Joe--

In general I agree trolls should be ignored.   I have told several Guests that I don't shadow-box. And that was the end of that.

But...a Mudcat member is not a troll (to be sung to the tune of "A Secretary Is Not A Toy").

And needs different treatment.

"Gibson" should have been banned from Mudcat--early--for the reasons I cited yesterday.. Why should anybody who has done any of the 3, much less all 3, be allowed to ever say anything else on Mudcat--certainly as a member?

When somebody says--and proves over and over--that he has no intention of contributing, just sabotaging, there's no reason he should be free to post any message at all--banning is the only way.

This, as I said, would have eliminated completely the thorny "censorship" question.

The moderator has to take some responsibility for keeping MC a civilized place, which it mostly is. Banning is sometimes necessary. With "Gibson", censorship was needless agony for you.

Why are you so stubborn as to insist that we all just ignore "Gibson?" Didn't you read what I said--we have drop-in Guests all the time, who can, will, and in some cases like to, keep the pot boiling. "Gibson" would have always had a sparring partner-or 3. Didn't you realize that by allowing him free rein, you were discouraging the participation of both members and non-combative non-members?

Maybe if he were banned he would come back--but only to fade into the general miasma of anonymous Guests-- which are much easier to ignore.

He was the opposite of a Mudcat member. Read what he said to Don Firth, to various women, and his wish for the death of the child of a Mudcat member---what more did he have to say to be banned?