On 21/09/2007, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
Well,
remembering that all people have flaws, a number
of people on WR seem quite nice. Still, WR has attacks
which should not be linked to. Removal of links should
be done to protect people, not to punish WR.
Yes, and my point in the paragraph above is precisely
that it does not protect them in the long run.
Short-term solutions do not preclude long terms ones. I also
suggest attempting to improve relations with certain websites.
Removing (or better, defanging) personal attacks is
something I do myself, and have no quibble with.
Good! : )
What I object to is stopping all discussion of
particular
attacks, both alleged and actual.
Not all discussion, just public discussion of specific
attacks, unless of course the attackee wants to talk
about it.
It may make targets (or perceived targets) feel
better
in the short term. In the long run, it creates darkness
where suspicion and indifference breed.
William
But if you do let people talk about it, some of them may
agree with the attacks, or say that the attackee needs to
have thicker skin. As Fred pointed out, some things which
may be said are false, but not obviously so. I'm not saying
you would, but it is common practise.
Thus, public discussion of the matter can have very real
damaging effects on the attackees.