Hi, Dan.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 6 Jun 2007 at 00:32:41 +0000, "Fred
Bauder"
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
Except for the BADSITES linking policy, which was "arrived at" by
lots of yelling and general bluster, pursued with a pit bull's
ferocity and tenacity, backed up by a bad ArbCom decision despite
ArbCom not making policy or precedent by its own admission, and
further "justified" by its proponents as "representing consensus
because it's what we do", where the "we" in this sentence means the
handful of partisans who intimidate into silence anybody who attempts
to revert their removal of "bad" links by threatening to block them.
Having tried pretty hard to learn why I should back the proposed
replacement for BADSITES and not gotten much info, I share your
concerns. It seems like a policy that requires keeping people ignorant
of the reasons the policy is good will never get very far here.
However, I'd like it if you could be kinder about this. Although I've
never seen a clear explanation of the motivations that drive the
policy's supporters, I don't have cause to doubt that they mean well.
William