To all listees,
and especially,
to the team who owns the site and forum,

I think the current debate and issue is essential,
and here's why:

@ you wrote :
Dear Dr Fournet,
You have every right to feel fed up with the tendencies you list.  You have
the right to be offended.  But you do not have the right to express your
feelings of annoyance in impolite terms in the INDOLOGY forum.  

well, Let's summarize the whole thing:

so I have the right to whatever, how nice!! how sweet sounding!!
but, concretely, the Hell cares,
so no matter how much s*t and m*k the sprinkling system sprinkles in my face, I just have to s*t up.
Because it's all about the rules (your rules).

So let's put it otherwise:

Pt1. you call it "Net-Etiquette"
Well, as a trueborn Frenchman, I really wonder why your rules bear a French-looking name "Etiquette".
I'm not far from thinking this is one more piece of abuse added to all the rest spit and spat in my face.
My piece of advice => find a non-French word for your rules. Thanks.
In all cases the French word "etiquette" has nothing to do with your rules, in nomine or in spiritu.

Pt2. You object to my phrase "s*t and m*k sprinkling system",
but apparently you don't object to other people's Reductio ad Nazismus.
I guess we really have a problem here, possibly of cultural or philosophical nature.

You seem to focus more on superficial features than on contents. It's possible that here, we have a deep cultural difference.
As a trueborn Frenchman, I tend to focus more on contents than on formalistic issues.
Among other things, that's why in rugby I believe that a SOB's kick in the testicles should be disapproved of, even if it's done Englishways à la gentleman.
Of course, the Rugby International board thinks otherwise. If it looks à la gentleman, then it's ok.
SOB's tricks are ok, if they respect surface "Etiquette". Well, I definitely disagree.
Contents matters more than form, in my world.

PT3. basically your "Etiquette", whatever that twisted pseudo-French word means, rejects my straightforward description but accepts Reductio ad Nazismus.
So let me reword what Koenrad Elst's "work" is about:
Basically, it's a Troyan horse: it looks like a pseudo-historiographical discourse, but the core of the beast is to sprinkle s*t and m*k on Indo-European Studies.

So, concretely, your "Etiquette", whatever that twisted pseudo-French word means, 
1. does not promotes (academic) courtesy, it promotes hypocrisy and oblique abusive perversion,
2. puts historiography at risk of becoming the playground for hypocritical "s*t and m*k sprinkling systems".

I definitely believe that the historiography of sciences, and of linguistics in particular, deserves more than becoming the playground where a number of bastards can freely have fun with their "s*t and m*k sprinkling systems".

As a matter of fact, in France, we have one indigenous exemplar of a "s*t and m*k sprinkling system", namely Jean-François Demoule, an archeologist who writes books on linguistics where he drools at heavy length on how much linguists are half-incompetent, half-nazi, etc. 
As far as you are concerned, his "work" probably passes the test of your "Etiquette",
but as far as I am concerned, this individual only deserves the worst.

In all cases, I will not change my mind.

And I am ready to be banned,
because I prefer banning to dishonor.

And, as a last word, change your "Etiquette" for a word that makes sense.

Arnaud Fournet