Having a Problem?

So it seems that I (and Fr. Z) were perhaps a bit harsh to the thugs of the internet world, by which he means primarily spammers and hackers but under which heading I include those fools whose comments mark them as being clearly not of good will.  The poor fellows probably can't help themselves: they were all latch-key kids growing up, and most of them, at the ripe old age of thirty-seven, still are.

However, there is a particular problem with my petty outburst of frustration (Fr. Z's litany is clearly not an outburst, but a campaign), because I have always professed and striven for a level of discourse above that of mere cacoclisonomy.  In general, one should not have a problem when someone else has a problem.  If one's going to take a discussion to the meta-level by considering the conduct of the discussion, then one's own conduct of the discussion ought not to be such as to potentially disrupt the meta-level discussion and lift it to the meta-meta-level.  Because nobody wants to live in InceptionWorld. (That there's Drunken Camel Case, by-the-by.  Copyright pending.)

In other words, if somebody has a problem, I don't have a problem with that.  And if somebody has a problem with somebody having a problem, I have no problem with that either.  But if you have a problem with someone having a problem with someone else, then that is a problem.  (Though not for me; I'm down with it, whatever "it" is.)  Because no one should have such problems, as the Jewish mother says; and if you do, then you, mon frère, have a problem.

I hope that clarifies everything.