|
|
Milkshake Butterfly (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} m_butterfly) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} otf_wank,@ 2006-01-28 20:15:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
"the kids these days aren't familiar with 'applied logic'"
Our month of Wank, LJ, Wank! continues with, believe it or not, wank on the usually low-key community </a></b></a>suggestions. </a></b></a>camomiletea starts it off with a perfectly reasonable and innocent idea--increasing the limit of people you can friend. Some people agree, but other people think the idea is just silly, because they can't see ever doing it, so why should anyone else be allowed to?
However, things start getting truly fun when </a></b></a>kentox enters the mix. kentox, it seems, doesn't merely think this is a bad idea--he thinks it's no more or less than an assault on the entire LJ way of life. He has his own proposal instead: "Really, nobody should be friending more than 200-300 people in the first place. If you want to do more, build a community. That's what 750 people with access to your private entries is, in the first place. "
And the wank is off and running.
Highlights include some incredibly dubious logic, backpedaling, the idea that no one should ever want or need to friend more than 300 people, the fact that 'friends' on LiveJournal should mean the same as 'friends' everywhere, dammit, and, as the ice sculpture in the middle of this bewildering feast, this little gem:
"That's rather overgeneralizing, and quite incorrect. I think people should use LJ as it was intended to be used. For example, if the suggestion was for something more extreme -- an LJ child pornography ring, for example -- would you still feel comfortable with the contention, "Some people use LJ in other ways than you do and you need to be tolerant of that" ...?"
As a special bonus, join in the speculation: if all of that is standing free and proud, what must people have said in this thread to result in screened comments?
Our month of Wank, LJ, Wank! continues with, believe it or not, wank on the usually low-key community </a></b></a>
suggestions. </a></b></a>camomiletea starts it off with a perfectly reasonable and innocent idea--increasing the limit of people you can friend. Some people agree, but other people think the idea is just silly, because they can't see ever doing it, so why should anyone else be allowed to?However, things start getting truly fun when </a></b></a>
kentox enters the mix. kentox, it seems, doesn't merely think this is a bad idea--he thinks it's no more or less than an assault on the entire LJ way of life. He has his own proposal instead: "Really, nobody should be friending more than 200-300 people in the first place. If you want to do more, build a community. That's what 750 people with access to your private entries is, in the first place. "And the wank is off and running.
Highlights include some incredibly dubious logic, backpedaling, the idea that no one should ever want or need to friend more than 300 people, the fact that 'friends' on LiveJournal should mean the same as 'friends' everywhere, dammit, and, as the ice sculpture in the middle of this bewildering feast, this little gem:
"That's rather overgeneralizing, and quite incorrect. I think people should use LJ as it was intended to be used. For example, if the suggestion was for something more extreme -- an LJ child pornography ring, for example -- would you still feel comfortable with the contention, "Some people use LJ in other ways than you do and you need to be tolerant of that" ...?"
As a special bonus, join in the speculation: if all of that is standing free and proud, what must people have said in this thread to result in screened comments?
