Subject:
|
Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:23:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3936 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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?
|
Sounds like different shades of the same color to me.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
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.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I didn’t realize that you had an international patent on the use of sarcasm in
an online forum. Please accept my most sincere apologies.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Are you being purposefully obtuse? Hmm.. where does the term “Big Brother”
come from? Oh, yes. That is George Orwell’s personification of the government
forces that carry out the surveilance, suppression of ideas, and revision of
history to which I believed he was referring with his “Orwellian”
characterization. You did read the book, didn’t you?
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Actually, that was a serious response. If you believe the account in Genesis,
language was designed to keep us apart. Read the story, comprehend what it
says, and then see if it sheds any light on your bafflement as to why “some
people have a problem with the type of language used by others.”
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
