Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Three blonde, blue-eyed siblings are named Suzy, Jack and Bill.  What color hair does the sister have?:
Please spell spammer backwards:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by SilverLining
 - August 26, 2014, 07:16:44 AM
That's a rule I try to follow. 
Posted by LinksEtc
 - August 25, 2014, 09:19:36 PM
I started on Twitter for the sesame stuff, but it is a dangerous playground of links for somebody like me.   :hiding:
Posted by CMdeux
 - August 25, 2014, 09:12:41 PM
LOVE that.   :yes:
Posted by LinksEtc
 - August 25, 2014, 09:06:47 PM
Tweeted by @subatomicdoc


"Do Not Link allows you to ethically criticize bad content"

http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/do-not-link-donotlink-ethically-criticize-seo-nofollow/?utm_content=buffer69531&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

QuoteI've written many times about how skeptics need to take care when linking to bad information that we intend to rebut. Because links are used by search engines to measure the importance of content, linking to a piece of pseudoscience or misinformation (in the process of rebutting or debunking it) might actually have the effect of making it more visible to others. That's not desirable.