But you have to make it an established pattern, that the attempt to cut off a rational argument will result in an unpleasant scene, if persisted in. The anger that is at first directed against those who won't be silenced, in time is redirected toward those who seek to silence them. The same process that leads to the blaming of the persistantly victimised, here is put to productive use, in counteracting another unpleasantly common facet of human nature.
In time, by perservering as we make ourselves fully heard, though we forfeit some shallowly feigned friendships, we eventually gain a grudging respect even from those who resent our strength. As time passes further, we find in some we get to know that true friendship that only the truly free can share with one another. As for the dislike of those who would never dare make waves, of what value is the friendship of one who would lack the backbone to be capable of personal loyalty, or even integrity?
What support may one expect from such 'friends', if personally attacked? Is it not likelier that they will join those around them, in doing the wrong thing at a 'friend's' expense, should that friend find himself politiced against? If the group should voice support for an untruth, even at one of its member's expense, will such a person be willing to argue against it, given that he can scarcely do so, uninterrupted? On his own terms, if he wishes to avoid social isolation, he will either have to go along with any consensus, even a patently wrong one (ruling out honesty, as a practice), or have his intellect subjected to nonstop ridicule, as he keeps refusing to concede, in arguments that he will keep 'losing'. Comfort with the latter, is simply not human nature, leaving the second 'possibility' a fictional one, in the long run.
Consider their absence in your life, the greatest gift that they are capable of giving, and thank them for it, in your heart.
Our choices in print are happier ones. Ones that I seek to carry the benefits from, over to the live interactions of our group, by beginning many discussions in print, and anticipating many of the responses I will here, in a forum where interruption of one's chain of argument, is a non-issue. Hence the rule - an inflexible one - that what is put in print on this group page, must be read before responded to, in group. It reduces the need for confrontation.
Aside from answering the questions that are expected to arise in depth, really the only other consideration needed, proves to be selective in one's choice of forum. Usenet, and the mailing lists, breeding grounds for rampant lunacy that they have proved to be, will be avoided. But, on a web page, a moderated one no less, one doesn't have to worry about one's articles being cancelled; about words being put in one's mouth in a false paraphrase of one's words in a followup article; of having one's reader intimidated by a mob (possibly an illusory one, with forged e-mail addresses) manufactured for the occasion, telling the trusting newcomer tales about what the one to be refuted through defamation, said or did before he came, and attacking him too if he doesn't join their side, instantly, enthusiastically, and without question.
In short, that which makes Usenet what it is, in all its infantile glory. There are only one's words, and noone present to speak for one, save oneself, and one can 'speak' with no fear of interruption. Much the same advantages to be found, in the publishing of a book. Advantages each contributing hopes he will make full use of, here.
It is our hope that you will appreciate the effort enough, to invest a little of your own. These are, after all, serious issues that we discuss, and they are worth no less.