I'm just relating what I saw. Feel free to check with others who were here.
Banning for personal attacks, that's laughable. Personal attacks are made all the time...
It is subjective, banning, but in many cases the poster was warned to stop and chose not to.
IMHO, Jim was not in the mood to tolerate a whole lot of belligerence, and it was easy to see in his posts.
I may be wrong about this, but it seemed to me that there were some who recognized that Jim had a zero tolerance attitude and purposely goaded him with the intention of getting banned.
We're back to support for Rudy.
Be that as it may, it does all eventually come back to Rudy. But not "just because someone supported him", but because they pleasured in throwing it in Jim's face.
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Personal attacks and distorted information are tolerated, and addressed and corrected, when the conversation is in the mainstream. Conspiracy nuts, jewhaters and the looney right haven't been tolerated when they're over the top or quote questionable sources. Yes, the standard was/is stricter.
I see a standard similar to what would be applied to GWB brought down the towers posters here. And in my view Rudy supporters aren't loons, they're simply supporting the wrong candidate.