I'm so sick of people like you on HN. Open the link, look for a tiny snippet of text which looks like it's contrary to what the submitter's point is, and then bash them in the comments.

> no such link shall portray us or any other official London 2012 organisations (or our or their activities, products or services) in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner

Davidmp must have edited his comment, because your comment is far worse than his--you make a personal attack against him and provide a citation that is just as selective as his.

"Personal attack", as you put it, would be worse only if it was ad hominem, which it wasn't.

As you can see, davidmp's comment claims that "You can link with text as much as you want." The "selective" quote by tylermenezes is the smallest quote sufficient to prove false davidmp's claim.

By reading other comments, you can also see that several other readers called davidmp out on the exact same behavior as tylermenezes did and used more or less the same quote.

  > You can link with text as much as you want.

That turns out not to be the case. Quoting from the linked article, which in turn is quoting from the terms of use:

  > ... no such link shall portray us or any other
  > official London 2012 organisations ... in a ...
  > derogatory ... manner.

Feel free to actually check your facts, and double check that my quote is faithful to the original meaning.

Your headline (which you toned down from the original, to be fair) implied that we can't link to the Olympics website. This is, strictly speaking, wrong. His post suggested that you could do so, if you used text and not a copyrighted image. This is also, strictly speaking, wrong.

You are both wrong. I don't see how your sarcasm is justified.

Yes, and if I change to title more accurately to reflect exactly what the article says then it's likely to get changed by a moderator. I have become circumspect about using title that are accurate instead of the ones on the article.

I claim my response is just and proportionate because it appears that he read only the submission title, quoted from the article, and not the article itself. I believe if you're going to comment on these things and make pronouncements such as he did, then it is beholden upon you to actually read the article.

There's more to it than that. You're not allowed to use their logo in a link, true. However, you're also not allowed make them look bad with any such link. "You may not use any link to the Site as a method of creating an unauthorised association..., and agree that no such link shall portray us... in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner."

(Sorry for the snipping, but it was pretty long otherwise. I don't believe I've removed anything that changes the fundamental meaning.)