Suggested disclaimer for links.

[FeebMaster]

Ever link an outside website and watched a potential discussion on the issues turn into a 130 post flame fest on the merits of arguing about the message vs arguing about the messenger?

Ever post a link only to have it brought up in every thread you post in for days on end?

Well folks I have a solution and I suggest we all take it to heart.

We should all post links with a disclaimer. I've come up with some sample language, but if anyone has suggestions I'm certainly open to them.

By clicking this link you acknowledge that the link is being offered solely as a public service and a convenience for reaching information on another website. You understand that by linking this website the poster of the link is offering only a link to a website and not an opinion on the information contained in either the linked website or in websites linked by the linked website. You agree that the poster of the link is not responsible for the content of the website at the link or of websites linked by the website at the link. Any attempt to bypass this disclaimer to reach the linked website will be viewed as the bypasser taking responsibility into his or her own hands and will absolve the poster of the link of all responsibility on the matter of the link.


That way if you need to post a 2 line news blurb from newsmax or worldnetdaily because no one else has a link yet you can do it safely, without worrying about people freaking out about links to newsmax or worldnetdaily or freerepublic.

By clicking this link you acknowledge that the link is being offered solely as a public service and a convenience for reaching information on another website. You understand that by linking this website the poster of the link is offering only a link to a website and not an opinion on the information contained in either the linked website or in websites linked by the linked website. You agree that the poster of the link is not responsible for the content of the website at the link or of websites linked by the website at the link. Any attempt to bypass this disclaimer to reach the linked website will be viewed as the bypasser taking responsibility into his or her own hands and will absolve the poster of the link of all responsibility on the matter of the link.

What do you guys think?

[Columbia]

1. Nah, it will never work

You'll always be a lunatic asswipe in the eyes of some people. :evilgrin:

[FeebMaster]

2. True enough.

But my lunatic asswipe status is a separate issue from discussing the issues. :)

[Columbia]

3. Why discuss the issues when you know you will lose?

It's much easier to resort to ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies.

[FeebMaster]

4. Granted.

I still have high hopes about my disclaimer idea. Maybe one day it will be as big as McFeeb's Law.

[Columbia]

5. Bigger than McFeeb's?

No way! Nothing can ever be bigger than McFeeb's Law! It will be enshrined in internet lore until the end of time!

[FeebMaster]

6. Surely not bigger.

Someday they'll be talking about McFeeb's Law on CNN or something.
But one day every link on the internet will be made with one of my disclaimers. I should copyright the idea, maybe turn a profit from it.

[texasdem99]

7. I simply do not engage certain people anymore

Two I can think of in particular, because it is an utter waste of time. You can put all the disclaimers up you want, and it will not keep these two from ad hominem attacks.

I learned this very, very quickly here. Funny because any conversations I have with either of them always go the same way.

[CO Liberal]

8. You'd Be Better Off...

...by not posting links to questionable sites, such as NewsMax or some of the more radical pro-gun sites. They way I figure, if the information isn't found on a mainstream site, most people here at DU aren't interested in it.

[FeebMaster]

9. Well you can just never be sure when

someone is going to take offense. So I say better safe than sorry.

[CO Liberal]

14. The Basic Rule of Thumb...

...is that rrabid right-wing sites are generally considered unreliable sources for information. It would be like going to Fred Phepls' web site to find unbiased information about gay people.....

[FeebMaster]

15. Yeah but what if you post from a

local newspaper/TV station in West Bumfuck, Nebraska or Middleofnowhere, Canada. Do you want to spend all day deciding whether or not they have a conservative bias? I know some people keep databases of websites, TV stations, towns, counties, and people that they consider acceptable or not acceptable, but I just don't have that kind of time or energy and I'm sure there are plenty of other people who don't either. Hence the handy link disclaimer.

[CO Liberal]

16. Most Newspapers And TV Stations...

...may have an editorial slant, but that does not extend to news stories - especially if they are AP wire service stories. I would say that a local paper or TV station;s site would be considered a more reliable site thatn a sithe with a KNOWN right-wing bias.

[FeebMaster]

17. Like I said

better safe than sorry.

[CO Liberal]

18. Yes - Play It Safe

Don't link to those wacko right-wing web sites. Period.

[FeebMaster]

19. No, I mean

you just never know when someone is going to take offense at something. So basically the only choice is to not post any links or post them with a disclaimer.

[MrBenchley]

10. He'd be even better off

not running around shouting that he HAS NO IDEA what he just posted...then he might not have to struggle so hard to pretend somebody else believes in the crappy ideas at his link.

(You know, there really doesn't seem to be a problem in other folders with people posting crap from Newsmax expecting it to be taken seriously. Everybody else seems to know dishonest right wing crap when they see it. Go figure.)

[FeebMaster]

11. Maybe you could point out where

I have run around shouting that I have no idea what I just posted.

[freeforall]

12. Too wordy. eom

.

[FeebMaster]

13. I wanted to cover all bases. (nt)