it only says that the earth was without form and in darkness. The (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Defining censorship
|
|
(...) As I mentioned elsewhere, I personally would consider things other than strict denials as censorship, although I agree that murfling isn't strong enough to be what I would consider to be censorship. For example, let's pretend that the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Where I come from, it is a sign of critical thinking to be able to evaluate an idea on its own merits, regardless of the source. But I know that critical thinking is a dying art. Do cultural differences add nuance to the written/spoken word (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Bible as a literal source? was Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Not convenience, I'd already (URL) I would>: "PS. And in the absence of any sort of addition to the argument from you I will let you have your last word and bow out. While trading insults with you is amusing it’s polite to leave it off Lugnet. (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) That section of his post does reveal a lot about his (il)logic processes, though. Jeff (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Convenient how you "missed these other points out." (...) You don't have to be Christian to believe the Old Testament. And you don't have to believe that it is a literal account of history to recognize that the books of the Bible contain (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
--snip-- (...) I was going to say nothing in response to your response and I will leave out the rest of it but... I just can't believe that you seriously expect me to take the writings in Genesis as part of a logical argument. I really can't. I'm (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Sounds like different shades of the same color to me. (...) Ah, yes. A post that I made within hours of discovering JLUG is proof positive that I hold a lingering grudge these many months later. The logic is undeniable. (...) I didn't realize (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I'll jump in here and (not having read the whole thread) I'm sure I'll state something that's blatantly obvious and has (probably) been stated-- Censorship is some form of management (parent/school board/society) *denying* access to some (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Let me spell out the difference: on one you single out a post for the warning, on the other it covers the whole site. Understand now? (...) I believe there's ample proof that you do hold something against JLUG. You even went so far as to (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Cute! (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) All censorship is equal, but some censorship is more equal than others. (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) So how is that different from having to click an extra link to see the "un-murfled" version of a message? Do you recognize only shades of grey, but not shades of pink? (...) Well you've got me wrong there. I believe there is ample proof in the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
--snip-- (...) Not that interested to be honest. I've read most of his books and the only ones I can think of that are relavent are 1984 and Animal Farm (and posible some snippets from Shooting an Elephant). Obviously my joke about Keep the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I said "Animal Farm" because I got sick of typing "1984." The intended joke was that you would scour every George Orwell book that you could get your hands on to find something, anything to support your argument. But (URL) it wouldn't be the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (18 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 (18 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> (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) To Kelly's point, making the observation about the site *members* always will give you your exceptions. I'm not sure why Kelly chose to specifically mention Lugnet, but you could just as well have said BZPower, FBTB, JLUG, Classic-Castle, (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Please provide links to my previous applicable comments so I know what you're referring to. Also, let's define "standard of maturity." I'd call it "Play Well," which is something anybody can do - if they so choose. Not everyone does so choose. (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) For clarity's sake - are you saying Kelly's post had a snide comment about other people's behavior? (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) While I can appreciate you point here, Kelly, I have to say that, based on various comments you've made on lugnet in the past, I wouldn't like to frequent a site where your 'standard of maturity' are applied. This post is a pretty good example (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) It is has been my experience that maturity and age (being an adult) have nothing to do with each-other. Of course, what defines "maturity" is also widely varied, some taking it to be politeness even in the face of rudeness, and others take it (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Actually, I've found the behavior of some people on "adult" LEGO sites (like Lugnet) to be less mature than the norm on kid-oriented LEGO sites (like BZPower). There have been incidents and member actions on Lugnet that I wouldn't tolerate on (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that the sites that prompted your ponderings are really AFOL sites. Not a a critism of them, merely a thought that the standards of maturity might not be what you would like to get from an AFOL site Tim (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) extremes start when limits are reached. but where (what) are the limits? Some limits are quite clear and well determined : - topic (that's why this thread on lugnet.off-topic part of the site), - TOS,TOU, - federal, national, international (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Ah, but where do extremes start? Cheers Richie Dulin (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) **sighs** I guess when one's hobby is a toy, there will be children involved! :) Personally, I think it's bad for the overall AFOL community. I'll grant you, (A) I'm still sort of new to the community (even with 37 years of LEGO under my (...) (18 years ago, 10-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I was recently involved in something similar, when I took exception to the characterization of one site (Site A) by members of another, much larger site (Site B). Frankly, the postings struck me as petty and really kind of snide, and I posted (...) (18 years ago, 10-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) Well, here's an important distinction: who's doing the saying? And in what capacity? Let's say AFOLS.com is run by Mortimer. And a frequent visitor to the AFOLS.com is Jezebelle. And there's another site called LEGOGEEKS.com, which they hate. (...) (18 years ago, 10-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I'm not sure right or wrong have much to do with it, given human nature. Right now, I could easily name three pairs of LEGO-related web sites where your example could apply, including one I run. So I don't think this is anything new. (...) (18 years ago, 10-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
(...) I don't see what is wrong with it so long as it's not taken to extremes. Tim (18 years ago, 10-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
|
While not naming any specific sites, I would be interested in hearing the Community's thoughts on whether you think it right or wrong for one AFOL site to talk about another AFOL site. For purposes of this discussion, we will assume that by talk I (...) (18 years ago, 10-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) If it was not you who sent the picture, I am sorry. I do agree Now that I have said some things that I should not have. Those are the examples you quoted above. I was fustrated at months of waiting for changes to appear and Dan didn't answer (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
--snip-- (...) Hi John, Thanks for taking that on board. Noone is saying your contribution isn't worthwhile and I don't think anyone minds your regular updates of what you've done. If you stick to these I think we will all be happier. It also means (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) I differ with you here. Serious collectors need to know. You have no idea how many are wrong. This is not impolite. It is a systemic problem. Would you feel that it is more polite just to note it on Lugnet? If that is a solution I can do it. I (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) Yep--I'm the Mad Dave around here! Worked long and hard for that title and I'm not willing to give it up to any old Dave! Dave K (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) Actually, although it was impolite to call me "Mad Dave", I was very amused at the title. Perhaps you've confused the myriad of Dave's involved, or perhaps you have this vision of me where I'm shouting at the top of my lungs or something. (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) Yes you do. - "If anyone is spring loaded to the piss off position it is you." - "Valium might be in the future for you, or high blood pressure. You really need to calm down." - "remember 7 comes after 6 and before 8, perhaps that will help." (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) --snip-- (...) John, It was not polite to make the comment "Corrections sent to inv@peeron again are not getting posted. It has been a bit since they did a few.". The reason it isn't polite is because it is a) unneccesary and b) expectant as (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) Tim: I was not rude to volunteers, I even offered to volunteer to get thing done. I want to help and have only come here when Dan ignored my requests as to what was happening to the corrections sent into Peeron.com. I am still not sure what (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Patterson wrote: --snip-- (...) John, You're really beginning to make me very irritated. You seem unable to accept responsibility for the way you put things and seem to justify this in a variety of ways including (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) For a guy who's thick-skinned, you sure when to a lot of trouble to prove it. (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) Thanks Dave: Thanks Dave: I treat others well. If anything is rude it is the people that take apart every comment I make, which I really do not give a hoot about. The inventories are messed up; I am trying to fix that. Almost every one I look (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
|
(...) Then please, leave out the commentary. You come across as being condescending, insulting, and rude. If you have corrections that you want to post to Lugnet, well, fine I guess. But if your intent is to start a flame war so that it draws (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.inv, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: USA vs. UK pay differences
|
|
(...) Well apparently (URL) Jon Palmer was making more than $13/hr slinging coffee in Tulsa> ;) ROSCO (18 years ago, 29-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Fox news www
|
|
On today's (3-27-07) "Political Grapevine" with Brit Hume there was a piece about teaches banning lego from the class for a while since the teachers didn't like the "(paraphrased)capita...lass-type' things the kids were building. ?!?!?!? the (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: USA vs. UK pay differences
|
|
(...) Your mistake is to compare minimum income instead of median income. The minimum wage is not a good representation of the earnings of a country. In fact until about a decade ago the UK didn't have a minimum wage so would that mean LEGO should (...) (18 years ago, 27-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
