Off thread (sort of) but here is what appeared today on the IPKat IPR blog:

“Readers’ comments. Over the years, one of the most cherished institutions of this weblog has been the facility to post readers’ comments. While this facility is moderated, the blog team has sought to exercise its prerogative to block readers’ comments only where they are plainly spam, entirely irrelevant or (relatively infrequently) defamatory or obscene. However, this blogger is concerned that this facility is being abused by a number of readers who have begun to post anonymous comments that consist of little other than abuse, whether of members of the blog team or of other readers who have posted comments. Criticism of another person’s opinions or reasoning is acceptable and indeed highly desirable, as is the correction of factual or legal errors — but there is nothing that can be gained from posting personal abuse and insults, a practice that lowers the tone of debate and does nothing to enhance the reputation of this weblog as a place where even unpopular arguments can be articulated, analysed and, where appropriate, refuted. Accordingly, this blogger proposes to reject comments that consist entirely or mainly of personal abuse. If any anonymous reader feels that his or her freedom of speech is being compromised (as has been asserted on some previous occasions when this blogger has refused to allow an offensive comment), the person affected is free to post that abuse elsewhere and link back to the Katpost and/or comment. Alternatively, the abusive commenter can emerge from the protective shell of anonymity and give verifiable particulars of his or her identity, so that readers can ascertain for themselves the value, or lack of it, of the ad hominem abuse which they seek to publicise.”

I think it applies also to this blog! Regular readers, will know who the offenders are!

To one particular active and notorious poster here there are three sorts of response, namely i) take him on, ii) reason with him, iii) ignore him. Frankly (Ned I’m talking to you in particular) I think Option iii makes most sense and is best adapted to keep dilution of the thread to a minimum.