Hmm. How bout this: I suspect Tom is marginally less incoherant than the majority of the fever swampies. Giving him Das Boot ensures he returns to the cockels of DU with tales of censorship and oppression, while leaving him be holds out the dim prospect of a bit of reality rubbing off, perhaps to be passed along like a sanity virus.

Plus at least he uses his own name apparently. Thats gutsy with the neo-cons monitoring all the transmissions.

As long as he's not actually abusive, he should stay.

I don't know if I get a say or not, but here's my two cents anyway.

I like a grenade thrower as much as the next guy, as long as they aren't boring.

Whether Tom is boring others or not is unknown. I started reading that last post and gave up somewhere around the second sentence. I think there is a point in there somewhere, but I'm not sure of it.

In general I like keeping the eccentrics around. They're easy to ignore.

If I might make a suggestion, Joe.

Part of the reason in my estimation that many other good blogs (Command-Post and others) have suddenly declined is that there was too much discussion of banning and trolls etc and the site owners fell into the trap of having to justify their banning procedures which in turn alienated people and people started to dissect what they could and couldn't say.

This is your site. Freedom of speech here goes as far as you say it does, and no further. Anyone frequenting this site, or any blog, for that matter, should have no illusions about that.

So if you feel that banning needs to occur, do it. Don't talk about it. Don't feel the need to explain yourself. If someone you banned circumvents the filters, delete their comments without explanation and move on. To do otherwise is to invite unnecessary controversy to your detriment.

Thanks for the thoughts, all.

Joe,

I don't see anything worth discipline in the cited post, and don't recall any of his other posts. I do see a complete waste of space. Blogs are infested with boring windy idiots who contribute nothing. It's the price of having a blog with comments enabled.

You might look for blog software that lists a poster's name at the top and bottm so experienced users scrolling up or down can see a familiar stuck-on-stupid name and ignore the post's text.

Not that I'll complain if you ban the turkey. I don't read his stuff anyway.

I'm with Sirius Black on this one. There is no right to freedom of speech on any Internet site and if someone becomes abusive or disruptive towards other posters, hijacking threads for their own pet agendas (because getting their own blogs is too hard, I guess), and so on, we are well within our rights to ban them. Over at my own blog, I've been quite clear that I reserve the right to ban anyone and I don't think that any discussions there have suffered for it.

Think of it as analogous to a restaurant. People are accepted there no matter what their views so long as they can behave themselves in a civil manner. But if somebody starts raising a ruckus, being abusive and insulting to the waiters, yelling at the chef, and so on they get thrown out and no one ever gives it a second thought.

As far as retaining someone as an example, I'm more than a little wary of it because while illustrative it also falls into the problem of creating a straw man caricature within which to box one's intellectual opponents. Especially if said individual is dumbing down the conversations and hurling personal insults about.

Is Vikander really any stupider or more annoying than "a" and "a" hasn't been banned as far as I know.

No. I get the feeling Vikander is a teenager who, if he were a student or real-life acqaintance of mine, would see the need to listen and learn, not mouth off. I served in US Army Intelligence 20 years ago and, in real life, teenagers generally do just listen and learn from me. On this forum, the young man is obviously abusing the comment anonymity on what should be a serious blog for serious, higher level discussion of the issues.

People like him need to read site FAQs, explaining important things like the UN Resolutions sanctioning the occupation in Iraq...so knowledgeable people don't have to repeat an entire litany of these bothersome background facts just to get to an intelligent discussion which, of course, never happens because the young person (or old hippy) will refuse to acknowledge common facts and even common concepts.

If someone acknowledges basic things like Germany and France backing the US occupation of Iraq with Security Council Resolutions (which doesn't mean they officially backed the original invasion), then they can contribute intelligently instead of just behaving like spiteful kids who don't believe the reality of the fact.

A good forum doesn't need people arguing over undeniable facts. You can decide in a FAQ what topical facts those are.

You would not be accused of denying free speech if you do this. Would you state at the top of the comments input box: "Feel free to deny the truth or make up facts"? No. You wouldn't.

You don't have to make a troll deletion policy as strict as FreeRepublic.com (which will not tolerate defeatists, spitefulness nor even the hint that a newbie is being sarcastic - got deleted as a troll my first time there because I said that I "hope our soldiers have been murdering insurgent volunteers by the busload as they came into Iraq" - they thought I was being sarcastic because I used the word "murdering" instead of "executing" or "wasting" which would have shown that I meant what I said)...but it would raise the IQ level of discussion if members would tacitly agree that certain relevant facts about the War on Terror are undeniable (you decide which facts those are).

Here is a really good example of Vikander's lack of "value added" to the discussion this weekend:

Vikander's reply (out of nowhere) to my detailed post on the Tet Offensive was a shocked "that is the first time I have ever heard that kind of revisionism before." Well...if someone really hasn't heard the there is a huge controversy about how the media reported on and influenced the public about what is universally acknowledged as a SEATO military victory (SEATO was the coalition back then), then that person must have just signed on to the Internet for the first time since AOL accounts were available in 1989.

QED: He will respond like someone would have responded in 1989 when the Internet wasn't around to provide an alternate outlet to the regular media. This forces the entire thread to go back 16 years and operate as if there aren't tons of websites of all different ideological persuasions that provide perspective on important issues like the Tet Offensive that a good blog poster needs to have to be interesting and further a good discussion.

People like Vicander, Andy and Chris...really shouldn't pollute WOC comment sections with ignorant off the cuff nihilistic statements that go along these lines: "of course we are losing in Iraq because the media and new polls are saying so".

This again, fails to recognize that there are other sources of information to be taken into account, one of which is the Pentagon itself.

It also implies that they are more knowledgeable on the subject of Iraq than those of us who work directly with troops who are in Iraq and especially the soldiers in Iraq themselves!

A FAQ might say "Don't imply that you are 100% positive about what is going on in Iraq if you are not currently there yourself. Don't tell those who say they are serving in Iraq that you or some journalist back home knows more about what is going on there. This is common courtesy and the only sane way to carry out a discussion."

Vicander, Andy and Chris would better make any point that we are "losing" if they at least first took a moment to read the daily briefing that the US military hands out in Iraq and gets posted on the web. For them to just entirely skip over what the Pentagon is saying (because it must all be lies) and go straight to what journalists are saying who are locked inside hotels or 6000 miles away from Iraq...is a lot more outrageous behaviour than what happened during the Vietnam War...when hippy protestors at least listened to the daily body count reports and jeered them as irrelevant lies.

Here, for instance, is today's military report from Iraq. Note that, if true, the USA isn't even remotely losing in Iraq and the insurgency seems to be losing 3000 men per month:

December 5, 2005

TIKRIT, Iraq (Army News Service, Dec. 5, 2005) – Iraqi and U.S. forces captured more than 50 suspected terrorists in operations in northern and central Iraq Dec. 1, 2.

Captured in Kirkuk

During operations Dec. 2, a large group of suspected terrorists were captured by 2nd Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army Division northwest of Kirkuk. The Soldiers were conducting a routine patrol near an abandoned bunker when they observed 15 men digging around the bunker searching for weapons. The patrol detained the men for questioning.

Ar Ruashid raid success

Nine suspected terrorists were detained in Ar Ruashid Friday afternoon in a joint mission led by Soldiers from the 3rd Bn., 1st Bde., 4th Iraqi Army Division. The mission, which included a search of the homes in the village, was aimed at disrupting terrorist activities in the area by denying them a safe haven from which to strike at the surrounding communities and coalition forces.

6 nabbed in Udaim

An IED discovery along a road near the village of Udaim north of Baqubah, resulted in the capture of six suspects. A patrol from Task Force 2-34 Armor discovered the IED and cordoned off the surrounding area. After an explosives ordnance disposal team conducted a controlled detonation to destroy the IED, the six men were searched and IED-making materials were found among them.

Seized in Samarra

Two suspects were seized by Samarra Police officers after a search of their vehicle turned up two AK-47 assault rifles and spent shell casings. A vehicle matching the suspects’ was used in an attack against police officers earlier Saturday afternoon in which one officer was wounded.

Bomber busted in Zaglawa

Daquq Police and Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team conducted a raid in the small village of Zaglawa, where they detained a suspected terrorist bomber identified by information obtained in a previous mission.

Terrorist u-turned into trap

One terrorist suspect was captured by a 1st BCT patrol northwest of Bayji when the man attempted to make a U-turn to avoid the Soldiers. The patrol stopped the vehicle and a search revealed a 155mm artillery shell, nine mortar rounds, a 130mm rocket, five blocks of plastic explosives and an IED detonating device.

During Tikrit operations Dec. 1, 18 suspected terrorists were taken off the streets as Iraqi and U.S. forces continue to track down and detain suspects hiding in the north-central region of Iraq.

IED kills terrorist, wounds another

Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team apprehended two terrorists near Daquq after watching them attempt to emplace an IED. The IED detonated as the men were placing it, injuring both men. The terrorists were taken to a local hospital, where one later died of his wounds from the IED.

The Soldiers searched the terrorists’ vehicle and found a second IED that the terrorists had planned to emplace. An explosive ordnance disposal team was called in and detonated the IED, safely destroying it and the vehicle.

10 terrorists detained in Dali Abbas

Soldiers from the 2nd Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army Division conducted a search of the Dali Abbas market near Al Muqdadiyah to eliminate an IED cell operating in the area. Ten suspected terrorists were detained.

6 terrorists snared in Baqubah, Balad

Another 2-5 IA unit detained two men in a raid near Baqubah on the evening of Dec. 1. The suspected terrorists were taken in for questioning.

Task Force 5-7 Cavalry troopers detained four terrorists near Balad after catching them with IED-detonating devices in the early morning of Dec. 1.

Kirkuk weapons cache to be destroyed

More than 4,200 mortar rounds discovered by Iraqi and U.S. forces in a major weapons cache outside an abandoned military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk Nov. 27 was destroyed Dec. 5.

The final tally of recovered items near Kirkuk was 4,222 mortar rounds and more than 950 fuses. In all, nearly two tons of explosives were unearthed. By contrast, over the past two months a total of about 2,500 pounds of explosives was discovered in the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division area of operations.

The rounds will be destroyed in a controlled detonation by an explosives ordnance disposal team at Forward Operating Base Warrior in Kirkuk.

(Editor’s note: This story was compiled by Sgt. Ken Hall at ARNEWS from several news releases from Task Force Band of Brothers PAO.)

Fred, your argument is convincing. Thanks.

However, Sirius and Dan's points are well taken, and will be acted on as the norm going forward.

I agree with Dave Schuler's comment, abuse should be the standard. That said, I do find the complaint that so-and-so is not blogging about "my favorit topic" to be abusive to the people who spend a lot of time and thought to post about subjects they care about or believe they can provide an insight about. I don't know whether Tom Vikander falls in that cateogy and I probably wouldn't like to see such a person banned unless a discernable pattern developed.

By the way, I just read the Vikander post that Joe was complaining about.

It showed the mind of someone stuck in the 1960s, or someone stuck in childhood telling his siblings "I am the only good child among us -mommy and daddy should pick me as their favorite"...and "I am the good one here, because I am the only one here who has good thoughts".

An honest or value-added poster would at least say "I am of the oft-stated opinion that we shouldn't be killing any terrorists at all, but rather winning hearts and minds and forgiving those with coalition blood on their hands with a completely non-violent pullback strategy that lets the Shiites and Sunnis sort things out between themselves. To me, use of any weapons at all by westerners is wrong. The Iranian hardliners should be allowed to get nuclear weapons."

Such a comment would at least be honest. It would win my respect because it wouldn't be saying "I am smarter than you and I am good and you are not because you are just a dumb rambo."

That comment Vikander actually posted really dumbed down the conversation while he was clearly trying to get under the skin of the others.

Some people just seem to have a need to go on the Internet and say "I am good and you are not" as if being "good" is more important than being interesting.

On a good blog, being interesting should be A LOT more important than being "good." A FAQ might want to point this out specifically: "Don't try to tell others that you are a good person and they are not, if that is apparently all you want to say."

"I suppose we would keep him around as a convenient demonstration of the modern Left's intrinsic malignity and aggressive know-nothingness..."

This sounds like the reason I come here to read your posts, Joe.

Oh, but substitute "Right wing's" for "Left's".

I wasss only JOKING!

Hey, he's dumb as dog-doo and arrogant in inverse proportion to his intellect, but as far as I can tell he's harmless.

Every village used to have an idiot or two. We still do. No big deal. Step around his precious balls of string, and when the weather turns stormy, try to get him someplace safe. No sense running him out of town.

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool returns to his folly." Proverbs 26:11

When you have someone like Mr. Vikander around, it's not only his posts that you have to evade and avoid, but it's also the 3 or 4 or more answering posts from the very nice patient people who are trying to show him the error of his ways with facts and figures.

Thus, if you have a REALLY stupid (or inflammatory) comment to begin with, you'll have several follow-up posts from other people speaking to that same stupidity.

I'd just as soon avoid having the really stupid comment posted in the first place, if the person is renowned for only being able to do that.

Keep him-- he makes me look nice.

PS: And I think he's right, we should be focusing more on setting up forces for peacekeeping and anti-insurgency efforts-- perhaps at the expense of further manned aircraft development.

Extrapolated from some of my email and restated thusly:
Yeah, keep him around, because:

1. We need a handy whipping boy.

2. We got a spare cross, hammer and spikes waiting.

3. Scapegoats are handy.

4. Geesh. We gotta pick on somebody a little different around here.

5. He is uncomfortably funny sorta at times.

6. He's got the guts to question, without getting into longwinded pontifications, some tightass views.

7. He's sure to get some of us energized and steamed all at once. Best little ass to come along in a while around here.

So, do I hear the bell tolling for me? Suit yourselves now, you hear.

Based on that, I would let Tom hang around. At least he's got a sense of humor about this. And no one could say that comment wasn't on point...

But as others have said, we're in Joe's house.

I haven't been following the comments closely enough to say what should be done in this particular instance. However, in my experience as a moderator on forums and whatnot, here's what I find works when dealing with problematic posters:

First, assume they're ignorant rather than malicious. Let them know in no uncertain terms where the lines are drawn for permissible conduct and give them the opportunity to clean up their act. Be very active in the discussions when it comes to administering wrist-slappings to people who are going outside the bounds of civil discourse. (NB: this includes issuing canings to uncivil people who happen to agree with you.)

I can't emphasize this enough: just having someone regularly reminding everyone about what the expected standards of discourse are has a huge effect and will often stop things before they get to the point of having to ban someone.

If this fails to have any significant effect on an unruly poster, toss them out of the nearest airlock without a second thought. I tend to be a little looser on the "eject" button than Dave Schuler -- abuse is a biggie, but I'll also mercilessly prune out people who consistently derail the discussion with pointless irrelevancies or refuse to rise above canned partisan responses.

Also, as Sirius Black touched on, I strongly advise against publicly putting these things up for debate or falling into the trap of feeling like you need to justify your banning decisions. It's a needless headache. As a rule, if I'm not sure whether someone needs banning, I err on the side of leniency. If you can't shake the urge for a second opinion, privately consult with someone whose judgement you trust. But when you're sure it's necessary, bannings are best carried out with as little commotion or fanfare as possible.

I say ban him at whatever point you feel you can longer tolerate him. That should be the policy regarding anyone (me included) on your blog because..... it's your blog.

However, you'd do better to dispense with the moralizing and justification when you make the decsion.

Sure, Tom is a juvenile fool. He lacks the wordly experience and the balls to do anything more than rebel against those who do have wordly experience and balls.

He also happens to lean way left; so far left he's into another dimension.

Yet there are those here that are the juvenile and foolish right leaning equivalent (has anyone checked out "Colt's" site?).

If people are going to be ejected for non-sensical extremist positions then the axe should swing both ways.

I think you'd be better - and more honest - men if you'd simply quietly ban anyone who annoys you or who you feel does not contribute to the blog in a manner that you value, sans explicit justification.

. . . a convenient demonstration of the modern Left's intrinsic malignity and aggressive know-nothingness . . .

So, Joe, are you TRYING to shoo away every single non-right-wing reader of your blog? Please, let us know, because I'd rather not stay where I'm not welcome.

re: tom, enh. Why are you airing this? Is this the equivalent of the stocks in the public square? Are you simply doing this so you can enjoy the pile-on that will result? I'd rather you just make a decision and be done with it, instead of pretending this is a democracy.

I did make a decision. See comment #10. Comment #18 was also persuasive... and you'll notice Tom is still posting.

I asked because these days, many of you are here more often than I am. I had pretty much had it with Tom and thought he brought the tone of the site down, but under these circumstances it's a good idea to see what the regulars think because they'd have a better feel for whether it was or not.

As it happens, there has been a pretty good exchange and sharing of ideas about the subject of moderation generally.

I did opine up above, note, that having Tom serve as a very visible representative of the Left here might well be unfair to those who are willing to engage in intelligent debate. Were Tom a freedomist photo negative of himself and representing this kind of puerile caricature, I would personally be far more distressed. Fortunately, he doesn't place himself on my side of... well, nearly anything near as I can tell. After stuff like this, I'm glad that's so. YMMV.

Finally, the majority of the Left these days IS openly malign and driven by hostility toward others rather than any sort of positive vision. I'll add that aggressive know-nothingness is indeed a cardinal trait, that more than a few leftists have commented on this. I happen to agree, and I call 'em like I see 'em. And Tom Vikander is almost the cartoon version of all that.

Joe,

It looks like I wandered in here after you've already made a decision, but I hope you'll allow me to pile on anyway.

Having been banned from Michael Totten's blog, this is a subject on which I have some experience. Ultimately, your comment policy should be based on the goals you have for this blog.

If your goal is to have a blog with free-ranging, no-holds barred debates on issues, then you should only ban people for the most egregious behavior. I would include threats or overt racism in this category. If you choose to ban people, banning offenses should be clear and unambiguous. Subject speech codes invariably distort discussion and should be avoided.

Taken to an extreme, the combination of censorship by the moderator, and self-censorship by commentors will turn a comment section into an idealogical ghetto of one sort or another. As far as I'm concerned, this is what happened over at Totten's. Totten banned several people before and after he banned me. As far as I'm concerned, with each banning, the quality of Totten's comment section declined - regardless of the views or caliber of argument of those he banned.

On the other hand, if you want your comment section to be an exercise in feel-good "civil" discussion where participants are like guests at a cocktail party whose sensitivities need to be tiptoed past, then by all means start banning people for being offensive or even boring.

HA (23):

My impression is that the goals of this blog are neither of the two you mention. "No holds barred" implies that eye-gouging or throwing sand in the bull's eye are OK. They're not. "An exercise in feel-good" is also clearly not the aim of this blog.

At issue is what constitutes high-quality discussion. There are many alternatives to that, only two of which you've described above.

So far, WoC is still head and shoulders above the echo-chamber and drive-by blogs with higher popularity. I'd like to see this continue to be so. My thanks to Joe, the Marshals, and the participants.

I'm sure Tom feels singled out (for so he was) and I'm equally sure that Joe wasn't doing this to pick on him; The medium lacks a more "nuanced" way of making the inquiry. That's too bad.

Nortius Maximus,

What qualifies as "eye-gouging" or "throwing sand" in this kind of forum? Only words can be exchanged. The "holds" are merely rhetorical.

I agree that WoC along with its comment section is very high quality. This was achieved without censorship as far as I can tell. I don't see any need to resort to it now. Of course I don't particpate here very often, so maybe I'm not the best judge.

The two goals I tossed out are not intended to be comprehensive. The point is that if Joe feels a comment policy is necessary, the policy should follow from the goals he has for this blog. But he should keep in mind that there is a potential conflict between his goals and a heavy-handed comment policy.

My own opinion is that the "Don't Feed The Trolls" policy is best for dealing with problematic participants.

Thanks, HA.

We haven't banned people very often, but we've done it several times. Interestingly (and through no policy or intention) the right/left skew has been about even.

We've also found here that a "don't feed the trolls" policy is not in fact adequate by itself - hence our comments policy, Marshals, etc.

For more background on the mechanics of why this sort of thing is necessary, see Clay Shirky: A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy - and note the Communitree experience. That's why Sirius and Dan are basically right, IMO. Having said that, Winds is about a certain level of freedom as a good in and of itself - and this is reflected in our comments policy (right sidebar, top of comment excerpts on main page).

The Bene Gesserit believe that self-deprecating humor is the highest form of evolution. Since Tom has demonstrated said trait, there may be hope for him yet.
;)

#25 HA:

What qualifies as "eye-gouging" or "throwing sand" in this kind of forum? Only words can be exchanged. The "holds" are merely rhetorical.

Probably too many words about this, but you did ask.

You initiated the metaphor, I merely extended it. The "mereness" is to some degree in the eye of the beholder.

We live by metaphors. If a place comes to be experienced as a reeking, poorly-maintained public urinal, the experience is still significant for all that it's only metaphorical--hey, it's only just phoshor dots on a screen, right? Well, no.

As to the specific phrases I used:

"Throwing sand in the bull's eye" is one of the rhetorical ways to deal with "the horns of a dilemma". (see Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for one detailed use of the expression). Issuing a farrago of irrelevant or scurrilous claims would count, as might "being so irritatiing that the opponent can't see straight". A simple example of the latter might be a denial-of-service attack on a thread by reposting a crosspost or random garbage a hundred times or so.

As for "eye-gouging", think harder. Think, for instance, of the kinds of things Scientologists have done. I'm not going to elaborate any new excesses on the fly-- at least not and post them in the clear where somewhere, someday, some creep might take inspiration.

It comes down to this: in a real world fight, every so often there's somebody who makes a point of going crazy. If that person goes crazy enough fast enough, harm to others is the result. Broken bones, lost eyes, etc.

Though the harm to others that can be produced online is typically not physical, the model remains valuable. Online environments and their habitues can be can be done damage. Harassment can take many forms, some trancsending irritation without being actionable in a court. The Electric Communities guys found out about that a long time ago.

Nortius Maximus,

Anybody who is "harmed" or goes "crazy" from an online conversation is obviously a candy-ass to begin with. If such a person can't handle the pressures of an online conversation, how would that person cope with the real world? A good rhetorical bashing is probably just what they need to toughen them up to better deal with reality.

You sound like someone who spends an inordinate amount of time conceiving and/or justifying speech codes.

HA,

Nortius is trying, in the best way he can, to explain what IS. Whether his explanation is adequate for you, or whether it corresponds to the views of the Marshals et. al., doesn't change the fact of what is.

The decisions have been made - we do ban people here. We don't do it often, and we don't do it on a speech code basis; a bar is a closer analogy. The bar is the owners' place, and they know what kind of place they want it to be for everyone, and if you get in the way of that then the bouncers show up.

The people who write for, pay for, and run Winds have a proprietary interest in the site that eclipses all other claims. We want the site to feature good writing, plus intelligent exchanges of views that address and enhance that writing. We also want Winds to be a training ground of sorts for serious debate. And we have liberty as a core value, which is not absolute in its application but does color our thinking.

Finally, we've looked arund the blogs and seen what we don't want: we wouldn't run Kevin Drum's comments section the way he does. Ditto for LGF's. But you know... those bars belong to other folks.

If someone from outside of Winds' core group is becoming a serious impediment to Winds being what we want it to be, then we will act. It may be via persuasion. Or warning. Or even a site ban. We believe we owe that to ourselves - and also to the folks who come here, expecting a certain kind of place.

Given that rationale, it is sometimes a good idea to ask about people's perceptions of a situation before deciding, rather than assuming. The caveats of Sirius Black and Dan Darling above acknowledged, and we won't do it often, but in ome cases we may do it.

If nothing else, it does occasionally get the members involved in discussing the kind of things they value, and the kind of place they want Winds to be. That isn't dispositive (the eclipsing interests of the site's operators and contributors still holds) - but it isn't a bad idea to listen now and again around a focusing, specific case.

HA:

You totally miss my point.

/obnoxioussarcasm=on

I'm sure you're OK with that. Jumping to foregone conclusions is sometimes the most exercise pasty-faced screen weenies get. Not that I'm calling you that, but hey, if the shoe fits... ( insert inauthentic-seeming extravagant :) :) :) :) s here) As for what you say I sound like, I think you're hearing things. Get a check-up, d00d, that can be an early sign of schizophrenia.

/obnoxioussarcasm=off

The above is a narrow gauge, off the cuff, mild illustration. See, I used to spend a lot more of my time being sarcastic. And looking for fights. Now it bores me.

Joe K said it exactly right. I'm not looking for the kind of bar you seem to be wanting to hang out in, to judge from your most recent post. I'm not even looking to be irritated by you, nor to irritate you.

As for speech codes... crikey, I have no idea where you got that crap. OOH, I SAID CRAP! WOWIE ZOWIE! But do I find that enthusiatic promotions of sentiments like "no holds barred" frequently correlate to currying of entertainment of/for/by thugs and creeps, be they candy-assed or litigious or the face-pounding type. I've dealt with all sorts. Entertaining those folks is a waste of my time.

I'm hoping it's a waste of yours, too.

Cheerio,

Nort

Oh, one other thing: My take on what is valued at WoC...

1) BE SUBSTANTIVE. If you think you can be BRUTALLY substantive, complete with whatever you think is "a good rhetorical bashing", by all means BRING IT.

2) But dishing out "a good rhetorical bashing" AT THE EXPENSE OF CONTRIBUTING SUBSTANCE is just being STUPID.

3) And there is a redline on the stupidometer here.

Claro? Bene.

Nortius' formulation in #32 is correct.

If the engineer shows up with "sir, the stupidometer, she kenna take it any longerrrr..." we will fix the situation.

I'll add that whatever happened over at Totten's, what I've seen of HA here has been substance.

Nort,

2) But dishing out "a good rhetorical bashing" AT THE EXPENSE OF CONTRIBUTING SUBSTANCE is just being STUPID.

The two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, an effective rhetorical bashing MUST be of substance. And it must also be responsive. Flaunting generic rhetoric, however impressive, doesn't rise to the occassion.

Joe,

I hear 'ya. I don't have anything further to add, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your comments.