Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:10:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3655 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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?
|
No it’s not.
|
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?
|
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 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.
|
Well you’ve got me wrong there. I believe there is ample proof in the LUGNET
archives that I do not carry grudges.
|
I believe there’s ample proof that you do hold something against JLUG. You
even went so far as to single it out in a
thread before. Hardly the
behaviour of someone who is indifferent. I can accept that it may not be an
all-encompassing grudge but I’m sure it’s tainting your responses to me just as
much as my dislike of a lot of your behaviour on LUGNET taints mine.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Was I being too subtle when I quoted the Wikipedia definition of the term
“Orwellian?” My bad. Next time I’ll be sure to add a few animated GIF
emoticons so that you don’t miss it.
|
It’s good to see you can mimic my sarcasm. Perhaps next week you can start
making your own.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
I am saying that he appears to have correctly used the term “Orwellian” to
convey his impression of the murfling process. That is not to say I agree
with his characterization.
|
Your first response to Richie says that what he calls Orwellian is hardly Big
Brother. Were you just throwing in the term Big Brother at random and not
actually responding to what he said or were you implying that by Orwellian he
meant Big Brother?
If the former you are even less coherent than you appear, if the latter then you
are most definitely contradicting yourself now. Care to explain this one?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Yes, well if you believe
the historical record from the early days of mankind, language was designed
this way.
|
Perhaps next time you can try answering the question with something other than a
joke (hopefully). Although answering questions might show that the majority of
your argument is constructed out of straw.
| |
| |
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.
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?
|
Master of subtlety
Spewing forth the vivid metaphor
In case we missed the point.
|
An accurate number
Of syllables/metre/pulse does not
Comely poems assure
Tim
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. You’re welcome to continue by email
or on JLUG.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
