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?
Several people have tried to talk to Frank, but he is just blathering incomprehensibly.
Isn't banning supposed to be the -extreme-, last resort, not something you use after three sentences of unintelligible conversation?
If only there were sentences ..
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."
Terrible analogy. Nobody has advocated banning Frank if he continues doing what he's doing now. Besides, comparing banning to killing is preposterous.
Of course Cunctator gets a Pavlovian reaction as soon as someone merely mentions the word "banning" ..
Regards,
Erik