Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
Thank you all for your comments, especially nakedthoughts for the e-mail she sent me yesterday.
I wish to reply to you all, if that is possible.
No, I don't think we are weak, are not all able to defend ourselves in one way or another; the site I sense is not on unstable ground where an authority's or a member's position is not able to be strongly defended. We are all able to defend in one way or another on our own or with others; speak out "privatly" or publicly in support or in ire; edit, or delete, posts that have wrong expressions. When people show disrespect, an offense, even hate, to me the person should not be treated like the disrespect, the offense or the hate. His or her manners are not bad because the person is bad and deserves to go, the person is bad because his or her manners are bad and deserve to go--and those I believe are what should be "banned" in full defense of the person's presence. People ask me what are the better means of dealing with people? Well, I can't believe we don't already have the means. I think all the right people and rules are already in the right place. That's why banning seems so out of place. The whole site and it's established state are the better means for dealing with people and have transcend it so well that it looks barbarian-tool beside a golden sceptre. It seems now mostly incorporated in the structure for paranoia and because it is expected of internet communities.
But no one has offered proof yet of what it avails and how that is better than dealing with them from here, togetherly, or personally/privatly if we may. The person is severed away and asked to help himself on his own away from Passions; that is no help. Fortunatly many are able to help themselves and believe in Passions still as Goldenrose. But that doesn't change the truth that there are many who don't come back.