On 27/09/2007, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Wow - one of my many, may points about the perils of having a banning tool in the first place - we end up endlessly arguing aver banning rather than dealing with the content of the problem.
Banning is bad for ... do we need a list?
It always ends up with this:
Banning is bad for the person who bans.
"...more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice..." -- MLKJr
Mostly, I consider it highly rude to insult/attack someone in a forum in which he or she cannot respond. There are two ways to solve this - allow the person to respond, or don't insult/attack the person (or, failing that, get rid of the insults/attacks). Now, if you really want to ban someone, I guess the first is out of the question. But if you are censoring the person, defending the insults/attacks as free speech is incredibly hypocritical, as is attacking the person for daring to complain about the insults/attacks.
If not here, where?
Free speech is this way: https://tor.eff.org