I consider direct attacks to be abusive language. While I think the sarcasm that provoked this situation was borderline abuse, it was borderline which make it difficult to invoke permanent bans which is all that will make Scott happy. And having read the email he is sending around about how displeased he is not even that would make him happy now.

So how would you measure the level of attack based on sarcasm, to decide whether or not to permanently ban someone?

I really don't want to continue this conversation on the forum. We've all had quite enough it. You are welcome to continue it via email which would be more appropriate. I am not allowing any more threads related to this. The only place I will permit it is on "The Bar" and even then will remove it after a period of time or if it becomes a raging argument.

the only reason I removed your post "Message To Fran" was because it was just that. Fran had read it so it had served it's purpose and was just going to become a cesspool of arguments involving other people who it was not a message to. It really should have been a personal email to Fran.

You are all welcome to email me with your thoughts. But I am more interested in concrete solutions, not emotional reactions.



[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 12-10-2006).]