James Farrar wrote:
On 29/07/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/07/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
No, we don't take such foolish suggestions seriously.
It's good to see a consistent policy being applied.
so you complain when there is a 'blanket ban' on 'attack sites' and then complain when the ban on attack sites is used thoughtfully on a case by case basis ? make your mind up on which you prefer. unless you're seriously suggesting that we ban links to slashdot i think you should take the stupid baiting elsewhere.
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.
I can't begin to untangle all the rhetorical questions, strawmen, and sarcastic remarks here, but: the point is that, for the current issue at least, there *is* a de facto ban on links to slashdot. All sorts of random editors, at least some of them presumably innocent and well-meaning, are asking questions about the Slashdot story, and those questions are being methodically removed without a trace.