From your reply It sounds like you've ignored or overlooked a number of the key points I was attempting to make. Perhaps I didn't explain them well enough. I don't respond for the sake of it and try and only respond to posts where I think they have glaringly obvious errors, mistaken assumptions, inconsistencies or the content, claims, assertions or 'suggestions' require expansion, further questions or clarification. My experience and observation is when that is done in a reasonable and logical way and the poster is confronted with irrefutable evidence of the facts demonstrating their inaccuracy, shortcomings or folly of the post's claims or content he tends to 'shut up' on the matter immediately.
As I've already said there's 2 schools of thought on how best to deal with such situations and there's a body of material available on the Net offering opinions, findings and thoughts on which is the more effective. One is to completely ignore them which is widely popular and one is to not completely ignore them. I happen to think the jury's still out on the most effective way to counter their impact. Perhaps if more intelligent, reasonable people didn't just 'blindly' ignore it all and contested some of it more often in a reasonable and logical manner it might lesson their impact and their activity ?
I've tried the 'Ignore' function and frankly I found it made little difference to the forum experience.
Just like cancer maybe ? It's not likely to just disappear by completely ignoring it and in fact doing that allows it to grow and continue unfettered.
