QUOTE(Robert Roberts @ Thu 10th September 2009, 10:58am)
This could get interesting - it looked like Benjiboi had left the building but they have just popped up, I wonder how they are going to play it
1) Refuse to discuss it
2) Claim that they will be the victim of hate crime if they discuss it
3) blame it on homophobia
4) other?
'Other' - namely Wikipedia Review. A long rant on here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ral_moral_panicCabal ... Wikipedia Review...plot to get me ... Wikipedia Review ... baiting and harrassment ... banned users at Wikipedia Review (continued p. 94)
This is all good stuff and absolutely guaranteed to work.
[edit] However as a thought-experiment pretend this is a politician who is giving reasons not for declaring a possible conflict of interest, or a businessman who refuses to declare an outside interest to his own compliance department. Such reasons as given by B would not be taken seriously. And ask yourself WHY they would not be taken seriously, and ask if the Wikipedia case is any different. To help, think in terms of how much you would have to pay Google to get your business name onto the 'paid links' section on the right. Think also how much more you would pay NOT to be in that section, where it is obvious you are advertising, but in another section which is supposedly by a voluntary organisation which has a team of volunteers who strive to maintain neutrality. Quite a lot of money, I would have thought.
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: