[ExSoldier]

Wow, I am seriously surprised to see the Sun Sentinel on the list. I am also surprised that the Miami Herald is NOT on the list. Maybe they have more guts than I thought.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[Fledermaus]

I can understand the ones that only will allow excerpts with links. Makes sense since they want hits to their websites.

But the small list of cowards that don't want even mentioned shows how small their minds are. I wonder if they send out spies to cocktail parties to make sure no one mentions them there also! lol

[curmudgeonII]

I'm astounded that jewishworldrevew is on this list.
The editor is one of the good guys.

[RonDog]

ping

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

IMPORTANT INFO REGARDING LINKING ARTICLES AND DO NOT LINK INFO PING

[glock rocks]

Perhaps the Link at the top of the Admin Moderator's profile page could be modified to point to this thread (it's pointing to the older list).

It's an easy way (for some of us, um, seasoned folk) to remember where to find the taboo sites list.

[ladyinred]

Oh I am so sure none of this is personal! Nope, no politics involved at all! I canceled Vanity Fair magazine! I don't want their trash if this is the way they feel. I heard one of their main "journalists" Gail Sheehy on that antiwar radio station we have here bashing the war and the President last week!

[The Mayor]

Bump!

[TaxRelief]

What are the rules concerning AP?

[steplock]

You cannot prevent anyone from discussing articles by anyone.

There ARE legal definitions & restrictions for "Fair Use" and if those are followed, those "useful idiots" have no recourse in law - unless they have the ear of the 9th Circus Court, but who gives a damned about their opinions?

So someone doesn't like Freepers discussing their PUBLIC articles? Too ****** bad! We can, AND SHOULD, bring stupidity, immorality, and treasonous behaviors to light. We may not be allowed to quote extensively an article, but there is NO LEGAL BASIS to prevent a discussion - THAT is call our FIRST AMENDMENT!

[Agnes Heep]

Things may get to the point where all that's practical is the link itself and a short precis of what's there. I don't think anyone could object to that!

[mylife]

These publishers have asked us not to allow any material at all to be posted to FR:

americanpolitics.com
antiwar.com
eweek.com
extremetech.com
independent.co.uk
newyorker.com
pcmag.com
studlife.com
theonion.com
thetowntalk.com
universitystar.com
vanityfair.com
washingtondispatch.com

I will refer to this one as the Whaaaaa! List!

[SandRat]

Sounds more like Cockroaches objecting to the light being turned on than anything else ---- but as you ask I'll try and follow. Bookmarked. Keep us informed when the next cockroach complains.

Ummmmm, ... wonder if Hannity, Rush, Laura Ingram, etc.... would like to know about this little bit and ask why other than "Copyright" reasons the cockroaches object?

[tubebender]

Ping...

[farmfriend]

All I will say is "Oh the irony!"

[Gabz]

I think we have them scared!!!!!!

OTOH, I've got no clue why any site would refuse to accept the extra hits they would be getting if there were a link in an article on FR to their site.

their loss I guess.

[mhking]

HEY! THIS IS IMPORTANT!

THIS MEANS YOU! YEAH, YOU!

GET IT? GOT IT?

Good.

 

Double-barrelled Mega-PING! to both lists! If you want on, FReepmail me!

[IronJack]

As a workaround for the "expired or altered link" problem, I suggest that if an article is especially interesting to you, you cut and paste a copy into a Word document and file it in your own archives. It's not perfect but it can be a valuable comparative archive copy should the piece mysteriously change or disappear.

[PJ-Comix]

theonion.com

How stupid was The Onion? They were getting lots of publicity here from frequent postings of their articles and now they've lost it. STUPID!!!