to think that some personal attacks are entirely justified and should be left?

[wannaBe]

e.g. if a poster tells a victim of rape she should just have said no and should have taken control then it is, IMO, perfectly justifyable to call that poster whatever names one sees fit.

Or if a poster compares children with sn to serial killers it is, again, perfectly justified to make one's opinions of said poster perfectly known without needing to face the prospect of deletion for doing so.

If someone's views are so abhorrent why should they be afforded the right to claim victim status when they are labelled for those views, and a personal attack on that level is nothing more than that - a label.

So while I do agree that on the whole personal attacks are wrong, I think that there are exceptions to every rule and that perhaps some should be left, in certain circumstances.

...you are an oxygen thief.

Then the criticism stays.

Sometimes you are deleted for quoting whatever they came out with, which is fair enough. It's just as upsetting to see it quoted and if MN have deleted the original post they'll delete any that repeat it. I was yesterday - I should have known better.

I think in general they should be allowed to stand. However I have reported and had a post deleted where a poster was being derogatory about another MN er who wasn't even on the thread to defend herself. I think it was a grudge carried over from another thread.

I have been confused at some of the posts that have been deleted recently and tbh it must make it look to others who haven't seen the original posts as if the poster had been vile and abusive - and thats not always been the case.

If the evidence of the last 20 years or so of internet chat foruns is anything to go by, personal attacks one way generate attacks the other way and then flame wars break out.

Comes down to whether we want flame wars on MN or not. IMO they are quite tiresome.