shmegegge, since you think I avoided the meat of your argument in favor of making fun of the word "hypocritism", I might as well point out that in doing so you neatly avoided the point that you're misusing the word censorship.
I don't know what you're talking about. I think you've stopped talking about the topic at hand to take the opportunity to snark about grammar mistakes. I've avoided responding to you in any other matter for this reason alone. for the record, though, I have not misused the word censorship, and no amount of you claiming otherwise proves that I have. by all means, go back to your petty grammar snarking.
shmegegge, if you "know" (#19) that I'm not a member of BB's staff, why did you write, addressing me in #12, "One can only hope that you don't represent the viewpoints of all of the BoingBoing staff"? I can think of a possible answer, but it's not a very nice one. I'd rather think better of you.
I can see why that would imply that I thought you were a member of the BoingBoing staff. I had intended it to mean that any given member of the staff might agree with you, but that I hope not all of them do. It was poorly phrased. these things happen.
but for real, now. why are you spinning this? now you've tried to claim that boingboing is a personal web site. come on. you have now backpedaled on your initial post, readjusted your argument and once again shifted focus away from the actual concern that a lot of people have: namely that boingboing appears to be engaging in what they oppose without addressing the apparent disconnect between their words and their deeds. If you want to defend them, awesome, but why claim that it's a personal web site? why claim they only oppose censorship from government sources? why are you twisting this? I can think of a number of reasons, but I'd rather think better of you.
shmegegge: Patrick isn't part of the BB staff. It's Teresa who is moderator there.
i know.
Good of you, inasmuch as one can't type an implication (whether with a straight face or curved fingers), or even (as in this case) an incoherent inference.
that's an excellent point, and you've clearly cut directly to the heart of the matter at hand. it's been a pleasure discussing things with you, whoever you are. if you'd like to, feel free to criticize my inappropriately use lower-case letters, since they clearly undermine my argument just as devastatingly.
Did... Did you just try to spin this? In what way is it strange for people to take issue with what seems to be censorship from an organization that has vocally opposed censorship?
Using the same absurd logic you've just used one could say "Just because you oppose the death penalty doesn't mean you are obliged not to kill anyone if you are not an executioner." (And I'm not even going into the absurdity of your implication that BoingBoing has only ever opposed censorship from the government. How on earth you're able to even type that with a straight face is beyond me.) The fact is that actions invite reactions from one's audience. I'll happily agree that leaping to the conclusion of censorship given the dearth of information is uncalled for, but your response makes it seem like censorship is precisely what it was. If that's the case, how else could you possibly expect the BoingBoing readership to respond?
To put it in terms which more closely resemble your own smug superiority: It ought to be obvious that an organization which vocally opposes censorship will endure criticism when it appears to engage in same, especially when it (so far) refuses to discuss the matter.
There are ways to handle situations like this. One way is with disclosure, honesty and humility. Another is with smugness, obfuscation and spin. That you've chosen the latter is surprising, but telling. One can only hope that you don't represent the viewpoints of all of the BoingBoing staff.
oh, and thank you for telling me the name of this phenomenon. I never knew how to describe the thing I've always hated most about writers I used to like.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who can't go back to Heinlein. It started for me with "Time Enough For Love," when I realized I was reading a Jubal Harshaw story with another character's named attached. Then I gave up for years. Unfortunately the book I decided to return with was "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls," where all the Gary Stus of Heinlein's career all get together for... god knows what reason. At least most of them die at the end.
Piers Anthony was an excellent call. I can't believe I read 16 of those Xanth novels, and even moved on to the Incarnations of Immortality series before I finally stopped.
to those I would like to add 2 more:
1. Robert Anton Wilson
2. Tom Robbins
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 5 |
| 2005 | 2 |
Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by shmegegge:
Show all comments by shmegegge.