NanaandGrampy, Yes I agree with you it is a big melting pot of ideas and experiences, and that's GN greatest asset-the ability to access lots of differing perspectives.
It doesn't work so well if posters are put off by the initial replies though, as I think people tend to take their lead from the first posts, and judge which way posters might lean.
Then the resulting thread becomes narrower and narrower with posters polarising into for and against groups. This closes down the discussion very often leading to an argument! Which is such a shame (unless you are a troublemaker!!) as I really feel that the wisdom of crowds is such an under used facility, and here the wisdom should be enhanced by experience!
The difference here in my view, is that we don't have to react immediately. We can read and re read before we answer.
All things considered we should be more well balanced conversationalists on here than in normal one to one chats. For that very reason.
I find that the opposite tends to be true. People (not all by any means) quicker to speak without thinking. Probably because they can do so with impunity.
Obviously saying exactly what one thinks in our day to day lives would cause chaos!!! So there is a reason we hold our tongue face to face, which is weakened on the internet.
I could be wrong but the more comfortable a poster feels by confidently knowing his or her 'audience'. the more likely they are to play to the crowd IMV and IMV only, you understand 
Which is why I feel more comfortable with leaving the troll hunting to the experts, even if it takes a little longer to root them out. Report by all means, over and over if they have their eye off the ball.
But I'm not comfortable with my abilities to root out a drama queen and feel a little squeamish passing comment on their thread to a third in-the-know party, personally!!
Being blunt and leaving an honest comment that you feel uncomfortable on a thread is acceptable I think.
After all we've already accepted that we're all different, and honesty cant be faulted surely, but then I would as some others have put it bow out gracefully.
There's always room to re engage when we feel reassured.
Having a group conversation at the expense of the op, not on topic or discussing the validity and truthfulness of the thread, is what our friends in the USA who are more up to date with personality labels call Triangulation I think.
A conversation with another that has at its core the means to upset a third party.
There's always the possibility of PMing each other if you really feel the need to chortle about or criticise someone!
So I guess after all this typing I could argue that I'm in favour of the status quo of letting them at't coal face deal with trolls.....or perhaps I'm just lazy .
Bluebell, yes I think I can agree with you whole heartedly if I understand that you are suggesting proceed with caution! For all the reasons you say. Notwithstanding just holding your council before you cast pearls before swine....
Sometimes though every rule has to be broken I suppose and to lay out your argument, state your case at the onset, firmly and reiterate it is all one can do. If its the truth as you know it and people don't accept that, for what ever reason, what else is there?
Sorry its very late and although I'm often awake through the night, even I'm getting delirious trying to concentrate (just spent 2mins trying to remember how to spell concentrate!!)
Goodnight Bluebell off to make a cuppa and then bed!!
