|
 | | Re: What Censorship Isn't
|
| (...) For these purposes I think that censorship refers to an action taken contrary to the wishes of the person supplying the content. A discussion of news outlets necessarily expands the debate beyond LUGNET and similar websites, such as the (...) (18 years ago, 13-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|  
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
| (...) It's interesting reading. The defense of property part is what I suspected it might be - even though that is couched in "reasonable belief" terms and "can't get the property back" terms, tackling a guy running off with your stereo is fraught (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
property
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I didn't "bother to correct it" because I recognize that the term "doublespeak" has largely entered the public vocabulary as a result of Orwell's work, even if he himself didn't coin the term. Likewise, the Wikipedia article that you cited (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) In the case of a cancelled or deleted post, one can often still see the subject line and the author, but the content is gone forever. The reader can only imagine what horrible nastiness warranted such a scrubbing, and each reader will mentally (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I've read 1984 but it was a long time ago. The (URL) wikipedia article> shows that you obviously haven't read it to recently either since the term doublespeak never actually appears. You may also want to check a dictionary for the spelling of (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) To Kelly's point, making the observation about the site *members* always will give you your exceptions. I'm not sure why Kelly chose to specifically mention Lugnet, but you could just as well have said BZPower, FBTB, JLUG, Classic-Castle, (...) (18 years ago, 11-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Re: Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| (...) I was recently involved in something similar, when I took exception to the characterization of one site (Site A) by members of another, much larger site (Site B). Frankly, the postings struck me as petty and really kind of snide, and I posted (...) (18 years ago, 10-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Should AFOL websites keep to themselves?
|
| While not naming any specific sites, I would be interested in hearing the Community's thoughts on whether you think it right or wrong for one AFOL site to talk about another AFOL site. For purposes of this discussion, we will assume that by talk I (...) (18 years ago, 10-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
| (...) Well, since you keep bringing Texas up, I thought I would give you a little reading material.... SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS § 9.31. Self-Defense (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
property
(score: 0.420)
|
|
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
| (...) If it was not you who sent the picture, I am sorry. I do agree Now that I have said some things that I should not have. Those are the examples you quoted above. I was fustrated at months of waiting for changes to appear and Dan didn't answer (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.419)
|
|
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
| --snip-- (...) Hi John, Thanks for taking that on board. Noone is saying your contribution isn't worthwhile and I don't think anyone minds your regular updates of what you've done. If you stick to these I think we will all be happier. It also means (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.419)
|
|
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
| (...) --snip-- (...) John, It was not polite to make the comment "Corrections sent to inv@peeron again are not getting posted. It has been a bit since they did a few.". The reason it isn't polite is because it is a) unneccesary and b) expectant as (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.419)
|
|
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
| (...) Tim: I was not rude to volunteers, I even offered to volunteer to get thing done. I want to help and have only come here when Dan ignored my requests as to what was happening to the corrections sent into Peeron.com. I am still not sure what (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.419)
|
|
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
| (...) I differ with you here. Serious collectors need to know. You have no idea how many are wrong. This is not impolite. It is a systemic problem. Would you feel that it is more polite just to note it on Lugnet? If that is a solution I can do it. I (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.419)
|
|
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) I know this was a throw-away comment, but... One could be against the notion of ownership and still be reasonable in owning stuff under our current system. I know someone who thinks that we should accept that we are at best stewards of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
property
(score: 0.419)
|
|
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Patterson wrote: --snip-- (...) John, You're really beginning to make me very irritated. You seem unable to accept responsibility for the way you put things and seem to justify this in a variety of ways including (...) (18 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
all
(score: 0.419)
|
