On 29/07/07, Vee <vee.be.me(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'd rather there wasn't an "attack sites" policy, but if there is one, it needs to be applied consistently, rather than just against sites that certain admins happen to dislike.

On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 06:20:58PM -0400, Steve Summit wrote: "those questions are being methodically removed without a trace" -- oh, really? How is that "without a trace" being implemented? Oversight? Or is your statement just another part of "all the rhetorical questions, strawmen, and sarcastic remarks here"? -- Sean Barrett | I have often been accused... of deliberately sean(a)epoptic.com | appealing to the salacious and evil-minded. | [... But t]en million Americans can't all be | salacious and evil-minded. --Mae West, 1929

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Vee wrote: The blanket ban is on links, not sites. All links to particular sites are removed. This is not done on a case by case basis at all. The fact that sites *are* done case by case doesn't change the fact that links are not. Moreover, even for sites, there's a difference between having a rule that's not absolute, and having an absolute rule that becomes non-absolute when certain people are allowed to ignore it.