A good question. But I think, he shouldn't be banned. He has something of a comedic approach, because each single post makes me laugh. And on the other hand he shows precisely, how supporting the hoax idea doesn't work.
That's how I feel, providing standards of decency are not compromised. For example, LO posted that a member was banned here for trying to post images of the Boston bombing victims. Clearly not in good taste.
With awe130 and Romulus, the longer they were allowed to post, the more it exposed how ludicrous they were. I think all of us were adult enough and smart enough to rebuff petty insults. I am of the opinion that as long as those insults remain petty and we can continue cross examination of claims then it shows their ilk for what they are. It really is about us being gracious and ignoring 'slanderous' remarks. I do on occasions resort to sarcasm, but that's me (and yes, I do sometimes get on my high horse about Blunder, but after his threats toward me I kind of get a little bit agitated when I hear his name.)
Even when the postings get more extreme I don't think it should be an immediate ban hammer. I give a perfect example of what happened on British TV where Nick Griffin was invited onto BBC Question Time. Nick Griffin is a British Nationalist. There was a huge debate whether he should be allowed to speak on BBC. I for one thought it was a no brainer as it would show him for the bigot he was. Sure enough, he was outed as being an absurd little man and support for the BNP dwindled after his appearance.
