Brian Haws wrote:
You know, I've about had it with people dragging
out the "mob with torches"
line every time a substantial number of people disagree with them. The
opposers are anything but an enraged mob. In fact as anyone reading that RFA
can see, the only people that are enraged are Grace Notes supporters who
can't seem to keep themselves from snarking every comment and generally
raising the temperature to an unhealthy degree. Make a comment that they
don't agree with and Gurch etc will be all over you like white on
rice...they are doing a real disservice to that RFA and to consensual
discussion as a whole.
I've glanced at the RFA, and the RFA discussion, out of interest. I
haven't exactly seen either side being "enraged", although such emotion
doesn't generally transfer well over the internets.
What I have seen is a concerted effort to snipe an RFA because the user
doesn't support an absolutist policy on removing links to alleged
"attack sites", and another concerted effort to counterbalance the
first. And, not at all coincidentally, SlimVirgin is there, leading the
herd off the cliff.
*All* of the oppose "votes" (face it, it *is* a vote, unless the closing
bureaucrat decides otherwise) are based on the fact that this user feels
that there may be occasions where links to such sites are appropriate.
This is basic common sense, people. There is no evidence that he intends
to link to those sites himself, or that he agrees with the content of
them. There are also, in a related sense, oppose votes with the
commentary that admins have an obligation to "protect" other long-term
editors. This is bad social policy, and ludicrous beyond measure. Admins
have no obligation to protect other editors.