It became obvious to me when reading a post that resulted in one of our contributors being banned that two groups of people with large differences in experience, location and view point were talking and neither was listening nor being understood.
One side , the initiator of the post and followers had the following characteristics.
They were mostly from Great Britain and talking about health care, laws and corporations of that local. They were female and talked mostly of emotions and feelings . They were not used to debate and as usual took any disagreement personally.
The other group were located, familiar with, and talking about the situation in America. They were mostly male unfamiliar with the gentle ways of the local women's group and in this case more used to debate vs conversation. They had a long history of being passionate about the subject while having already been called ignorant in the initial post.
This set the stage for abuse on both sides , but when it was over only one side complained even though they had started the discussion fully knowing who they would draw out . The banning of the member was unnecessary and a over reaction. This person has been a thought provoking contributor. He is on a mission to correct a situation that is prevalent in his county and he believes in his cause just as others believe in the importance of exercise or coconuts in the treatment of PD. The accusation of bad language is unsupported and was in fact articulate and professional. Free speech is probably the most difficult freedom to protect. The banned contributor was speaking against the situation and not against the other person ,even though she had taken it upon herself to antagonize in the initial post and then had the nerve to claim that she had been personally set upon.
I am not Charlie Hebdo