>Well, if you can care less, you should then try, ie: not posting in his threads :)
>
>Hugo, I agree with you.
>
>I'm sure you agree that there's a difference between "raising the level of debate" and "debating for sake of debating". Most of Mike's posts (for some time now) definitely fall into the latter category. You're right, people should ignore him....and his replies to Charles and his comments about copy editing at CoDe Magazine are idiotic remarks about non-issues.
>
>I filtered him at one point, turned off the filter, and now I'm turning it back on. I think others should do the same.

To be clear I am not advocating ignoring him, I am advocating to ignore him if it bothers you, of course if it was something directed at you the situation is different. In my case, I usually like reading Mike's posts, barring obvious ones, but for example I do not see his comments about editing a CoDe Magazine to be harmful or out of malice but an attempt to be helpful, however misguided we might think they were. If they were directed at me, I think I would have said "No, thanks" and move one, but then... I am no writer... :)