In message <BA3F6377.5EEE%cunctator(a)kband.com>om>, The Cunctator said:
On 1/6/03 3:26 PM, "Erik Moeller"
<erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
He seems to be relatively harmless. Let's
keep an eye on his contributions
and ban him if necessary.
Gah. All this talk of banning is so depressing.
I agree... seems like people are proposing banning at the drop of a hat, now. I
think we're getting lazy. So much easier to shoot the bastards than to talk to
them, isn't it? Isn't banning supposed to be the -extreme-, last resort, not
something you use after three sentences of unintelligible conversation?
To draw an analogy, consider a drunk (appropriate because the drunk is
malicious, but not intentionally so, like people who do damage to articles but
don't realize they're doing it): the drunk is wandering around, crashing into
things. You can a) pick up after him, b) try and sober him up, c) steer him out
the door, d) kill him. I think it's unreasonable to say, "Let's let him
wander
around for a while, and if he continues to be a drunk, let's kill him."
Saurabh