-----Original Message----- From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:53 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
[1. John's beaten horse is not dead because it's wrong -- I for one agree with it wholeheartedly -- but rather because something functionally equivalent to BADSITES still has enough support among people who matter that it's going to be around, in some form, for the foreseeable future. I console myself with the knowledge that "the foreseeable future" on Wikipedia is not very long.]
Who is it that you think supports suppressing all links to Slate? The only people I have seen advocating such a position are those who oppose removing any links to attacks. This is the strawman argument again. Of course, the strawmen would be wrong, if they existed.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
[I had written:] [1. John's beaten horse is not dead because it's wrong -- I for one agree with it wholeheartedly -- but rather because something functionally equivalent to BADSITES still has enough support among people who matter that it's going to be around, in some form, for the foreseeable future.
Who is it that you think supports suppressing all links to Slate?
I don't know of anyone who supports suppressing all links to Slate. I do know of several people who seem to strongly support suppressing various other kinds of links on what I consider to be, frankly, phobic principles. I'd rather not name names (partly because I don't remember them all), but if you want me to, I will. In any case (and as David Gerard has suggested out), the fact that this argument still rages is a pretty convincing existence proof.