A subject may be emotional to a poster but if emotion overtakes sober reasoning we end up with the slanging matches often seen here. What sort of rational discussion can occur when emotions are high. My attitude is that if you cannot control yourself, do not post until you can. Ranting incoherence adds nothing to the debate and merely disgusts the innocent visitor. Is that the behaviour we wish to encourage in order to attract more postings? It would be interesting to see see who is actually posting on closed threads and run a little sweepstake on the guilty person who comes out on top for causing the maximum grief. I have a sneaking suspicion I could place the name out front right now.
    I have no problem with posters using any language they like to describe a situation or event, but when these insulting libelous labels are attached to people posting I feel a line has been crossed. Being labelled scum, nazi, racist, antisemite because I simply disagree with the views of the person posting is a guaranteed way of closing threads and we all know who I am talking about. What gives anyone the right to use such terms when it is done purely on what they think, rather than what they know to be a fact. I find this even more galling when the poster applying the term is in one instance supporting , no advocating, totally illegal actions that I and others clearly pointed out to him.
The most hilarious point about this is that this person acts outraged when a response includes a little jibe. In fact he collects and posts collections of such jibes carefully omitting his prior postings that led to such jibes. The ludicrous attempts to play innocent fool no one but himself.
Robust discussion is fine, swearing is fine(if your command of language is insufficient to find a better way of expressing yourself. But attaching bogus inflammatory names to people in a pathetic attempt to give more authority to the post simply leads sooner or later to thread closure. I would regard it as a deliberate troll. That is no way to have a discussion. Or perhaps that is the intention.
We all know the sort of threads and we all know the major contributors.

How in the hell do you expect to attract more sensible, rational, ordinary people below the line if they see the sort of behaviour referred to. How can a new contributor be expected to put his/her head above the parapet when they run the risk of abuse being heaped on them the first time they post. There is one dominant poster here that calls for free speech for himself yet insists that subjects he disagrees with be censored. How skewed a level playing field is that? A subject may be emotional to a poster but if emotion overtakes sober reasoning we end up with the raving and ranting diatribes often seen here.
   

Do we want bully and bluster below the line or some sort of rational discussion? There are one or two that post somewhat infrequently but they post in a calm measured way that should be an example to us all. If they can act in this extremely polite, thoughtful way, then there is no reason the rest of cannot. Irregardless of subject matter under discussion.
Using passion as an excuse to insult is merely a very robust reason to be deleted.