zlacker

I wouldn't want it here with the reason being "so we can have an argument about the merits of net neutrality." I would hope that there would be something concrete, interesting, or new about the arguments presented in the essay, or that some recent current events applied to make it worth noting, and then it would be nice to discuss the interesting new thing.

That may have been true for the first TSA post about backscatter scanners and pat-downs, for example. But it wasn't true for most of the next hundred.

>>mquand+(OP)
Hmmm .. in that case perhaps you're actually arguing against repetition and redundancy?

>>lwhi+l4
Sure. But one of the excuses for repetition and redundancy in link content is "we can have a discussion about it," and I only think that's a good excuse if it's a good discussion that we haven't had ten times in the past year already.

>>mquand+47
Still, that has little to do with politics ;P

Or at least .. little to do with banning political discussion.

I fully agree that a subject can only really be discussed a few times before it's boring - and only a few more after that before it becomes downright annoying - but I think this is a separate issue.

>>lwhi+K8
OK, I think we mostly agree.

>>mquand+i9
Yeah - agreed :)