You become so anal about taking everything literally. Except the rules written by the mods, apparently. Those you are willing to bend as far backwards for as needed.
You become so anal about taking everything literally.
I’m sorry for seeing a difference between “What’s the point of a blocklist that has no sites” and “What’s the point of a blocklist that has a few sites”. A normal person might look at those two arguments and come to two entirely different conclusions regarding the implications of each one; the former implying that a blocklist is literally serving no purpose (but is contradicted by the evidence in this particular case), and the latter decrying a blocklist simply for not being as exhaustive as you’d like it to be (which is a much less compelling argument than the former implication of literal uselessness).
You gonna clarify how Fox News being non-preferred relates to your argument, or nah? My guess is nah.
The rule says check the blocklist for not allowed sources. If the mods decide a source unreliable they should add it to their blocklist.
Even funnier that New York Post is allowed but discouraged.
How long are you expecting the blocklist to be, then?
What is the point of the blocklist if it contain no websites and the moderators decide on the fly what they want to block?
It literally contains several websites, as noted by your own screenshot in the OP.
It contains four websites and allows Fox News.
You may note that “four websites” =/= “no websites”. Advanced math, I know. Also, it’s five websites, even if we exclude the link-shortener bitly.
How is that relevant to your argument?
You become so anal about taking everything literally. Except the rules written by the mods, apparently. Those you are willing to bend as far backwards for as needed.
I’m sorry for seeing a difference between “What’s the point of a blocklist that has no sites” and “What’s the point of a blocklist that has a few sites”. A normal person might look at those two arguments and come to two entirely different conclusions regarding the implications of each one; the former implying that a blocklist is literally serving no purpose (but is contradicted by the evidence in this particular case), and the latter decrying a blocklist simply for not being as exhaustive as you’d like it to be (which is a much less compelling argument than the former implication of literal uselessness).
You gonna clarify how Fox News being non-preferred relates to your argument, or nah? My guess is nah.
Okay so you admit there are sites on the block list and the mods are violating their own rule