 | | 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)
|
