Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Complete text of your oppose: "Strong oppose. I have to oppose based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would ever have to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)"
That looks, walks and quacks like BADSITES, and BADSITES was referenced by that name in Gracenotes' answer which you referred to in your oppose.
No, this is the complete text of my oppose. (Apologies if this comes through twice; I've already sent it but it's not showing up.)
Yes, you did raise other concerns besides the "attack link" baloney, some which appear to be valid. However, the "attack link" baloney certainly does look, walk and quack like BADSITES as mentioned, and it really isn't any wonder that the opposition picked up on it. The accusation that it was a strawman argument is, in and of itself, a strawman argument. Ironic, no?