I think we went over this before, but I would have trouble digging up the thread. I wish I had it bookmarked, now.

I compared a "good" way for a person to point out an anomaly, or bring up some subject that isn't on the beaten path, and a "bad" way.

I had examples and everything.

To oversimplify, the "good" way is something along the line of "Hey, doesn't that look like a fossil on that Mars picture?" (This is not an exact description of the current argument, but the principle is the same).

Responses to the post might be along the lines of geological types pointing out that there are rock varieties that might look a lot like a fossil.

If the "fossil-spotter" is reasonable, his response might be something along the lines of, "well, I think it still looks like a fossil, but I can see how it could be something else. Wish they'd look a bit closer, and I hope we see fossils soon." If he still wants to argue the point, maybe he finds more evidence to back up his side. An Earth fossil photo that looks a lot like the Mars picture. Maybe a link to a reputable scientist who also thinks there's a very small chance it's a fossil. The responses might then be more geological background, maybe some pictures of natural rocks or crystals with exactly that pattern, or links to other professional opinions.

Notice that there is a disagreement going on, but a reasonable one, and everybody reading it is learning something even if all parties go away from the thread convinced they're right and the other guy is wrong.

This is where the good and bad digress.

The "bad" way seems to primarily involve a stubborn insistence that yes, that IS a fossil on Mars, there's not a damn thing you can say that will convince me otherwise, and there's something seriously wrong with your mind if you don't agree with me.

This person, after the first response, gets highly defensive. He begins talking as though some conspiracy is involved, and responses are addressed as though not only the respondents had something against him personally (sometimes they do, but that's another story), but that the authorities they cite had something against him personally.

Responses are treated as though nothing was ever said. Name calling soon begins.

Added posts on the subject usually don't bring up any new views or insights, or further evidence, but repeat the old things over and over again, and the name-calling, either of authorities on the subject or of the other posters, soon begins.

In its worst form, this degrades to the famous Space Board "boogerhead" threads, where two or more people basically run the thread about eight inches off the right side of the screen with short and content-free posts primarily consisting of calling the other person a "boogerhead."

On these boards, the patterns above can be seen in many subjects. Most threads are not always clearly in the "good" or "bad" style, and it is common for the same people to be seen being reasonable in one area, and unreasonable in others. Nobody here is totally sinless in this, not least myself, which is why I am always reluctant to ask for someone to be banned.

Maybe the reason there's so much tolerance for Lindy, despite her having anomalistic beliefs that are quite a ways "off the wall," is that by and large her arguments tend to stay in the well-mannered category, and she doesn't degrade threads into namecalling sessions. I don't know...I can only speak for myself here.