On 7/4/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com>
But as many of us have pointed out before,
there's no reason a
policy or one based on the existing NPA policy
would not achieve
What did you have in mind?
Steve Summit wrote:
"You claim that the blanket ban is acceptable because reasonable
people can decide to make exceptions if necessary. But why go that
route? Why not say that links -- to any site, anywhere -- which
serve as attacks, are attacks, and are banned under NPA? Why not let
reasonable people realize that this is a sufficient policy, that will
disallow all the troublesome links just as effectively as the blanket
ban would? What additional protective power is gained by proactively
applying the blanket ban?"
For what it's worth, I'm with John and Steve S here, and I can't see
what's wrong with their approach.
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 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.
Why is this worse than banning all links to certain sites, exactly? Why
can't we just muddle along as Steve S advocates?
 In the timeless words of Monty Python, "You try anything like that
around here, and we'll cut your face!"
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/