I do find Twank's comments rather useless and sometimes distasteful. BUT...
Commenting more generally, I wonder if we are not putting ourselves in some kind of politically correct straight jacket. I sometimes think that these sort of rules condition our minds to automatically discard some paths, which, sometimes, take us to interesting conclusions. It is not the restraints that you are putting on him, but on yourself.
And I do agree with him in one thing: things are taken a bit too seriously and I wonder if that is not a sign of intolerance?
We all have topics that offend us. Even worse than offense they can cause personal distress. In my case (I am obsessive compulsive, and I obsess with cancer) discussing cancer might have stern personal consequences in my daily happiness.
While I am afraid Twank's signal to noise ratio is quite poor I wonder if his comments don't give some interesting touch to what is otherwise a "too serious" site.
They seem like little things and unimportant but when it is never challenged it can often develop into the foundation for bigger things and a more pervasive culture that excludes people. We aren't slamming any rules down or deleting anything but just asking to be a little more considerate about whether something else would suffice without causing offence. It isn't intolerance and there isn't a need for this particular comment to become the focus of a great debate, but it is part of a wider thing that just needs a nudge about.
rg's comments invariably add an 'interesting' touch and can sometimes be fairly controversial but I can't think of any times when that has slipped into becoming offensive.
btw I can think of a blog that Helen pointed me at recently and in their intro they state that they moderate all comments and will not accept anything that is x,y,z. And they get to decide whether a comment breaches their rules and they appear to lay these rules down arbitrarily depending on how they feel. We make no attempt to do anything like that. Ad astra per aspera
For the case a user misbehaves consistently and grossly, including persistent grossly abusive, racist, sexist, etc. comments or diaries, but especially if s/he keeps getting troll-rated, frontpagers have an announced banning policy.
We also reserve he right kill content likely to be deemed criminal or damaging. And spam.
A site that seeks to offend no one--is itself offensive to some--heh!
I'd say a general rule might be that if you are offended, you can by all means say so--and the offender can (hopefully) take note. I'd be very wary, though, of being offended on behalf of others. ("Well, I'm not offended--but others might be!")
Now you have reminded me of a true story:
A house party has been organised, the guests are arriving, people milling around, maybe the ice is waiting to be broken. A woman comes in and says, "I've just heard the most amazing story, I have to tell you all, though it's not for the easily offended."
A man sitting on the sofa says,
"Well, I'm easily offended!" Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
things are taken a bit too seriously and I wonder if that is not a sign of intolerance?
So we let such things go, and then get complaints about an unfriendly atmosphere to women. That's fact, not conjecture.
Just as there are complaints that (recently, re the Open Threads) there's too much messing about and triviality, and not enough serious discussion.
<sigh>
