First, let me say that I do not disagree with your "bottom line" point (although we could have a discussion on paragraph 4 - freedom to speak does not mean freedom from civility), but let me suggest that jerks need not be accepted just because they are in a "community".

Can you deal with a jerk at work? Durned tootin'! Talk to the manager or boss, and if he/she doesn't straighten out the workplace, you may have an action for constructive discharge.

Can you walk away from a rude passenger on your flight? If he's simply rude, and not a pest, you can ignore him; if he is disruptive (and someone who rants at other passengers, calling them names, who claims to be member of a profession when he is not, and who generally disrupts an otherwise peaceful and placid flight would easily be so characterized) he would normally be "counseled" by the authority figure to mend his ways or face consequences. If he did it repeatedly, many if not most airlines would ban him for life.

Shakers (or was it Amish?) had what they called "shunning". When the community was inflicted with a disruptive influence who refused to mend his ways, they could and did simply refuse to acknowledge his existence. He was not spoken to, and if he spoke no one responded. He was not invited anywhere and if he showed up nonetheless, he was ignored. By all reports, it worked well - the person shunned either mended his ways and brought his behavior into acceptable bounds, or he finally left the community in peace.

Perhaps, if the authority figures refuse to respond to disruptive behavior, the passive solution is the way to go. The problem is - how does the community get the word to new members? With the Amish/Shakers/whoever, children were taught, and newcomers advised that the particular individual was being shunned by the community. Oh well, I'm sure we can figure out a way if we think about it.

Oh, and EPS, when one has tried without success to change an irritation, and finds he cannot succeed, and if the irritation has ruined what was otherwise a pleasure for him, how does it make sense (absent masochism) for him to continue to put up with the irritation?

(Edited to correct garbleed spelling/syntax.)

[This message has been edited by Counsellor (edited 03-01-2001).]