 | | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
I forgot to add Thank you Janey, and thank you Rosco, for all the work you put in to give us a sand pit in the sun. If something else eventually gets off the ground, I hope you 2 and all the other who helped make it a grand place come back into the (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) Nice work, CM Worker! (Or should I say CL Worker?) Hopefully, my prompt registering will result in a low member number (not than numbers mean anything). Spotlighted. Thanks for sharing. Cheers Richie Dulin Future JLUG2 Community Overlooker (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) that would of been :wiz: (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) Goodonya Leigh. Who knows what you could achieve in an hour. At this rate, we'll have ITC by the end of the week. (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) I feel your pain. Today our community became slightly less warm, and slightly less embracing. But JLUG was a tour de force to be reckoned with, while it lasted. It rawked. Cheers Richie Dulin Former Unofficial JLUG CTOP List Administrator (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) Yeah, like it's so hard. (URL) is just a sample, and I've only put 15 minutes work into it. worker201 (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
It is a sad day today, I really enjoyed relaxing in Jlug, not needing to worry about watching what I or other would say. to be able to post irrelivant topics about nothing at all, or just smacking each other silly. for old times sake :wiz: :'( (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) We could form a committee to discuss it, and then all resign in a fit of petulance. That'd be fun. They could run the server from a handcranked laptop in Africa. It'd probably be more reliable than those shonky Northstar servers. (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) Doesn't seem fair, does it? It was one of the good ones. (...) I feel much the same way. I was contemplating setting up a website called save.JLUG.com, to provide a forum in which fans of JLUG could work to save JLUG. We could have provided (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) Nooo...ooo! :-( (big sigh) Even though I never post on the site. I did lurk on the site a quite few times every week. I am bummed that the site...has let's say...is taking a LONG vacation or in other words... in a coma. There is a movie title (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) Didn't you guys keep back-ups? I gotta say I'm pretty upset by this news - it's as shocking as it is unexpected. I feel like I've lost a dear friend. (...) From my perspective, I think it was enough fun, but I expect I wasn't on the receiving (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) And it died before ITC could be implemented. <Single tear>. I hope the much loved JLUG statistics can be published somewhere for posterity. Cheers Richie Dulin Former JLUG Community Overlooker. (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) I just can't stop crying. Where do I go to curse and post bondage vigs now? I even took a picture of a couple cranes, a Halal Pepsi can, and a robotic cat to share with everyone... (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
(...) Thanks Janey, and Ross too- it was a blast. See you 'round. (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, C. L. GunningCook wrote: snip (...) Janey, Thank you for all the effort you and ross put into JLUG. It will be missed. You ran a fine site, and stuck to your values. thank you. Chris (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | JLUG - The Forum that WAS.
|
|
Here are a few new JLUG slogans.... JLUG - The end of an error.... errr I mean era. JLUG - Been there, done that, cant be bothered to do it again. JLUG - The "sandbox" is condemned. Sadly during the recent crash we (JLUG) got hit pretty hard. Our (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Yeah, but if the percentage of people who posed an immediate risk to people other than themselves was significantly higher, there would be more political capital to do something about it. Once the public perceives a lack of risk to themselves, (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) The Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States government says that it's wrong to kill anyone, therefore it should be illegal. That does, of course, lead to the obvious question of why they thought it should be a capital crime. I mean, as I (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A shot in the dark
|
|
(...) I agree with most of what you have said, however I'm not certain your car analogy is valid. While cars can be a deadly weapon that is not what they are designd for. A well used gun is one that is never used whereas a well used car is used all (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A shot in the dark
|
|
(...) I will agree that the homeowner was wrong, but on different grounds. He did not properly identify his target before firing. In many states, you are allowed to presume that any un-invited intruder in your house is a deadly threat. Such laws are (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) It's not in that situation, either. It is noble and compassionate to try and comfort and help provide meaning to one in pain and agony. Further, not helping someone kill themselves can hardly be characterized as "forcing" them to live, Dave! (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You're correct, but that's kind of a dumb law. There's a ton of things that you can do to yourself that you can't do to others without consent, among which tattooing and masturbation are perhaps two of the most obvious examples. Why suicide (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I don't know that it's as simple as a black-and-white declaration. If someone is at full mental faculty but is physically incapacitated by constant agony with no hope of relief, how is it noble and compassionate to force that person to (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I dug up (URL) some statistics> (page 288- of the PDF) and it would appear that in the US just under one third of drug users are using something other than marijuana. So when talking about high-risk people (those whose actions are a danger to (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I'd say that depends on the society. In the US there is a problem with people mugging Oxycontin(sp?)-dependant people for their prescriptions and mainlining it. It is perhaps more expensive than heroin, and anyone who actually needs it to (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) Yes I don't doubt it but I think that the basic Conservative position (as opposed to the position of Conservatives) is against it. It becomes an 'exception to the rule' rather than part of a grey spread. (...) Yes. I'm still talking (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You're supposed to feel sympathy for Darth Vader because right before he redeems himself, we see Luke on the verge of making the same monumental mistake that his father made before him. Of all six movies, that is easily my favorite scene, (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) It is, as Dave suggested, an entirely cultural notion. Look to untamed nature to see the natural "might makes right" position, where the strongest (whether it be physically, or in terms of mental cunning) survive by killing, maiming, or simply (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I thought the difference between melodrama and drama was the cheesy music. That's what one of my theatre profs told me, at least... (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Hey, there's no need to go insulting Batman by calling him twinky names like that. (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, they did sorta include the reception desk. Sorta. In the first floor, aside from the sliding cage door, there's some sort of computer terminal with a phone and a swivel chair. Not very desk-like, but hey, it's not very asylum-like (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Agreed. There are still consequences for actions. (...) Hmmm. Very broadly speaking, perhaps. But there are plenty of Conservatives who could easily sympathize with the killer in your example. (...) Well, you are certainly taking a risk by (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) I'd be more sympathetic too, but they're still a murderer. What about someone who has been abused by a partner for many years and lacks the capacity to escape. If they kill that partner in cold blood they are a murderer but I'm pretty (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Okay, I take it now that we have dispensed fantasy and are now dealing with real life situations. Vigilantism isn't ideal, because there isn't a standard-- that, of course, is the beauty of Law. The problem comes when the law fails to bring (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) No, that's just reality. It's just that liberal minds take a bit more effort to take it into consideration. (...) Does that mean you support Court by vigilante and death penalty for thievery? Do you really think it's up to the (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Generally speaking, this is the idea to which I object. Identifying with bad guys is bad. (...) Is Han really bad? Sure, he undermines the laws of an evil empire, but does that make him "bad"? Shouldn't we resist evil (bad)? (...) I can't (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A shot in the dark
|
|
(...) snip (...) I still say it's 7!!! :) Dave K (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A shot in the dark
|
|
(...) Well in this case the homeowner was definatly in the wrong. There can be no doubt that he shot without any warning, (otherwise his daughter would have made herself known to him) and thus he can't claim self defence, because he wasn't being (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: SNIPPY (...) Hey , what about the innocent men and the guilty women and children? (I had a strange cultural default twinge there as I typed 'children') SNIPPY Tim (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | A shot in the dark
|
|
Part of Dave K's post (URL) here> brought this issue to mind and resonated with a recent news story. Here's part of the text of a post I wrote back in 2003. I've isolated it here rather than replying in-thread because I don't want to put any (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) And if I may intrude into this here, we have had some wonderful fiction on the telly lately in which what is considered to be 'the bad guy' in the 'tv show universe' is the person we most relate to. Loads of examples, but starting off with (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Just making sure. Got that one from Duffy, did ya, Dave!? (...) Hold on right there! I wonder why that is the case! And I certainly don't believe it is by Cawinkydink. And if it is so easy, than why would it be restricted to our culture? I (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Fair enough. Actually, I find it a lot more convincing as points of view go than the semantics one. ;) Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) First off, "sophistimacated" was just a means of letting out some air so that I don't start taking myself too seriously. Let me disclaim that it in this passage I'm speaking specifically of fiction rather than reality. The reason it's more (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You keep out of this. I'll decide what you did and didn't say! ;) Dave! (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Right. Semantics, that must be it. Even so, even if that was what Dave was meaning, it would be nice for him to have the used the phrase "Richie's comment" or "Richie's post". It would save you the hassle of having to explain this stuff to me, (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, it looks like the same antics to me. (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) And god forbid that anyone gets accused of being anti-Semantic. a (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) But you brought their judgment into question. Semantics here, IMO JOHN (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Just a point of order, Dave: I didn't include a question in my initial post. Cheers Richie Dulin (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Not to mention your eloquent gift of good grammar and tongue-in-cheekiness. (...) Well, yeah, that's basically what I meant. (...) And that, my friend, may be one of those "nutshell" differences between a liberal and a conservative. Assuming (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) My generosity and my humility are the two attributes of which I'm most proud. (...) But you can hate the crime without loving the victim, can't you? (...) Ah! But that's the difference between melodrama and drama. The more sophistimacated (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) All you do is give, Dave! (...) Oops! Mea culpa, but a rather funny blooper there, nonetheless:-) I'll bet you are only too happy to invite me into your little den of iniquity, Dave! :-) (...) I agree, and I think that fantasy provides a (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. (...) Hey, you poser--we're talking about Batman sets here. Keep your escapist fantasy characters sorted out, will you? Of course, if you're looking to talk about the current Spider-man (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) But, they're making a toy. Saying they have a "curious lack of sensitivity" implies that there is some sort of sinister commentary on their part. Just because it reminded one person of something horrible doesn't mean that issue should've been (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) You think? (...) I think that there is a definite line WRT to reality and fantasy. The holocaust sets were offensive because they portrayed reality; these Spiderman sets deal in the realm of fantasy and make-believe, and so they shouldn't be (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: I sincerely doubt that either post will cause a (...) Sounds like a great them for a time travel movie! (...) Well, I still respect you. And I think we actually feel the same way about the original (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Yes. But my point here is that by responding with a reference to the cartoon you're making it a little bit more likely to be seen by the very people that you think may get upset. I sincerely doubt that either post will cause a calamity but it (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Although it's unlikely that LEGO intended the set as a commentary on Abu Ghraib, their choice to foreground an institutionalized torture chamber speaks of a curious lack of sensitivity on the subject. Given TLG's long-standing policy of (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Which is exactly my original point. Any focus group could stumble upon Richie's original post and get all up in arms over it and start some sort of movement against LEGO. Putting the idea out there, anyone can read it and over-react any number (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) But that is why we have .off-topic.debate ;) (which both of us forgot to move to... sorry, Lugnet) (...) I suspect the cartoonist either didn't think much at all or consciously set out to be malicious but we'll never really know the answer to (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I remember a time when there were no weapons in the sets. There were pieces that you could pretend were lasers in the space sets. It was a gentler time then I quess. But I do remember that lego made a plastic toy gun at one time, perhaps (...) (17 years ago, 5-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I guess I was using your opinion and those that spotlighted it as a barometer for what the public is thinking. Its usually safe to assume that if someone has a mild discomfort towards something, someone somewhere is up in arms about it. (17 years ago, 5-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) It certainly does, though it's not something I choose to portray in my pirate MOCs and not something that LEGO has chosen to portray in its sets (beyond prison cells, and planks for walking. Oh, and I once built a guillotine). (...) Conflict (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) That's clearly true, and it's unfortunate that there's always somebody eager to be offended by pretty much everything--not that Richie is such a person, but his thoughtful question definitely brings the issue to mind. (...) Also clearly true, (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I understand where you're coming from. But I wonder, where do we draw the line between having fun and addressing every possible concern that could arise? The pirates theme, your theme of choice I believe, has a disgusting and horrible true (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Aeroflot Antonov An-28
|
|
(...) Why would someone impersonate you? Near as I can tell, you posted a bare handful of times prior to 2006, and the email Terry pasted was written in a very similar style and signed the same way you sign your posts. Not only that, but (...) (17 years ago, 4-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Aeroflot Antonov An-28
|
|
(...) I was not going to respond, but I never wrote that email. It is either made up or someone hi jacked my name for that. I have nothing against the French, hell they helped us win our first war. Maybe someone did what others did when they made a (...) (17 years ago, 4-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Aeroflot Antonov An-28
|
|
--snip-- (...) I never denied it. Unlike you I'm usually aware of when I am or am not being rude. (...) No. Most would understand the difference. It takes a special sort of brain not to see the difference. The kind of brain that would also do (...) (17 years ago, 4-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Aeroflot Antonov An-28
|
|
(...) I did not go on about, but did not hide the fact. I mention it in my Lugnet page. I mention it and do not feel any need to hide it. I also have never mentioned what by graduate degrees are in. As for you being a doctor, so are my kids. My (...) (17 years ago, 4-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Aeroflot Antonov An-28
|
|
--snip-- (...) Pretty sure you called me Timmy first but it really is unimportant. (...) And I'm a Doctor if you want to be precise but I've never gone on about it like you have about your rank. (...) This is the main reason I wanted to respond. I (...) (17 years ago, 4-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) I think I understand your point, but, even so, I must say I don't think using that term is a good idea. (...) I would? I defer to your knowledge of the Israeli military - incidentally, I'm sure that's not the only thing about some of them that (...) (17 years ago, 2-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) But it does make a point. I read a lot of old messages and it seems that there are some people here that want the forums to be what they want. If something does not fit their point of view about subject or style they let everyone know. Nazi (...) (17 years ago, 2-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) While fora often have some people who are overzealous, and some who post "not nice" messages from time to time, in my experience, labelling them with a term that signifies hate and genocide is not likely to be productive. Richie Dulin FUT (...) (17 years ago, 2-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) Ah, I see it now. Didn't pick it last night. I blame the drugs. Cheers. (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) I was saying that I was sorry for stealing almost all of Tim's words from his post seen here (and the joke being fairly lame now that I think of it - lol): (URL) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
--snip-- (...) He didn't apologise... he appologised. There was a reason I snipped ;) Tim (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) The funny thing is, as far as I can tell, and fwiw, Word Spellcheck agrees, Bob didn't make any spelling errors in that post. And so the mystery remains as to what exactly Bob was apologising for... Allister - spring loaded to the baffled (...) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) I think I do get it. (...) I appreciate Tim's contribution to the community here, few come close to his involvement and knowledge. His MOC production is, I think, unequalled in recent times. I do not think LUGNET is 'his forum', but I (...) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Rather, only one pair of original parents. ;o) Giving me a name appropriate for Jewish men born in the 1920's (and random bad-guy henchmen) was soo creative! -Lenny (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Unoriginal parents? Tim (17 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! (17 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 (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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. (17 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 (...) (17 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! (17 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. (...) (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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, (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
