Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

censored in 2600


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 bland_inquisitor

bland_inquisitor

    mod -o- the day

  • Agents of the Revolution
  • 729 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 06:14 PM

OK, so bland likes to drop the "F-Bomb" on occasion, but only for effect. In my honeypot article in the new 2600, they took the liberty of cutting out a tasteful "fucking." It's cool, hey at least they were nice enough to print it in the first place. I don't want to be a child about it, so if you want to get the "uncensored" version, look in the forums for where i posted it, fucking and all . :D


edit

better yet get it from the articles page, i cant find it in the forums

/edit

#2 dual

dual

    BinRev veteran

  • Agents of the Revolution
  • 1,196 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 January 2003 - 09:35 PM

No shit, they censored you? I've seen profanity before (at least I think I have). Congrats, btw.

(Has anyone else found this issue's hidden message?)

#3 StankDawg

StankDawg

    same old Dawg, no new tricks

  • Moderating Team
  • 8,073 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 January 2003 - 10:46 PM

AAAARGH!!! I didn't get mine yet! :angry: :angry:

I am surprised at the censoring, especially since 2600 is usually about free speech. Are you sure the version you sent them had it in there? Perhaps you cleaned it up yourself and forgot about it? IF not, 2600 becomes pretty hypocritical all of a sudden.

:nono: *Don't tell me the hidden message yet! And don't tell me what the page 33 trick is this issue either!* :nono:

#4 bland_inquisitor

bland_inquisitor

    mod -o- the day

  • Agents of the Revolution
  • 729 posts

Posted 30 January 2003 - 11:40 PM

i was thinking real hard about the version that i sent 2600, and they made more than one change to my article, changes that I would not have made.

1. they deleted my F-word after talking about "in all likelyhood the corporations would roll right fucking over us again."

2. In the Not Practical section, they changed my original

"It is almost unheard of that a honeypot
traps someone of truly elite status, because it is designed to keep the
kidies at bay to allow the admin to do personal battle with the
samurai."

To this:

It is almost unheard of that a honeypot traps someone with real skill because it is designed to keep the kiddies at bay."

3. In the next paragraph, they shortened "in the digital arms race that is crackers vs. admins..." to "in the digital arms race..."

OK, having said that, I do like most of the changes. I am NOT God's gift to the text community. The 2600 staff are the professionals here, not me. Actually, after reading their version, I'm grateful for them saving me the e-mail displeasure of people saying "samauri? WTF kind of 1992 language is that?" I will take their changes as "constructive criticism." I'm going to file that as advice from professionals that have been in the business for nearly 20 years, and I have everything to learn. The only problem i have with any of the changes is that they ommitted my fucking f-word. I think that saying (the MPAA) rolled right fucking over us is a true statement. The effect was kind of tarnished by plainly stating that they rolled over us. Also, this was written the same night that 3q02 came out, and I had been back in the community for all of 16 hours when i sent this thing in. My references to "Elites" and "samauri" may have been a little obtuse, or at the very least outdated, and I'm trying to make my files cleaner, with more fact and less preaching. I think I have come a long way since I wrote that, and won't stop learning 'till they throw me in a box and plant me.

#5 StankDawg

StankDawg

    same old Dawg, no new tricks

  • Moderating Team
  • 8,073 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 January 2003 - 12:21 AM

well, I think it sux. They shouldn't edit it, IMHO.

Either print it "as-is", or don't print it. I understand you are happy with the changes, but I just lost a huge deal of respect for 2600. Any time I hear them say "free speech" again, I will laugh.

hypocrates...

edited: I looked through their web site and several back issues to see if they had any rules or disclosure of their editing practices. I found nothing.

#6 screamer

screamer

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 347 posts

Posted 31 January 2003 - 10:07 AM

To be honest, I think their changes had less to do with censorship, and more to do with grammatical clarity. You want articles and text that are easy to read in a magazine, and sentences like "roll right fucking over us" really need to be revised, if only to give it a more professional feel. Same with the samurai and cracker vs. admin phrases, they let people say things like that all the time, but those were run on sentences. Look at it this way, they wanted to use your article, and felt it was a waste to "not use it all", so they just fixed a few lines. Sorry to criticize your grammar, but believe me, I know the conflict of "to edit, or not to edit." On the one hand, you don't want to change someone's words around, on the other, you want to give your readers the most well written articles possible. So in the end, you make small changes and hope for the best.

#7 StankDawg

StankDawg

    same old Dawg, no new tricks

  • Moderating Team
  • 8,073 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 January 2003 - 01:54 PM

I understand that to a certain extent. I really do, but, I don't think these were simple grammar fixes. Editing is making some changes to sentence structure and grammar without changing the sentence itself.

removing words and entire phrases is consorship. Plain and simple. Those sentences could have been "edited" without being "censored" IMHO.

I guess I will have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they could not edit any better than that. :(

#8 feend

feend

    microphone commander

  • Members
  • 497 posts

Posted 31 January 2003 - 07:12 PM

Yeah I have to agree with stankdawg. I've read plenty of 2600 articles that use the "f-word" and they left them there. There should be a disclaimer in the beginning of the magazing explaining that they don't censor and the articles are the authors original works. This way they can still be thought of as a professional publication. Even correcting spelling mistakes I'm a little iffy about. Oh well, just my 2 cents.

#9 screamer

screamer

    SUPR3M3 31337 Mack Daddy P1MP

  • Members
  • 347 posts

Posted 01 February 2003 - 01:00 PM

But if other 2600 articles say fuck, why would they just decide to "censor" bland inquisitor? See that's the reason why I think it was just reworded to be easier to read.

#10 StankDawg

StankDawg

    same old Dawg, no new tricks

  • Moderating Team
  • 8,073 posts
  • Country:
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 February 2003 - 02:12 PM

I just skimmed my copy last night. I saw the word "fuck" in the letters column, uncensored. ???

and easier to read? Have you read some of the shit they print sometimes? I have to read it 2 or 3 times to figure out what the author was saying! The lack of punctuation in this issue alone is appaling!

I think you are right Screamer, I just don't like it. No consistancy.

:buzzsaw:




BinRev is hosted by the great people at Lunarpages!