Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)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?