Media seekers, reputation and banishment

[nobody@replay.com (Anonymous)]

Seems like the Freedom-Knights are seeking a little publicity? Perhaps an interview in Wired?
A column in the WaPo? A spot on www.TV.com? Are these the same folks who gather around
at fires and crime scenes trying to get into the camera? "Hi Mom! We're on CP now! Look
at me!"

bwahahhhaha

I find the aga/hayes posts amusing. It's amazing at how people have refined their skills at rhetoric,
debate and insults. The poisoned pen gets much practice.

So the aga/hayes posts attempt to extract reputation from Gilmore and Declan. It is interesting
to see how attacts on reputation are futile as reputation is built up (or spent) gradually. Pointing
a finger and shouting "You are stoopid!" is obviously ineffective at damaging any credibility other
than that of the person holding the finger. Remove the insults and aga and Hayes offer little 
in the way of compelling arguements.

Maybe Gilmore made a mistake in removing DV from CP. Perhaps it is a contradiction of some ideal
of open dialog and free speech. DV seems to have unlimitted energy for insults, rants, and blather,
so removing him directly (with the actual effect of simply making it less convienent for him or her to 
post) was a practical move not a philosophical move. A practical move to assert the will of the 
community.

A community offers few punishments for asocial behavior. Killfiles are partly effective. But the strongest
punishment is banishment. 

The issue is not "is banishing unruly louts from the discussion censorship" as censorship is a state
of being threatened with loss of liberty for what one says. The issue is "do we individually banish
asocial louts or collectively?" and of course how do we decide who to banish. All of this  is certainly 
easier when done individually yet it is often prudent and effective to have someone take
action when they are in a position to do be effective. Gilmore acted properly in my opinion. And DV
remains in my killfile.

diGriz