[AndrewC]

Are you serious? Though you may not agree with him, the person you have attacked as a disruptor has staked out a position and is defending it. Others and now you, by this flimsy attempt at justifying the ridicule, have committed a breach of your own agreement, by using the troll loophole. You have now used it twice. This one the most egregious of the two. He called no one names. He stated an unpopular position, clarified it and then defended it. Others have ridiculed him from the sidelines and then labelled him a troll for exercising the right of expressing opinion and defending it. I ask that the name callers cease their attacks, apologize. If this is not done then I will consider calling an abuse in light of the agreement to stop such behavior.

[Aric2000]

Free speech is a problem for you. You should start your own discussion club in your closet where it's relatively safe.



That was an attack on a poster Andrew, and therefore per the agreement I am in full compliance.

You will get NO apology from me, get an apology from the offending poster.

That was OUTRIGHT trollish behavior trying to start a flamewar, you wish to discuss it further, please move it to the phoebe thread.

[Nataku X]

If someone is a troll, then it should be self-manifest. It shouldn't be necessary to step in and announce that ALS is a troll. For this reason, the "troll" clause, while well-meaning, is abused by both sides (the evo side more often)...

Troll-calling should be safe, legal, and rare. Newbies to the agreement will rapidly realize, whether by private correspondence or personal observation, that Poster X is a troll. There aren't really that many true trolls... perhaps 2, 3. Better to let a few trolls go unnoticed than to have a troll-name-calling-frenzy. I think it'd serve our purposes much better if we let others figure it out for themselves... even if the list-o-trolls isn't expressly forbidden within the agreement, it is nonetheless provocative...

[Junior]

No one has "attacked" him. We have asked him for evidence to support his position and in some cases shown where his position is outdated or untenable. These do not constitute attacks. Our comparison of him to medved is based upon his contention that man co-existed with dinosaurs -- a contention for which there is no direct physical evidence and for which the circumstantial evidence is highly suspect. The observation that he lacks medved's flair was simply that. Old Ted was an interesting character. He was quite wrong, but he was always entertaining, and I, for one, really miss him.