Drandes,

As I suspect you understand, no, there doesn't seem to be agreement on what 'bashing' is or isn't. I have my own definition which maybe allows too much rope for some posters and HL's. I (and others) want to hear the negative aspects that posters ponder which are plausible and serious enough to consider the ramifications against the investment. Others don't tollerate anything remotely negative.

In my simple mind, a 'basher' truly shows its colours when he/she raises a point in a discussion, recieves adequate rationale and supporting evidence to disprove the point but simply continues raising that same point again and again. In short, harping on a notion that has been discredited completely or can't be proved one way or another ever (like what a director is thinking or not thinking for example).

Quite often, a basher will resort to insults and attempts to discredit other quality posters when their line of attack fails under the weight of logic and overwhelming evidence. Attacking a quality poster's spelling is one such 'bashing' method. Spelling does not rule out logic and supporting rationale - ever. (My wife is the poorest speller EVER, but is also one of the smartest and strategic people I've ever known - she would last a day lol!)

The CUU board has a long line of basher profiles that have come and gone but too many innocent posters asking hard questions become collateral damage in the fog of the battle to keep the board productive.