Of course you would. You're offended by the image
one blurry breast. A porn site would certainly offend
you. I'm surprised your head didn't explode.
Rick, please quote me exactly where I said I was offended by that
picture. I can guarantee you that I've NEVER said that I was offended by
the Kate Winslet picture. So stop putting words in my mouth, it makes
you look foolish.
Furthermore, for all you know I absolutely love porn and porn websites.
I don't, but the fact remains that you don't know anything about me. So
you really should not talk about me at all. The urge to call you all
sorts of names is very strong... but... I... will... resist....
You seem to be so blinded by your zeal for whatever the heck it is that
you're standing up for that you missed my point entirely. It's not even
about porn. It's about what the sites we link to provide.
Here's a non-porn example:
Let's say there's www.billybobsfishingworld.com
. Now, let's further say
exists to sell fishing information to
people who like to fish. However, the only way to get that information
is to put in a credit card because www.billybobsfishingworld.com
pay site whose primary commodity is itself.
My position (and again, so that you can cool your jets -- it has nothing
to do with porn) is that we should be very hesitant to link to pay sites
in articles where the purpose of the site is to be a pay site. So in
this example in the article for the world renowned fisherman [[Billy
Bob]] we would not link to his "official site" since it's just a way for
Billy Bob to make more money and is not a way for our readers to find
out more about the actual topic of the article, namely Billy Bob. We
need not drive traffic for Billy Bob; he can buy that himself.
Of course it goes without saying that if there is substantial
information freely provided about Billy Bob at
then that is a different story and then we
should link away.
And yes, I do recognize that this would probably have to be implemented
on a case by case basis.