I didn't read all the posts below, but the opinion seems pretty unanimous. I have never weighed in on such discussions. It's your site; I figure you'll do what you want.
But it's interesting to observe this divergence of opinion once again. It's clear that you would prefer that everyone be more uniformly lovey dovey, but most of the rest of us seem to be a bit thicker skinned and well able to ignore, or verbally engage, those whose views or presentation we might find, uh, lacking in some respect.
And I know you have in mind also the question of influencing others. Maybe you're just as thick skinned but more concerned about those of fragile or transitioning opinions.
Well, here I am on this thread, and you're asking my opinion. So here's a first: I don't see that he did anything to get banned, and I don't particularly see anyone calling for him to get banned. I'd let it go. In fact, here's a very telling thing: I read his post, and I didn't find it worthy of a response. Rather than banning, I would at least first make an effort to reason with someone and see if he'll change his mind. If he's not worth engaging, he's not worth banning (as a general rule).
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are no