There has been a long-standing issue in the Skeptics community that has been recently re-raised and re-branded by Phil Plait's TAM8 talk.

It concerns traditionally hostile and/or mocking responses to untenable claims. (I am trying to use emotionally neutral terms. Did I succeed?)

There has been plenty of discussion about whether that is a natural and honest response, a legitimate tactic of persuasion, or whether it is self-defeating.

I feel the appropriate answer may well be different on the blogosphere, in a town hall meeting, at a dinner party, on a date or here on this Q&A site.

So my question is, do we, as a community, have an official position on:

1. mocking and/or hostile answers to the original poster?

2. mocking and/or hostile comments about real world people?

3. mocking and/or hostile comments about real world ideas?