First, and with the greatest of respect for those I have admired and envied for forty years: The idea that because a person is not aircrew they may have no useful comment or opinion is really rather silly, especially in view of the avowed need for aircrew to be open minded thinking people. In a field of endeavour I joined just a few years ago (School Trustee,) it is exactly the lack of outsiders and consideration of their ideas that has lead to stultification of thought and failure to pursue simple and well proven ideas, in turn leading to stagnation and failure to improve academic results. Ironically many of the ideas we don't consider are those from the aviation industry, including the reporting of incidents without censure (unless appropriate,) safety management (the principle that all members should be considering results of their actions in a particular light,) recurrent training, check rides and even CRM!
In any such conversation there are always extremes and off the wall suggestions but it is not too hard to sort them. To characterise all such comment as worthless, however frustrating they may be, is to cast yourselves as arrogant and intolerant.
Second, to castigate both sides evenly: In a world where an experienced captain is a valuable asset to his company and the aviation industry and where the watchwords are retraining, help and support and where pilots come back from the depths of alcoholism, depression and other malaises, to be calling for this pilot to be ‘permanently removed,’ even before the evidence is in, is similarly arrogant and intolerant and not worthy of the members of this board, (though sometimes I wonder.)
Third and last; It seems that the very anonymity that allows us to join in discussion and contribute to all sorts of subjects that interest us without the retribution of a knuckle sandwich or even the face to face embarrassment of being taken down a peg or two in public is also the spur for some to express views that they would not dream of expressing in that face to face encounter and the increasing stridency adds nothing to the advance of the argument. This is even more apparent in political discussion that in the almost technical pages of PPRUNE. It would be an altogether more pleasant world if we would, perhaps, apply the test of “Would I say this to his face? Would I say it to the inspector? Would I say it to the judge?” before posting.
JMHO, of course.