On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 02:32:22 -0500, "The Cunctator"
<cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You really think attack blogs should
be linked to articles on living
> >> individuals on the grounds that readers can make up their own minds?
> >> Wow.
> >Is that "Wow" facetious? I hope so.
> Not especially, no. If one is George W. Bush, and an attack blog is
> in the top 50 sites on Alexa, I'd expect it to be linked, but this is
> a trivial story from the election, almost entirely unrelated to the
> MP's performance of her duties and of strictly limited significance in
> her life as a whole. Constituent opposes candidate? Interesting
> during the election, maybe interesting as a sidenote. Constituent
> opposes candidate, read all the garbage here? Not really the kind of
> thing we should aspire to have in biographies, surely?
You didn't write "You really think
trivially related sites should be
linked to articles on living people on the grounds that readers can
make up their own minds?"
And I wasn't responding to that, since that's not what you wrote.
So I'm not sure where you got the impetus to write your response to my
question.
And I'm not sure where you got the impetus to write your response to
mine. So let's start again, shall we?
What do you think should be the circumstances under which we link an
attack blog from an article on a living individual?