>Gaylen,
>
>Let nobody doubt the effects of the PA agitators any further. The intent and outcome of their passive-aggressive sniping has an obvious negative effect on this community.
>
>The recommended approach is for responsible parties to get in first with a TROLL ALERT message as soon as it starts. That's all it needs to say- TROLL ALERT. It warns off innocent others who may not realize they are being cynically targeted to create a stink. Any other sort of response, especially any sort of emotional response, simply titillates the culprits and perpetuates the problem.
>
>It does seem sad to have to descend to such policing in a community that used to be mutually respectful by default.


I respectfully disagree. I don't think proactive content control of that sort is useful or desirable. In addition, I don't find the UT any more or less adversarial than the other online FoxPro communities I have frequented in the past 12 years. There have always been flame wars and flamers. (Fabian Pascal, anyone?) There have always been guys -- and, sadly, they always do seem to be guys -- who are bolder behind a keyboard than they would ever be in person. It just goes with the territory. If someone annoys you or strikes you as having nothing worthwhile to say, you can always ignore them or twit filter them. Silencing them outright is a step too far IMO.

I thought this particular discussion which apparently got Claude Fox bounced was nasty but not out of bounds as these things go. I vehemently disagree with the notion of banning people. You have to give those of us who constitute the community some credit for being able to decide for themselves who is worth listening to and who is full of it. Censorship is never a good idea IMO. I disagreed with a great number of things said by John Peterson, to choose one obvious example, but didn't think he should have been banned from this site. "I do not agree with what you say but will defend with my life your right to say it" -- Voltaire.

Mike