On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1. 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