I'm highly inclined to do this myself--again. I can totally sympathize. On the occasion of one of my posts, some have suggested, rather ironically, that all flames be banned from the list--or at least self-censored. I fully support such a rule, and if we adopt it, I'll pledge to follow it and, if necessary and appropriate, enforce it. But how *would* we *enforce* such a rule? If there is no enforcement of any sort, the rule would be absolutely worthless, and I won't support it. There are members of this community that pride themselves on flouting rules, and they would take only too much joy in flaming away at people who felt morally obliged, by the rule, not to reply in kind. Moreover, in the current atmosphere, there is no serious possibility to shame the offenders into silence, because unfortunately our worst offenders are literally shameless. I have a suggestion--and I know this will be a highly unpopular suggestion, but let me get the idea out there anyway. I'm beginning to think the list should be moderated. In my eight years' continuous and active experience on mailing lists and Usenet, I have discovered that some lists can remain productive and useful while remaining unmoderated. This is because there is a preponderance of full-fledged adults on the list who are polite, and who know how to reply witheringly to the occasional eedjit; in short, there's a huge base of great contributors and a very large shame culture involved. Now, the value of many other unmoderated lists--like this one--is undermined by continuous flame wars by battling, enormous egos, to say nothing of the worthless newbie posts that come from people who have not read the FAQ. One of the very best mailing lists I was on (and I think others involved with it would agree with this assessment) was one that I, and then Ben Kovitz, moderated. It was a philosophy mailing list. There was a strict policy of politeness as well as a minimum requirement of philosophical cogency. I think the list would have suffered hugely if it had been made unmoderated, because there were a lot of people who would have otherwise been given to flame wars involved; it was the fact that it was moderated that gave it a lot of its value, because there was a guarantee of quality. I am very familiar with the arguments for and against moderation, and of course one main argument against list moderation in all cases is that it quells "free speech." Being a lover of freedom, I can understand very much. But the fact of the matter is that some lists just wouldn't exist, or they wouldn't be a fraction as interesting as they actually are, if they weren't moderated. Moderation is, we might say, a necessary evil in some cases. In the case of Wikipedia, I'm beginning to think it is a necessary evil. I for one would be overjoyed if Wikipedia-l were to become moderated and the moderator were empowered to deal appropriately with flaming and with trolls. Larry