On 5/30/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, William Pietri
<william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a
strawman policy.
Could you please point me to the actual proposed policy, then? Or if
there is no convenient pointer, then could you tell me what policy
change you are backing?
I'm having a discussion here, not backing a policy change. There is no
policy on the table.
Sorry, I thought some people were advocating that we not link to
particular sites, and I thought you were one of those people. You're
saying that's wrong, and that your purpose was just to have an
interesting discussion?
Somebody asserted that it could be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to
sites like WR. I challenged that person to provide concrete examples
of how. Soon afterwards hysterical rhetoric ensued, policies and
insults flying left and right, impassioned cries of "censorship",
babies being murdered, death stars being blown up, heat death of the
universe, etc. The usual.
And further, that you can't point me at the
proposed policy change that those other people, whomever they are, are
advocating?
You'll have to leave that to the people defending to the death your
civil rights, which are right now in peril of being so damaged that
you may never recover. Perhaps they can point out the names of the
people proposing a policy, where they have supported it, etc. I've
heard the term BADSITES bandied about a lot, but, as I've said again
and again, that was a strawman policy so I'm not sure of its
relevance.