On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Alan Harnum wrote:

The best way to refute those whose opinions we disagree with is not 
to attempt to shout them into silence, but to counter their points 
with our own, their dogmatism with rationality, and their bigotry 
with open-mindedness.  This applies to debate and disagreement both 
on the Net and in real life.  We need not lower ourselves to the 
level of those we oppose to combat them.  

The problem with this idea is that you're assuming that he's honestly trying to
express disagreeing opinions.  If he's out for disruption, he won't care
whether or not you're shouting or talking calmly, and he won't care whether
you've actually shown his opinions to be wrong, so calmly and logically
pointing out where he's wrong isn't going to do a lot of good.

In fact, if he's out for attention, calmly and logically responding to him
might be the worst idea of all, since he knows that he's gotten you to use up
a great deal of your time making the reply (which wouldn't be true for a
short, angry, reply.)

Ignoring him completely is probably better than replying to him, but even that
has problems, because he can still scare off or mislead newer writers.

Tybalt and WW should simply kick him off the list, and _keep_ him off.  None
of this second chance under a new name stuff.