Michael, if you don't link to whatever it is you're referring to, your readers don't have a clue what you're talking about.
It's a hassle for an informed reader like myself to make heads or tails as you go about opposing HR (have to go to their website to look), I can only imagine what an uninformed reader might make of it. They most probably have never heard of "HR" and since you don't provide an identity (by not linking) I suspect most who persue this sight just skip right over it.
Your sight is probably wasting a bit by not referring to the post that you're condemning.
My deepest apologies.
You actually have to go and look up HR's website for yourself!
Must be such a trial.......
It's fine with me.
(I have easy access to HR).
The bigger benefit for me, though, is if any uninformed & impressionable surfers come across this blog, they won't have a clue about who or what u're referring to.
(They won't recognise the HR brand, nor the visuals, nor the style etc.)
Which is good. Because if they get sent some HR stuff, they will likely not make the connection between your site and what u're criticizing.
.
Well, that says it all about you.
Absolutely.
Attempts to distort the situation, by influencing those who may not know the facts, with only one side of the story (this says much about you ) are stifled.
This is good.
.
.....but wait!
To further prove the deliberate bias (sorry, "care for media standards"), and clear attempts to project a one-sided argument, you HAVE at least linked to Hamas right-wing extremist Zahar.
You don't seem to be directing your readers to go themselves and look up his post.
Well, at least you don't oppose linking in general.
Only to those that oppose your opinion.
Gosh, that says much Michael.
.
I'm devastated.
No, just applying selective standards.
To suit your partisan stance.
(Sounds like your accusation of HR, no?)
Commenting by HaloScan
