On 7/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:20:59 +1000, Mark Gallagher fuddlemark@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.
Wait, Dan wants to link to WR? I thought he was just railing against the blanket ban so repeatedly till even I got tired of reading his posts, as much as I agree with them.
And FWIW, I'm all for permabanning idiots who don't get that links which constitute personal attacks aren't allowed. What I'm not for is a blanket ban of certain sites just because they have a history of posting personal attacks. (ED is the exception to the rule, of course. Every rule has cases which don't fit the normal principles, and rigidly enforcing the principle I am advocating would be just as disastrous as rigidly enforcing a blanket ban.)
Johnleemk