or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Did the STYLEman thread just vanish?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did the STYLEman thread just vanish? - Page 5

post #61 of 227
Sooooooooooo tempted. Joelle Leggo my hair..... On the wagon for a whole boring, boring week.
post #62 of 227
Quote:
What is the link with the forum and your exemple?
Simple. What j did is not censorship. Whereas you live in a country where the government practices actual, genuine, honest-to-God, put-75-year-old-ladies-on-trial-for-writing-books censorship. Therefore you above all of us ought to know the difference.
post #63 of 227
Unfortunately, as we have found out this week, our own government has also been involved in some fairly unsavory forms of censoring and controlling its media. I once listened to an interview with Stanley Kubrik, in which he discussed being forced to remove scenes from "Eyes Wide Shut" in order to release the movie on the American market. He made a very good point about American media. Yes, speech is free in America - if you are promoting horrific violence, rather than sex. We'd rather watch musims behead someone on public television, than Janet Jackson having her boob exposed (the horror.). It's funny in a sad, sick way. I'll stop now.
post #64 of 227
That wasn't government. That was a private decision to avoid having the MPAA (which is 100% supported by film industry contributions, by the way) slap the film with an NC-17 rating, which is box office death. One might fairly complain about the FCC, but Janet Jackson's hooters are not ideas. I worry about the censorship of thought much, much more than skin, which is in any case available almost anywhere, so why do we need it at the Super Bowl?
post #65 of 227
Quote:
Unfortunately, as we have found out this week, our own government has also been involved in some fairly unsavory forms of censoring and controlling its media.
I am confused. Are you referring to the Canadian government's banning the viewing of the Fox News Channel for 9 years until just last month?
post #66 of 227
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortunately, as we have found out this week, our own government has also been involved in some fairly unsavory forms of censoring and controlling its media.
I am confused. Are you referring to the Canadian government's banning the viewing of the Fox News Channel for 9 years until just last month?
You mean they lifted the ban? Poor Canada..
post #67 of 227
You truly are this week... Who lit your fuse???
post #68 of 227
Quote:
Quote:
(ernest @ Feb. 24 2005,21:27) What is the link with the forum and your exemple?
Simple.  What j did is not censorship.  Whereas you live in a country where the government practices actual, genuine, honest-to-God, put-75-year-old-ladies-on-trial-for-writing-books censorship.  Therefore you above all of us ought to know the difference.
Your are ridiculious. What is the link between me and everything what could be done in my country? Any kind of more serious censorship in France or anywhere else wouldn't make look more free a forum where some threads are deleted because the webmaster doesn't like them.
post #69 of 227
Ernest, read my PM. I have always occasionally deleted posts and threads I 'didn't like'. If you don't like it, you can always find another forum on the subject. Or start your own. My good humor is running low, mate.
post #70 of 227
Quote:
Your are ridiculious.
I deny being ridiculous. You seem unable or unwilling to tell the difference between real censorship by a government and intelligent moderation of a private forum. So, like a whiny Berkeley undergraduate, you howl "Censorship." when someone makes a decision that you don't like. Sorry, howling doesn't make it so. Words have meaning, and what j did is not censorship. You can try to define censorship down for your own private purposes, but you will fail. And I will call you on it.
post #71 of 227
J is going to start singing: As someday it may happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list -- I've got a little list Of society offenders who might well be underground And who never would be missed -- who never would be missed. There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs -- All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs -- All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat -- All persons who in shaking hand, shake hands with you like that -- And all third persons who on spoiling tete-a-tetes insist -- They'd none of 'em be missed -- they'd none of 'em be missed. There's the nigger serenader*, and the others of his race, And the piano organist -- I've got him on the list. And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face, They never would be missed -- they never would be missed. Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and ev'ry country but his own; And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy, And "who doesn't think she dances, but would rather like to try"; And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist -- I don't think she'd be missed -- I'm sure she'd not be missed. And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife, The Judicial humorist -- I've got him on the list. All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life -- They'd none of 'em be missed -- they'd none of 'em be missed. And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind, Such as What d'ye call him -- Then-'em-bob, and likewise -- Never mind, And 'St -- 'st -- 'st -- and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who -- The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you. But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list, For they'd none of 'em be missed -- they'd none of 'em be missed. Jon. (sorry, but no reason to add to the censorship, thus I explain) * It was not until 1947 that any form of criticism was leveled at the use of this word, yet the D'Oyly Carte had played in the United States many times from 1934 on. However, serious objections were expressed in 1947. Rupert D'Oyly Carte approached Sir Alan P. Herbert, a contemporary lyricist, to provide alternatives to the word, both in this song and in the Mikado's song. There was no difficulty over this one -- the word was simply changed to "banjo player," basing the change on Gilbert's meaning of the word when he wrote it, viz., the itinerant street singer who, in imitation of the Negro minstrel, a craze that had come over from the United States, was using burnt cork and twanging away on a banjo at virtually every street corner. It was impossible to miss him. (Green 416 n. 17) If Green is correct about Gilbert's original reference -- not to black musicians but to black-face musicians -- then the reference is lost to us now and must be replaced. The replacement of the unacceptable "nigger" with "banjo," so that the line reads There's the banjo serenader and the others of his race is not any better to my mind without that original reference. The fact that it meant one thing at one time doesn't change what it means now. To continue the replacement is to refuse to use the word but not to refuse to express the idea. We rewrote this aria completely, in keeping with tradition, to make it more topical, and while we were at it, we killed these lines entirely.
post #72 of 227
Quote:
Quote:
(ernest @ Feb. 24 2005,21:45) Your are ridiculious.
I deny being ridiculous. You seem unable or unwilling to tell the difference between real censorship by a government and intelligent moderation of a private forum.  So, like a whiny Berkeley undergraduate, you howl "Censorship." when someone makes a decision that you don't like.  Sorry, howling doesn't make it so.  Words have meaning, and what j did is not censorship.  You can try to define censorship down for your own private purposes, but you will fail.  And I will call you on it.
I have not your luck. My friends are not Presidents, ministers and senators so I can not influence State decisions in any subjects. I am just dealing with messages about clothes. As you are dealing with the powerfullest people of your society, and feel so involved in politics I suppose you asked personaly Bush to stop torture in Irak and that of course he followed your request?...
post #73 of 227
Quote:
Quote:
(Manton @ Feb. 25 2005,03:49)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernest,Feb. 24 2005,21:45
Your are ridiculious.
I deny being ridiculous. You seem unable or unwilling to tell the difference between real censorship by a government and intelligent moderation of a private forum.  So, like a whiny Berkeley undergraduate, you howl "Censorship." when someone makes a decision that you don't like.  Sorry, howling doesn't make it so.  Words have meaning, and what j did is not censorship.  You can try to define censorship down for your own private purposes, but you will fail.  And I will call you on it.
I have not your luck. My friends are not Presidents, ministers and senators so I can not influence State decisions in any subjects. I am just dealing with messages about clothes. As you are dealing with the powerfullest people of your  society, and feel so involved in politics I suppose you asked personaly Bush to  stop torture in Irak and that of course he followed your request?...
Please stop Ernest, you're making my brain hurt. koji
post #74 of 227
Quote:
Ernest, read my PM. I have always occasionally deleted posts and threads I 'didn't like'. If you don't like it, you can always find another forum on the subject. Or start your own. My good humor is running low, mate.
If I don't like it, can I say it ?
post #75 of 227
I am at a loss here. I repeat, knowing full well that you cannot understand or choose not to understand, that what you claimed to be censorship on j's part was not censorship.  It was moderation.  Of a forum he owns.  Censorship is when the government -- which as such enjoys a monopoly of coercive power -- bans or regulates thoughts, ideas and/or statements, and punishes people who disseminate them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Did the STYLEman thread just vanish?