Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:19:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3510 times
|
| |
|
|
--snip--
| |
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
it wouldn’t be the first time
that my brand of humor has proven to be too subtle for you.
|
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 Aspidistra
Flying was lost on you too.
As for getting or not getting humour, I think you missed that my response to
your response (in the link above) was intended humourously too. The difference
is that my concept of subtlety is actually subtle whereas yours is more like
| |
| |
| |
Furthermore, you might want to decide which side of the argument you are on
before you start typing. When did I ever say that “doublethink” wasn’t
Orwell? And if we can agree that “doublespeak” is largely derived from
Orwell’s concepts of “newspeak” and “doublethink” then it is simply a red
herring for you to debate the origin of the word.
|
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.
|
Is that what you were trying to say? I suppose it wouldn’t be the first time
that your brand of logic has proven to be too subtle for me.
|
Probably won’t be the last either. As I mentioned above I like to keep my
subtlety subtle.
| |
| |
| |
Your assertion that using the word “murfle” to describe “censorship” is
doublespeak is flawed, because the word does not literally mean the
opposite of what it is being used for. So yes, I do think you might
benefit from re-reading (and grokking) Orwell’s books.
|
It doesn’t have to mean the opposite. Neither the Wikipedia article on
Doublespeak nor on Newspeak demand that it be the opposite. I’m not sure why
you think it does.
|
Doublespeak implies the misleading use of terminology to cloak the true
meaning of phrases. Since the word “murfle” was invented whole cloth by Todd
to describe something new, which even you admit is not full-out censorship,
and since it does not have a pre-existing meaning which would distract
somebody from understanding its true meaning, your statement that the word
“murfle” is used as doublespeak for censorship falls flat.
|
The word murfle was created to describe a form of censorship in fluffy terms ie.
the misleading use of terminology to cloak the true meaning. There’s nothing new
about having an uncensored and a censored version of things so it’s not a new
word to describe a new action.
| |
Is it censorship when a web site makes you click an extra link in order to
see material that may be considered offensive to some? If so, then I think
it is hysterical that the home page of a certain board that was created
specifically in response to “too much censorship on LUGNET” contains exactly
such a warning.
|
No it’s not. I forgot about your war on JLUG but I guess that explains why
you’re so testy about my responses. Nothing quite as pointless as arguing with
someone who’s already made their mind up about you based on your affiliations.
--snip--
| |
I am perfectly satisfied that a rational reader can understand what I am
saying, and I am also completely comfortable with the consistency of my
statements. If you don’t fall into that category, well then that really
isn’t my problem.
|
I too am satisfied that a rational reader will find my argument logical. Either
one of us is wrong or we’re both somewhat right.
| |
Please demonstrate how I have been “fluid” in my interpretation?
|
Perhaps fluid is wrong, I may be mistaking sheer inconsistency for shifting
goalposts.
| |
| |
| |
Honestly, Tim, I think you are allowing your apparent dislike of me to
cloud your logic. Did I really get inside your head somehow?
|
Not at all. My logic is sound. I’m yet to see any from you to determine if
yours is the same.
I’m not making any claims to like you but for all I dislike your tone and
quality of argument it’s not enough to make me dislike you. I’m afraid it
takes a lot more than being an arrogant and illogical debater to get in my
head.
|
If you say so.
|
Is this more of the infamous subtelty or is it the razor sharp logic?
| |
| |
Care to point out your logic to me?
|
|
Interesting that you missed this one out. I guess you’re so satisfied with your
own logic you feel no need to make it clear. At least some of us take the time
to spell out our arguments.
| |
| |
If I had a copy of 1984 handy I’d refer to it but unfortunately I don’t.
|
Ah, well let me save you some time. Without thumbing through my copy I can
pretty much guarantee you that you will not find any mention of the word
“Orwellian” in the book 1984.
|
Ahhh subtle wit.
| |
Again, I’m not really sure which side of the argument you are on here. Sure,
Richie and I seem to be able to use the term “Orwellian” correctly. Does the
Wikipedia definition “match” any of the statements you’ve made?
|
I’m not picking and choosing here. I’m merely pointing out that by the
definition you quoted some of what you wrote as being Orwellian was and some of
it wasn’t. Thus even by your own arguments you are slightly wrong.
Are you now arguing that Richie was right in saying it was Orwellian even by
your own definition?
As I have already mentioned the term Orwellian could also be used to refer to
the language elements of his books. If Wikipedia disagrees then I can accept
that my sphere of usage for it is broader than that which is common but I don’t
see it as undermining my argument per se.
| |
Oh, I don’t think coarseness weakens an argument per se, but it is usually
a sign that emotion is taking over for logic.
|
I suspected as much. Take it from me that it doesn’t when coming from me. I’ve
never had a problem with “coarse” or “refined” metaphors and will use either
when I think them appropriate. I prefer to keep the sphere of my language use
broader rather than narrower.
| |
And that is really the crux of this whole murfling thing to begin with. It
is possible to teach even a sex education class without resorting to vulgar
or profane language, so it really baffles me when people claim that the
threat that their profanity might get murfled is somehow suppressing their
ability to express their ideas.
|
It really baffles me why some people have a problem with the type of language
used by others.
Of course there are (almost) always other ways of saying things but why should
it be restricted? That’s ignoring the fact that what is considered profane by
one person may be perfectly accpetable to another. As an example you seem to
consider “talking out of your arse” as coarse but that is acceptable language in
the highest office in my country.
| |
Your interpretation: Richie was saying that, because the Admins see a
button that says “murfle” instead of one that says “delete” or “cancel” that
this somehow makes it easier for them to censor a post for
less-than-honorable reasons. Show me a post, any post on LUGNET that has
been murfled for any reason other than a clear violation of TOS regarding
strong language.
|
This is completely unrelated to my argument. My point is that Richie is arguing
that murfling is a euphemism for censorship. On that point I completely agree
with him. Even if it had never been used it would still be a euphemism for
censorship. Is that too subtle for you?
| |
My interpretation: Richie was saying that “murfling” is a mysterious tool
that is arbitrarily applied by the admins to suppress certain viewpoints
and/or sanitize the historical record of this site. Again, show me any
murfled post that supports that position. And then explain to me why Todd
went to such great lengths to create a system which allowed the admins to
bury the profanity without actually deleting the offensive text from the
permanent record.
Regardless of which interpretation is correct, I stand by my initial reaction
that Richie was being rather alarmist. Nothing fluid about it whatsoever.
| |
| |
Why don’t you reboot and try again?
|
Why bother. Whatever logical flaws I may have made are dwarfed by yours.
|
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Brilliant.
|
Do you really expect me to write something pithy in response to such a bland
comment as “Why don’t you reboot and try again?”? If so then you expect a far
higher standard of commentary from me than you do from yourself.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (17 years ago, 13-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
|
|
|
|
