manny@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
Well, a rule that requires a member site to place the navpanel
prominently doesn't disqualify a ring from being a 'real' webring
IMO. Maybe you could expand on why you found that rule
remarkable.
I believe I didn't express myself properly. Their banner doesn't
link to any other site but theirs. There's no "next" or "previous"
or "random". According to what I have read, that's not a webring.
Aha, now I see, and I do agree on that. Btw, now I remember the "False
representation" thread you started at the World of Webrings mailing
list: http://www.webringworld.org/mailarc/msg02432.html
Finally, I guess I didn't subscribe to the good mailing list since
it's not the first time that my posting is not "aapropriate". Sorry
about that, I thought we were exchanging about what's a webring and
what it should not be considered as one.
I believe I should remove my name from this mailing list.
I do apologize if you took offense at that comment, Manny, it was
certainly not my intention. What I tried to say (obviously not very
successfully) was that I _do_ think that the idea with a webring
certificate is a good one. In fact, I think it's such a good idea that
I'd like to see it come true, and I believe that World of Webrings
would be the natural host for such a certification. That's the reason,
the _only_ reason, for suggesting that you bring it up there _as
well_. The topic is indeed _not_ inappropriate here.
I think you read things 'between the lines' that were never there, at
least they were never intended to be... But when I now read my last
post, I understand that it's possible to interpret it that way. Again,
I'm sorry for the ambigous comment.
You also said that "it's not the first time". Have I made other
similar mistakes? Please let me know, so we can put things right.
And please don't unsubscribe. We want you here!
/ Gunnar