On 7/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
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.
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