It's very easy to do what peregrina has done, which is - more or less - to fly over the crowd, crap on it from on high, and then fly off before anyone can take a pop. However, peregrina raises an interesting dilemma.

I've reflected considerably on how one deals on a discussion board with someone like Franks, i.e. someone who spouts what I and others believe to be vile views, filled with stupidity, bigotry and racism masked under a superficial cloud of buzzwords such as "eco-travel", etc. One can:

1. Expunge him and his views completely from the board
2. Go all out and attack him and his views remorselessly
3. Reason and debate with him on the views that he holds
4. Ignore him and his views in the hope that they will fade away

The problem with a bigot like Franks is:

(a) he is totally thick-skinned and impervious to reason and comment - amazing in someone who knows so little about most of the things that he writes about and who is so untalented

(b) he regularly uses this board and many others to promote his views

(c) he uses no facts or other sources to back up anything he writes but refers constantly back to his website, which is the hide he has wrapped around him

(d) the nature of Mudcat is that it allows a freedom of debate and opinion - for better or worse (and hurray for that)

I've done a bit of research and seen that Franks posts on other discussion boards and websites - and gets much the reaction that he gets here. So we have a choice. We can either do what peregrina suggests, and just let him fade away, or we can say to ourselves "he may spew his rubbish all over the net, but we're not going to let him get away with it unchallenged here".

On balance, I think I tend to the second course of action. We can't help what he does elsewhere, but it somehow seems wrong to just let him say what he wants to - over and over again - without challenging it. People may think a mountain is being made out of a molehill and that it's all just a waste of time. However, one of the features of the Mudcat style is that it does test the individual. It illustrates the old musician's saying, "You may be good, but there's always somone out there better than you." In short, if I post something that's wrong or controversial, someone on Mudcat will inevitably put me right. Why should someone like Franks therefore, who spouts abhorrent philosophies, be allowed to rest quietly and go unchallenged?

It's a decision that individuals have to make for themselves.