(fm the BC thread "What the Russian Sleepers Did")
My disagreements with Whiskey were a matter of public record. There are three people I have said abused the forum over the last several years. Others may on occasion be disagreeable or even offensive but they have not threatened the integrity of the blog as a forum, as this commentator with no administrative position sees it.
The first person I challenged was C-fud, who was a foaming antisemitic troll. It would shock me if anyone regrets his absence.
The second was more recent, a man of fine literary training and service to his nation who would inexplicably engage in ad hominem attacks on inoffensive members of our community, especially but not exclusively women. His identity being no secret I only do not use it in the hope that old wounds are not reopened. Not being medically qualified I can not offer a worthwhile opinion as to why he engaged in such apparent mood swings or otherwise unpredictably harmful behavior. His absence has encouraged others to speak but we have undoubtedly missed some trenchant observations. Personally I do wish him well.
Whiskey did not as a rule engage in personal abuse and did make an effort to not personally endorse the social consequences of his theories. On occasion he mentioned his charitable work and the frustrations he felt. My hope is that he devotes his considerable energies to posting on his blog, especially on economic topics. Perhaps if he does so he will rediscover his ability to contribute to building a community.
His biggest problems for this blog were fourfold.
1. He became repetitive so that he could have simple pasted links to one of maybe 3 narratives that were close to begin with and which would have covered 90% of his content,
2. He did introduce a small addition to his theme by adding to his gender based theory speculation as to the genetic as well as the social content of racial groups and the impact on creativity that included possible personal challenges to our host which if offered should be done soberly credibly and with the consent of the host so as to avoid hijacking the blog,
3. His lengthy posts were not cost free in that they occupied physical space and could have discouraged other commentators from either posting or prevented their being noticed as well as his imposing real costs on our host by consuming bandwidth.
4. The relentless negativity of his perspective was corrosive to the conversation as a social activity. No one needs Pollyanna but there is a limit on how often you can show up at a garden party waving a dead skunk and yelling "We are all doomed."
If I ever post 5 nearly identical thousand word tributes to Max Weber in a week then I hope that friendly messages will find me asking what my problem is. What we want to avoid, and what I think that Wretchard has gone to great lengths to avoid, is the self destructive banning regimen that consumed LGF. Where to draw the line is ultimately a political question and a matter of market management.