rab's statements on the A tag issue are starting to sound a little... disturbing.

Sorry - that's what happens when I visit the site when drunk. I really hope to have this sorted out properly sooner rather than later. More anon.

They actually reminded me of government statements. As they pointed out on Yes Prime Minister, you should just keep making the same statement over and over again, no matter what people ask you.

Paxman: Are you happy for users of the site to find ways around your ban on A tags?
Prime Minister: I have plans which hopefully should impact genuine Crescenters minimally. My banning of A tags for now is purely a short-term inconvenience.
Paxman: But in the meantime, you accept there are workarounds?
Prime Minister: I have plans which hopefully should impact genuine Crescenters minimally. My banning of A tags for now is purely a short-term inconvenience.
Paxman: Prime Minister, are there or are there not loopholes in the ban on A tags?
Prime Minister: I have plans which hopefully should impact genuine Crescenters minimally. My banning of A tags for now is purely a short-term inconvenience.
Paxman: Look, yes or no. Do you accept there are loopholes?
Prime Minister: I have plans which hopefully should impact genuine Crescenters minimally. My banning of A tags for now is purely a short-term inconvenience.
Paxman: So you say, but what Crescenters are asking is, do you realise there are ways around the ban?
Prime Minister: With respect Jeremy, that's not the real question. I assure all genuine Crescenters that I have plans which hopefully should impact genuine Crescenters minimally. My banning of A tags for now is purely a short-term inconvenience.
Paxman: But Prime Minister...
Prime Minister: I have plans which hopefully should impact genuine Crescenters minimally. My banning of A tags for now is purely a short-term inconvenience.

etc. etc. etc.

(no offence meant to rab)

Good lord, you're right. I should have tried to click on it despite it not looking like I could.

[K] Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Although I recommend not clicking on the '1,000's of free smileys' pop-up.

has the INTaRWeB always been so full of crap, or has it got steadily worse since I got online in the summer of 1997?

[nights] Like everything, it's been mostly full of crap since it started, but it's only been in the last few years that the crap has expressed a desire to leap down everyone's throat.

The big cautionary tale of the net is Usenet, which although some people manage to keep active newsgroups going (using I don't know what antispam measures), is now almost entirely spam. I've been working recently on a little predator/prey population interactives, and I wonder if the cycles of spam-genuine content follow a similar statistical pattern. i.e. the population of predators increases, diminishing the population of prey, which in turn leads to extinction for the predators...

[Projoy] I think part of the problem with Usenet is that most people aren't even aware it exists any more, and those who are aware of it, by and large, consider it too full of spam to be useful. For this reason, I don't think you'd find a cyclical pattern, but rather a gradual tail-off with time.