Did you ever realize that Colin controls this blog? That's pretty scary. He can edit anything you say. I don't know if this post will even survive. Just thing: anything that has been said ever on this blog could all be Colin. Weird, eh? Now you can't trust anything anyone says on here anymore for fear that it was just Colin.
-Eric
Monday, May 15, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
oohohooh.
oh well i trust colin. :-)
Um, no, Eric. I know what I've said isn't Colin, so that at least eliminates some possibilties. And anyone could just make multiple accounts and post/comment under different names, not just Colin.
Plus I think Colin has respect for freedom of speech and thought.
its like 1984 all over again
I doubt he's edited anything, I know he hasn't edited anything that I've posted here.
Ayn Rand is awesome! Go Vols! oglos x.x
-Colin
Well, I do control this blog...
But I've not edited one thing. I do, as Kevin said, have respect for freedom of speech and freedom of thought. After all, such is a basic right of man, derived from man's basic right--the right to life. But let's not go there right now.
John, it is quite apparent that you attempted to make it appear that I've edited that comment.
However, I clearly did not, as, firstly, I use "x.x" as a sign-off of sorts. Also, I can't edit comments. Just delete them. Good try, though.
x.x
Oh, and John, I'll be quoting that for a long time.
"Ayn Rand is awesome!"
-John.
x.x
Yeah it was really obvious, but I finally found out what "x.x" means, so the comment wasn't a complete waste.
And I was quoting what you might say, not what I think, so you can't use that as a quote from me. The quote was "Ayn Rand is awesome... -Colin" so clearly it isn't a quote from me.
Ah, but John, you still said it.
For instance:
Ayn Rand is awesome!
-John
See, I still said it, even though I put your name after it.
Well, you have edited it before, Colin, you deleted the posts that I put to screw the HTML up. =)
Yes, and I'm glad he did that. He may have been restricting your right to completely free speech, but he was protecting the majority's right at the same time.
And what's more important, one person having their right restricted, or many people having the same right restricted?
Post a Comment