georgeob1 wrote:I believe the intentions of all here are good, but suspect that this thread itself has given most of us at least a fleeting sense of the temptations and dangers that beset even the most reasonable of us once we assume for ourselves the power or right to judge the overall worth of another's "existence", or merely participation in these forums.
Who here has never been overbearing or repetitious in making his/her points? Who here has never unnecessarily personalized disagreement over ideas in discussion or cast personal aspersions on his interlocutor? Who here has never sidetracked a thread over a digression or a single element of complex matter under discussion? I will readily concede that none of you (in my experience) comes at all close to the troll in question in the frequency and consistency of these offenses. Indeed Thomas is insuffrably circumspect and polite - far more so than I am (he may even meet the standards above, while I certainly don't).
We're not talking about someone who occasionally oversteps the limits of the TOS or who, at times, diverts threads with an off-topic post. We're talking about someone who consistently, routinely, and almost without exception violates the TOS, and who has never shown any inclination to alter its behavior to conform to the standard that all the rest of us strive to attain, no matter how far we may actually miss it in practice.
What you're suggesting here is that we cannot come up with standards for participation in these forums, and with that I strongly disagree. The TOS makes it clear that participation here is based on an objective standard, not a subjective one. And if someone doesn't abide by that standard, I don't think it is presumptuous of us to say that that member should go.
I'm astonished you can actually ask "who among us can judge someone else's worth?" I'll answer that: I can. And so can the vast majority of members who also abide by the TOS. This isn't some lynch mob out to silence opposing viewpoints, and it's a disservice to us who genuinely want to preserve the quality of this board to suggest that it is.
georgeob1 wrote:Preemptive judgements of others, particularly to exclude or banish them from connections with others,. are inherently dangerous to the group considering them. I recognize that Thomas has carefully avoided that trap by suggesting only that the offender be ignored only in direct and immediate response to his offenses themselves - and not on a more complete basis. However this can be a fine line, hard to observe in practice.
Tolerance really is a virtue, even though some test ours more than others.
Once again, I strongly disagree. Tolerance is fine when we're talking about dissenting voices, but not when we're talking about the equivalent of an internet vandal. Sorry, but I don't want to talk reason with this troll, I want to eliminate it for good.
