Funny refered link to StorageForum.net

Handruin

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
14,043
Location
USA
I was digging through our traffic stats tonight wondering how we've used 2GB in only half a month when normally the entire month consumes 2GB. (google indexed us using 1000MB alone this month) As I was scrolling down the other items I noticed an odd external link to SF.

Warning, may not be safe to view at work, do not click if you have concerns
external link
Warning, may not be safe to view at work, do not click if you have concerns

They captured something interesting...take a look if you're curious.
 
I must be dense, so I'll ask the really dumb Q -- Why is this link being allowed? Why was it not removed, by the moderators, within minutes of it being created?

Just think of me as Mr. Prude.
 
What link, Mark? Their link to us? One assumes that they don't have moderators, nor is their site under our control in any way.

Unless you mean Doug's link to them - in which case you are obviously eiother joking (which seems unlikely) or a fool (which I do not believe).

In short, your post doesn't make sense to me. Please explain!
 
I guess I'm a fool because I wasn't joking. While it is peculiar and thereby humerous, that a SF thread is associated with the other links; Isn't it against our rules to link to adult sites, and by association links to links of adult sites? At least that was my rational for my original question.
 
Handruin said:
Warning, may not be safe to view at work, do not click if you have concerns
external link
Warning, may not be safe to view at work, do not click if you have concerns

They captured something interesting...take a look if you're curious.
Click to expand...

Though I can certainly appreciate guidelines preventing the "downhill slide" of SF into a pornographic madhouse, I feel that handy's ample warnings are enough to prevent such a slide into evilness.
 
Ok, OK. Thanks Mark, I hadn't twigged to that. Though "adult site" seems a bit posh for that place: something more like "brain-dead moron site that you'd have to be stir-crazy to frequent" might be a fairer description. Still, now that I've had it explained to me, I take your point.

I think the fact that I failed to even register that this was a link in the "adult site" category (i.e., I just made the connection with the stupidity of the site in general, and the asinine stupidity of the SF link in that context, and was thus entirely distracted from the "adultness" of the site)

... er .... I think that was supposed to be a sentence up there somewhere, but it's probably beyond hope now. Perhaps I better start again. Or, better yet, just stop. My gibberish above should make my point effectively enough, albeit at the cost of ruining my reputation as a wordsmith.

I'll just add that Doug provided ample warning and that in this particular case there is no requirement for any action, though I can imagine other cases which appear similar on paper but which do not deserve a moderatorioal blind eye as obviously as this one does.
 
Sorry to cause controversy. I'll refrain from anything like this in the future.
 
I really don't think it is a big deal -- Everyone that frequents these forums are actually adults and can handle these. The rules were actually designed with the possibility of some of the younger crowd being in existance. These forums have been in existance for long enough that the audiance is very stable and very much adult.

The point is that it is not a big deal, it was simply noticed by me, so I pointed it out.
 
At first I didn't see the big deal either.
But then, I'm a little jaded about those sorts of things.

IMO it's probably NOT a good thing to link directly to it, although I have to say I think it's funny as hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top