OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Daniel Keep]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> If I created a website that sometimes discussed Joe's Pizza Parlor and at 
> other times posted drawings of cigarettes and even included my site's 
> homepage link in my signature at Joe's Pizza Parlor Internet Message Board, 
> then anyone who took that as an indication that Joe's Pizza Parlor endorses 
> either smoking, non-smoking, or the act of making cigarette-related 
> drawings, would clearly be a complete nut (Not that Joe's Pizza Parlor 
> necessarily endorses, condemns, or is ambivalent towards nuts of either the 
> human or tree-grown variety, or any other variety that may have ever 
> existed, does exit, will exist or doesn't, didn't and/or never will exist). 
> I see no reason for the same principle not to apply here.
> 
> This is the same pulling-imaginary-connections-out-of-thin-air kind of 
> thinking that, in the early days of the web, led National Public Radio to 
> pull that ridiculous stunt of trying to prohibit anyone from linking to 
> their site. 

The sad thing is, people are all too happy to draw these kinds of links;
if they want to ruin something or someone, they'll take whatever fodder
they can.

Just look at the video game violence debate...

 "It was violent video games that drove him to murder all those people,
like GTA!"

 "Umm... actually, he didn't play games.  He did have a lot of violent
R-rated movies, though, and..."

 "VIDEO GAMES!"

  -- Daniel