Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:03:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3294 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
|
Since murfling exists only on ONE site that Im aware of (since Todd made
up the term), this may not be such a hypothetical example
|
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. Its a great word, useful and colorful, and more
descriptive than cancelled even if that is technically more correct.
Say somebody posts a link to an eBay auction on BrickLink. If they cancel their
own post, thats canceling. If a Discussion Mod cancels it, thats murfling.
Theres not necessarily any judgment about right or wrong, just about whats
appropriate for a given site. Links to an auction arent the only thing that
will get murfled on BL, for example.
Tim Ive been murfled Smith
|
|
Message has 1 Reply: | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|