[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

-----Original Message-----
From: Wily D [mailto:wilydoppelganger at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 04:57 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

On 10/11/07, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 04:29 PM
> To: 'English Wikipedia'
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
>
> On 11/10/2007, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> >> Right, and that is where "the idiot" should have to look for it. It is >>inappropriate to trash
> >> our own users on our own site.
>
> >This is not seriously in dispute, as far as I can tell.
>
> That is exactly what is in dispute.
>
> Fred
>
Fred

No, it isn't.  Nobody disputes this.  If that were the case, we
wouldn't see people seriously concerned that they'll be banned for
linking to Slate.com in the article on Slate.com, for example.  The
dispute is somewhere else entirely.  If your missing that, it's
probably why your point is being interpreted so differently from how
you intend it.  Based on the BADSITES arbcom, I was genuinely
surprised to see you saying linking to Slate.com would be acceptable
under any circumstances.  Rest assured I'm not alone in this.

Cheers,
WilyD

Good that you figured that out, but I doubt that is the end of it. Not linking to a page which links to an attack is clearly distinguishable from never linking to a site or ever mentioning it. However, some seem to chose not to make that distinction. When I was a lawyer and encountered that tactic in an opponent, I sometimes referred to it as "throwing their mind out of gear".

Fred