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
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more
http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!