>What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations? No, you're right. Let's keep this emotional, fact-free,

>What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations? No, you're right. Let's keep this emotional, fact-free, and useless. >the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person. No, you're making a false dichotomy of this. The fact is that a link is a link is a link. Tying this in with intent and context is a different matter altogether. The nature of a link doesn't (or at least shouldn't) change between applications of the term, whereas intent and context can. However, if the crux of the matter with regards to intent and context is that a link "posted" by a link aggregator points to something it shouldn't, the effect of that action can't be split out differently simply because a different actor was involved. By analogy, it doesn't matter that I was swinging a chain saw around my head on a rope with the intention of evenly cutting my hedges, the fact of the matter is that my neighbours are approximately one head-length shorter than they were when they stumbled upon me. Whether or not I'm a gardener or a dedicated chainsaw murderer doesn't affect the outcome here.