On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
If we want to ban some sites, *say so*, name them and make it clear. As it is, "attack sites" is an invitation to querulous idiots.
The problem also potentially is that while some people consider a given site an attack site, others do not. In some cases, they may universally agree. In others, there may be a small group of extremists who label a given site one way or the other. Who is right? The loudest, most vocal group? Creating an actual list of sites that are agreed upon by people as a sort of "do not link/do not fly" list would be *simplest*, if possible, but then that also means that you need to label and link them somewhere were people can point to and say, "This is listed here, don't link to it". It's a catch-22 all around.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com