John Smith wrote:

Ohhh, well, you are correct.

Of course I am. I simply expressed an opinion of mine

While not attempting to invoke "havoc", "discord" and "chaos", I view the
manner in which topics are handled as being the deciding factor--foul
language, character assassinations and promoting outwardly dangerous evils
which threaten the moral fabric of society are as disgusting to me as the
next guy...

And you are also correct on this aspect.


If the material is just gauged on whether it provokes debate, argument and
thought--and if the measure of this is simply how many posts are invoked as
responses--with the desirable number set as one or NONE--then further delays
in progress should be expected...

I don't think anybody filters because of this. If the presenter of such
debate has a reputation as in your first example...all bets are off.
That is for me to imply that mud-slinging, name-calling, goading or any
wild-eyed radical or raffish behaviour, in spite of the best intentions
of the poster, will cause his occasional good points to be overwhelmed
by the cacophony of kill-filters at work.

-Bill