On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)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