 | | 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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'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?
|
|
--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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) <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 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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 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?
|
|
--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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) Cute! (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
--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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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: 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: 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: 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)
|
