On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:20:59 +1000, Mark Gallagher
<fuddlemark(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If someone links to WR maliciously, we deal with it as
a personal attack
... and get all the benefits we would get from I Can't Believe It's Not
BADSITES[0] and similar products. If someone finds one of those
legitimate reasons to link to WR that Guy has been so scornful of, a
links accordingly, we don't have a problem.
I'm not scornful, I just haven't seen one yet. But of course we will
simply come back to the same old problem: the people who passionately
want to link to that thread on WR simply will not accept any rationale
for not doing so, whoever it comes from. Any argument that opposes
that link is, in their view, an invalid argument, because they
consider it an appropriate link. The length of these threads shows
that there are a large number of people who think it is *not*
appropriate.
This is the recurring theme throughout the debate. Anyone who comes
along and exhibits a flexible approach is welcomed as a friend right
up to the point where the specific link is discussed and rejected, at
which point we have to go round the whole loop again because suddenly
they are one of the evil BADSITES people.
In the end, we are never going to persuade Dan Tobias that the thread
he wants to link is unacceptable in the eyes of sufficient people that
inclusion is not going to happen. If he was able to accept this and
drop it, we would have stopped the discussion months back, but he
seems very determined to keep asking until he gets the answer he
wants.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG