James Farrar wrote:
On 29/07/07, Vee <vee.be.me(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 29/07/07, James Farrar
On 29/07/07, Fred Bauder
No, we don't take such foolish suggestions
It's good to see a consistent policy being applied.
so you complain when there is a 'blanket ban' on 'attack sites' and then
complain when the ban on attack sites is used thoughtfully on a case by case
basis ? make your mind up on which you prefer. unless you're seriously
suggesting that we ban links to slashdot i think you should take the stupid
I'd rather there wasn't an "attack sites" policy, but if there is one,
it needs to be applied consistently, rather than just against sites
that certain admins happen to dislike.
I can't begin to untangle all the rhetorical questions, strawmen,
and sarcastic remarks here, but: the point is that, for the
current issue at least, there *is* a de facto ban on links to
slashdot. All sorts of random editors, at least some of them
presumably innocent and well-meaning, are asking questions about
the Slashdot story, and those questions are being methodically
removed without a trace.