On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:30:23 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
Yep... and, as the WR person who posted here last night
said (his
blog posting is interesting reading), it's quite possible that there
are "socks of banned users" on *both* sides of a contentious dispute,
as in fact there was in this case. Yes, that's right... the blog
link was re-added by a trolling sockpuppet of a banned user... but
the blog link was also *deleted* by a trolling sockpuppet of a
different banned user, and the two banned users were in collusion
with one another on this, trying to stir up drama, and they
succeeded.
Which neatly proves that we need sockpuppeting banned users like a
hole in the head.
The only solution to this sort of thing is to calmly
and
rationally decide the issue of whether the link should be there or
not, without regard to which version happens to agree with some
banned user.
That's a solution to the symptom. A better solution would be for
them to go away and stop trying to plant disinformation via third
party sources such as Robert Black.
Has anyone *ever* seen *anything* approaching a reliable source for
this rumour? No? Thought not.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG