I’ve seen what I’ve seen as far as well-known FR screen names with long posting histories returning from a temporary banning completely changed and advocating things that are somewhat at odds with the stated mission of FR, dalight.
Does this apply to the former FReeper “Pissant?” I do not know, hence the use of the word “maybe.”
I understand your point here, its just I went through this process with Pissant, and it wasn't flipping a switch. His style of writing and thought didn't change so much as morphed into exasperation and stretching to make his point as whole crowds of FR posters took him to task. His basic stances that many folks around here agree with became so strident, unreasonable, and impractical that he just couldn't believe folks would actually not support his ranting. No issue was as important to him as his opposition to the Homosexual agenda and this characterized his fury and ultimately his downfall. Ultimately for his stance, if you didn't actively hate the sinner and denounce them even when they were otherwise being productive and patriotic then you were their supporter. Sarah Palin has some very active and prominent Conservative and yet openly homosexual supporters and she didn't go out of her way to denounce them and this was too much for Pissant.
Palin also rejected the basic outlines and tenants of the homosexual agenda in marriage and attempts to mainstream the behavior and lifestyle, but Pissant decried this as only lip service to a crypto-gay supporting agenda. Just like the charge of Latent Racism or Latent Homosexuality turns into an analog of the old saw about "no longer beating your wife" this formulation of charge defies reason for any act to defend against the charge can be discounted by the very effort to address it in the mind of those bringing the accusation, and it became a logic trap for him. Palin deals with this issue in a typically Western, Libertarian fashion in that the government has little stake in defining people's private lives, instead this is the province of God and faith and saving grace. Instead, public policy must and should protect the Family as the basic unit of our society.
The "Gay" political agenda is a direct threat to the family and morality that makes for a safe and peaceful society, such that when you want to bring this behavior out of your house and into the public square, don't be surprised if people reject it and your whole line of reasoning. Gay people are not entitled to special rights and making all things equal for gays means withdrawing the obligation to support Families as one of the core missions of society and thus cannot and will not ever be done in a society that is not doomed to decay and depravity.
You would think that we could find general agreement on such things but, alas, such a stance was considered supportive of the Gay agenda.