No, "they" haven't. But, rather than complain to me that "they are doing it, too", challenge them on it. If you treat other people with respect, you deserve the same.
In fact I was getting ready to call the moderators myself on some of this activity but Bush2000 talked me out of it citing the First Amendment and the Political Correctness aspects of doing such a thing (Ironic isn't it that someone who you are trying to get banned may be responsible for your staying here.) ;-)
If you think I'm out of line, tell me and explain why. I don't think I'm completely without sin, but I make an honest effort to avoid unwarranted personal attacks. If I persist, then report the abuse. I shouldn't expect anything less.
The only people that get banned are those that continue a pattern of abusive behavior, aside from the disrupters that announce their arrival. And even those are sometimes given a (short) opportunity to continue, for the entertainment value.
As for my (Any Free Software/Open Source Leader) = Karl Marx graphical parody series it is actually in direct response to this Pictorial false accusation of a Microsoft Conspiracy with Darl McBride a few threads back. An accusation for which the Linux People have no real proof!!! by the LINUX PROPONANT TechJunkYard (Once again YOU are the ones who started the false criminal accusations problem here with the unproven "pump 'n' dump" and Microsoft conspiracy theories.)
SCO's insider trading is a matter of public record. There was none at all for about a year, and then suddenly it began, coincident with SCO's legal pursuit of IBM. SCO has claimed they were planned sales, but the plans were apparently made just before SCO announced their intentions to the world. I think that's suspicious.
And, a lot of people are missing what is really going on: the Canopy Group (the largest owner of SCO) has been printing SCO stock at the inflated price to buy at least one other company (Vultus, I believe). Again, I think that's suspicious.
I don't really know where Microsoft fits into all this. SCO had their first profitable quarter in a long time, only because Microsoft gave them a significant sum of money for a "license", just before SCO started their legal pursuit of IBM. However, it wasn't until SCO directly attacked the open source community that I thought it might have been anything more than a defensive move by Microsoft.
Microsoft was recently convicted of monopolistic behavior, so I'm not inclined to believe they have entirely cleaned up their act.