Feature Request: Option to have links open in new window - 18 views

• 
  #2 KARR 4.0 ! on 15 Mar 09

   

  its a nice idea .

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">its a nice idea .</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #3 The Ravine / Joseph Dunphy on 31 Dec 11

   

  Thank you for having said so, Karr 4.0. Alas, it's a very nice idea that can't be seen any more because ... what else ... this post of mine was censored, too - in this case, before it could get into the Internet Archive. I have no copy of it saved, myself, because the idea that a moderator would censor a post in which I did nothing more than explain why I would like to have this feature never occured to me. Why would somebody do that?
  
  Oh, wait. I remember, now. Because Graham Perrin has repeatedly complained about the practice of having links open in new windows, as he does in this discussion. So really, it goes that far? We aren't even free to make feature requests that the in kids don't like, without some cowardly mod sneaking in and deleting our content, the moment we aren't looking. Diigo is so afraid of controversy, that even feature requests get censored.
  
  Awesome. This company is special. Take a look at the rest of my posts from today, and you'll see what I mean. Incredible.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Thank you for having said so, Karr 4.0. Alas, it's a very nice idea that can't be seen any more because ... what else ... this post of mine was censored, too - in this case, before it could get into the Internet Archive. I have no copy of it saved, myself, because the idea that a moderator would censor a post in which I did nothing more than explain why I would like to have this feature never occured to me. Why would somebody do that? <br /> <br /> Oh, wait. I remember, now. Because Graham Perrin has repeatedly complained about the practice of having links open in new windows, as he does in <a href="http://groups.diigo.com/group/Diigo_HQ/content/forcing-new-windows-disrespecting-user-preferences-the-target-blank-effect-959907" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this discussion</a>. So really, it goes that far? We aren't even free to make feature requests that the in kids don't like, without some cowardly mod sneaking in and deleting our content, the moment we aren't looking. Diigo is so afraid of controversy, that even feature requests get censored. <br /> <br /> Awesome. This company is special. Take a look at the rest of my posts from today, and you'll see what I mean. Incredible.</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #4 The Ravine / Joseph Dunphy on 02 Jan 12

   

  I rehashed some of the points raised in the opening post for this discussion which, as I've said, has since been censored, doing so in this post in this discussion, started by the ever censorious Mr. Perrin, with whom I had words.
  
  I should point out the tone of my remarks has changed considerably. The original was a friendly explanation of my position. As I repeat some of my already censored arguments in my recent post, I'm angry and I let that anger show, because I should be angry. This wasn't just inexcusable. It was unforgivable. Somebody needs to be fired over this.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I rehashed some of the points raised in the opening post for this discussion which, as I've said, has since been censored, doing so in <a href="http://groups.diigo.com/group/Diigo_HQ/content/forcing-new-windows-disrespecting-user-preferences-the-target-blank-effect-959907#7" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this post</a> in <a href="http://groups.diigo.com/group/Diigo_HQ/content/forcing-new-windows-disrespecting-user-preferences-the-target-blank-effect-959907#7" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this discussion</a>, started by the ever censorious Mr. Perrin, with whom <a href="http://groups.diigo.com/group/Diigo_HQ/content/forcing-new-windows-disrespecting-user-preferences-the-target-blank-effect-959907#6" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">I had words</a>. <br /> <br /> I should point out the tone of my remarks has changed considerably. The original was a friendly explanation of my position. As I repeat some of my already censored arguments in my recent post, I'm angry and I let that anger show, because I should be angry. This wasn't just inexcusable. It was unforgivable. Somebody needs to be fired over this.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top