Posted by pseudoname on March 10, 2006, at 16:44:43
In reply to Re: question on LINKS, posted by deirdrehbrt on March 10, 2006, at 15:57:56
In Dee's Fred Phelps post, there were prominent warnings about the link content. But what confuses me is that Bob didn't actually PBC the post with the Fred Phelps link; he just restated the policy. So was the link actually okay, since it wasn't PBC'd? Or maybe the link wasn't okay, but in the context of that discussion it didn't merit a PBC. So, even AFTER toph's question & that discussion, it's settled law that warnings DON'T make a link okay?
I'm confused.
Dee makes a very good argument about sometimes needing to provide a reference to uncivil content in order to have a discussion.
I want a way to point people accurately to a page that's relevant to understanding a particular issue under discussion or may otherwise be helpful while making sure people aren't inadvertently disturbed by off-site content.
What if it's not an actual hyperlink but just URL information? Like…
"The uncivil info is at www.uncivilsite.edu"
Would that make a difference? With warnings, of course.
Putting in a warning and making the URL plain text (not hyperlink), together, would seem to make it *enormously* safe for any reader. But would it safe for the writer?
poster:pseudoname
thread:617098
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/618489.html