But, given what I read in yesterday's interaction between jar and Nem, I think they both could use a stronger reminder to refrain from the personal and stick to the topic.
I often have to wonder if the Admin staff here at EvC has a clue what a personal attack is. From the behavior of many members of the Admin staff it is not clear they do.
For example, pointing out posts that are off topic, pointing out attempts to misdirect the readers attention in the hope that the reader does not notice the subject change or irrelevant argument are not attacks on the person but rather comments on the actual message.
We do see personal attacks though here at EvC. For example calling someone a moron as opposed to saying a post was moronic would, IMHO be considered a personal attack. Implying that someone should be shot would, IMHO be considered a personal attack. Calling someone a freak would, IMHO be considered a personal attack.
Now whether or not any action should be taken in each case again in my humble opinion, should depend on the position of the person making the attack.
If the person making such an attack is from the group commonly referred to here at EvC as "An Evolutionist", then I believe sanctions would be in order.
However, if the person making the attack is what is commonly referred to here at EvC as a "Biblical Christian" or "Creationist", can we with honor or reason sanction them? Are "Biblical Christians" or "Creationists" capable of civilized behavior, of making an argument based on the messages as opposed to the messenger, of even reading a message and understanding its content?
Aslan is not a
Tame Lion