On 7/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/07/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
The NYT case is excessive; but it only sticks out because IAR steps in and says that nobody can take erasing all links to the NYT seriously. It's OK to erase links to any crticial site because people can say these sites are bad and get away with it. In the case of TNH the story that her blog was an attack site couldn't be seriously sustained-- but it didn't stop someone from trying.
The person who did that got upset because he was outed, and he reacted badly, which he later admitted. It was a very human response, and it's unfair to keep on using it as a weapon.
Um, no. I keep mentioning it as an example of the idiocy your proposed attitude leads to. In the best of faith. As such, it is relevant and I'll keep mentioning it because it is relevant. That it counts against your position is not a reason to suppress all mention of it.
The reason to stop mentioning it is that the person who did it regrets it and has apologized, so we should move on from that example. If it's really such a big problem, there will be other examples you can use instead.