By the way, when did THAT become the point? A link is both link text and a reference, and I consider both to be content. How about this: "A link is not equivalent to the referenced content, and therefore should be subject to its own guidelines, not the guidelines covering the linked content." Fair? Cover what we're both trying to say?

Honestly, all I was trying to say at the start was that the LJ Abuse issue liz_marcs referenced specifically covered the behavior of LJ members on other sites and had nothing to do with links to offsite material. They're not policing offsite material. They're policing material (content or otherwise) hosted on their servers. I'm sure they've said things that contradict what they're doing, but that specific thing is NOT the contradiction! That's the point in its entirety. Everything else has been tangential and mainly backlash for the "pumpkin" crack, to which I take considerable offense.