I have just read through this thread and my eyebrows are climbing higher and higher and higher.
Fanjo was not aggressive. I have just gone through the thread using Ctrl+F and the most aggressive thing she said was "get over it" at the start of the thread. Yet the accusations of aggressiveness seem to start in the middle of the thread, in response to rather mild posts. Was she arguing too coherently or something? Thus the need to shut her down?
For clarification, I am not a screamer, and I do not have a screamer. I, in fact, am quite likely far more sensitive to squealing than the OP, and I do detest uncontrolled squealing... 
Nevertheless, I am big enough and 'umble enough to recognise that I don't have a x-ray vision that can tell me whether a child has under-lying issues or is just too lively for my own good. There is absolutely no point in a I-don't-mean-children-with-SN proviso. Even if the OP had made one (which she did not; note that) it would be meaningless. It would be of as much practical use as Early Learning Centre play food at Christmas dinner, because saying "I don't mean children with SN" doesn't mean you're not giving judgmental looks to children with SN on every shopping trip.
True tolerance of additional needs requires that one be willing to acknowledge that all children may have them. We have a phrase for this: "the benefit of the doubt". It's not an "SN brigade" phrase. It's a phrase used by all sectors of society to describe a governing principle for polite, non-judgemental social interactions with strangers and acquaintances.
I rather liked RowanMumsnet's posts. No, scratch that. I loved them.