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.