All:

This is a touchy subject. Do we censure people for acting a fool or do we let them spew their obnoxious tantrums in the midst of a community and offend the sensibilities of some? The libertarian in me say, let them act a fool. If grown ups decide to call each others parents out of their name, and for some sick reason get a kick out of that, more power to them. Delisting them for that wouldn't change the fact that it happened. They can't take it back.  If we start on the path of delisting people for crude language, it won't stop the mind set that doesn't think about the consequences of the language they use in a community. It is unfortunate that the good doctor (wright) unsubscribed. That is his prerogative and he exercised it. it is a lost for him and the community, but that is the nature of the beast.

I have a tendency to use my delete key liberally. The subject line of the emails in this particular fracas gave me enough clue to discern their lack of intellectual content. Going back to read them to ascertain who start what is not going to do me any good. I tend to side on the side of protecting speech, even if it is the obnoxious kind. Gambia_Lers have contentious debates, the majority of which is civil. We shouldn't practice the tyranny of the majority by delisting members, because they offended the sensibilities of the majority. 

I will stop ranting for a minute and wait for you guys to rescue me from the anarchy of my thoughts. I am pragmatist, and a cursory look at the mail stream convinced me that the perpetrators of the sludge fest have come to their senses. Now back to the world cup.

regards,

ousman.