<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anrkitec:
to use your line of reasoning above then I would be justified, based on my personal "evaluation" of your posting history, to label you something like [for the sake of argument] "a Hitler loving, kitten drowning fascist."
It should be apparent to all [I hope] that such an example and such a response is completely unacceptable.
</font>
If Anrkitec were to post such a response it would, exactly as he said, be apparent to all that it is completely unacceptable.
But if Anrkitec were to post that response and it were to be removed by a moderator, nobody would be able to judge, for himself, the acceptability of what Anrkitec said.
If Anrkitec (or GUWonder, IJK, Dovster or anyone else) is to be judged fairly by members of OMNI they must be able to see his postings for themselves.
Tomorrow, I might post something saying, "AP2110, you are being foolish." A moderator could determine that I have flamed AP2110 and remove the post. Many readers might consider it to be a very mild flame. Others might well not see any flame in it at all and agree with me.
On the other hand, I could post exactly what Anrkitec said and call AP2110 "a Hitler loving, kitten drowning fascist." In this case, almost all FTers would decide I had gone way overboard and hold me in contempt.
If the moderators delete all such posts, how are those who don't see them supposed to be able to judge?
Let me repeat what I said earlier: I don't believe that anyone's reputation is damaged by being flamed -- only by being the flamer.
Unintentionally, by taking the flame out, we are protecting the flamer and no one else.