This refers to the comments, arguments and your reply, re: “G20 Summit Success! Gnooze April 3, 2009, Date: 2009-04-04 … DAMN!!!”
I would have considered it very entertaining if not for the fact that the printed reactions seem senseless with arguments presented missing their targets by miles. I tried to pretend that this would miss the eye of the serpent, but I guess I am not endowed with a playful mind for Logoland to expect it would.
Let’s put some sense into this issue because this is important to those who are today’s [as one cyberspace master described it] “website junkies”. I think what everyone is saying about blog and blogging gives out a micro-sense but the macro-meaning of the arguments is lost [I hate to use the word “nonsense” which is what it is but it sounds offensive so I pass].
You can’t find the word “blog” in the New Shorter Oxford English dictionary, known today as “The New Authority On The English Language”. But it is similar to “weblog” [Encarta], a “diary on Web site”. Here anyone may update links at a “Web site” as a “personal journal … intended for public viewing.”
“Web links” should be properly understood what they are. Unless this is understood accordingly, the arguments here are lost. In cyberspace, the other name for “Web links” is “World Wide Web”. It is an “Internet-connected files”.
Consider this detailed explanation of what “Web links” or “World Wide Web” means: “ … a system for accessing, manipulating, and downloading a very large set of hypertext-linked documents and other files located on computers connected through the Internet.” 
A blogger has as much right to this “diary on Web site” as the owner of a website has to his site. He/she may manipulate or alter it anytime he/she wants as this personal journal of “Web links” is updated for public viewing, just as a site owner may erase a contributor’s account for any reason, personal or otherwise as he/she assesses or manipulates his website to serve a personally hidden or publicly declared purpose. Those rights are almost absolute, so long as the exercise of such rights does not suppress one’s right to free expression or becomes inimical to public interest or harms or injures anyone.
With this clarification, there is no need to argue that the “link” was “altered”. It was meant to be. It would make no sense to register a written displeasure or protest.
Neither is there a need for the site owner to issue a warning that such personal updates were purposely intended to confuse the readers and therefore should be stopped or else …
Only those who do not understand what they are dealing with, get confused and rightly or wrongly, would kick the bucket and hurt their ankles.