 | | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) I was saying that I was sorry for stealing almost all of Tim's words from his post seen here (and the joke being fairly lame now that I think of it - lol): (URL) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
--snip-- (...) He didn't apologise... he appologised. There was a reason I snipped ;) Tim (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) The funny thing is, as far as I can tell, and fwiw, Word Spellcheck agrees, Bob didn't make any spelling errors in that post. And so the mystery remains as to what exactly Bob was apologising for... Allister - spring loaded to the baffled (...) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: siggy testaroo
|
|
(...) I think I do get it. (...) I appreciate Tim's contribution to the community here, few come close to his involvement and knowledge. His MOC production is, I think, unequalled in recent times. I do not think LUGNET is 'his forum', but I (...) (17 years ago, 1-May-07, to lugnet.off-topic.test, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Rather, only one pair of original parents. ;o) Giving me a name appropriate for Jewish men born in the 1920's (and random bad-guy henchmen) was soo creative! -Lenny (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Unoriginal parents? Tim (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Wait a minute--I just realized that in this little discussion we have a Leonard, two Daves, and three Tims, one of whom qualifies as both a Tim and a David. What's going on here?!? Dave! (17 years ago, 16-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) Hey, we don't want any mention of THAT place here! ;-) Tim (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) What's the standard, then? Does censorship cover anything that doesn't include everything? That would define "censorship" so thinly that it would have no meaning at all. But if we insetad define "censorship" to be an action of government, then (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) So, you're arguing that censorship can only be effected by a government, or illegally? By illegally, I'm suggesting that a private citizen/organization violates an agreement such as public free speech or their own TOS. Essentially, I think (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Just because something is a legal restriction of free speech doesn't make it not censorship. Free speech is not a complimentary set of censorship and the two can in fact overlap, likewise the absence of one does not guarantee the presence of (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Nope. The child and parents can still read the book at the local library or at the bookstore or even online. The private school is choosing not to carry a particular book on private property, which isn't censorship. Suppose I write a book that (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) I definitely disagree. If a private school wants to exclude any and all books from its premisis talking about Darwin's evolutionary theory, that's censorship! Everyone involved might be totally fine with it, and they might have made you aware (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) In case anyone is interested, I assume you mean this thread: (URL) Of course, BL posts are purged every 6 months so don't bother clicking on any of those links. (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) Hey, that's pretty good. In essence, omission is not censorship; restriction is. That works at least in the public arena, but it still doesn't apply IMO to a private forum. Still, it's a good rule of thumb. Dave! (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) I think that you misread me. I was referring to such an outlet that does allege that responsibility. I'm not referring to news outlets in general, which may or may not allege responsibility. Those seem to be two very different cases. (...) (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) On the contrary, people have said it is bad. Describing something as "Orwellian" is making a judgment call about it- "Orwellian" is not good. And Todd's coining of the term was because he felt this particular solution had never been developed (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
|
(...) From what (and how) I've read no-one has claimed that murfling is eroding anyone's rights. They have claimed that the term is a euphemistic way of saying censored and that the use of euphemism is bad (at least from my reading). From your (...) (17 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
