On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
- How can John offer proof? We can't link to attack sites. Is John
supposed
to name the site, and tell people what to search for?
Name the site, and give the date and time of the posts; or upload screenshots; or better still ask John to confirm or deny that he's a regular poster. If he confirms, no need to link. If he denies, no point in linking.
Then why did you and other BADSITES proponents specifically remove references to antisocialmedia.net from Cla's RFA when he named the site, if this avenue is acceptable?
Also, will you be willing to answer questions 2 and 3, which are more important still?
2. Without proof, anyone--given the poisonous nature of BADSITES/attack sites--can poison a canidate and nuke an RFA with impunity. Do you think that being allowed to make allegations without matching evidence is appropriate? Note that RFA is a community matter, and the RFA process needs to be transparent.
3. Bob can refute the possibly empty allegation, but what does it matter? People are drive by !voters. Submit, and gone. If someone gets a poison pill into the RFA early enough, it doesn't matter. You know this to be true. Bob can't even in some interpretations NAME the offending site without directing people right to it. What are your thoughts on this?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com