Strictly as myself:
I went back on forth on this a number of times. Here's my
দুই আনা for what it's worth.
I agree with a lot of what Sorry, Rafique, Mr-Cricket et al have said. Yes one should not take abuse free speech to adopt pseudonyms and monikers that are blatantly hostile/inflammatory. Yes Adolf Hitler was/is an embarassment and cautionary tale for all of humanity. However, I am opposed to a blanket ban on nicks or avatars or sigs which seem to be using a controversial person/image as their source or inspiration.
Let me give an example. A little while ago, a male BC member chose the picture of a 12-13 year old female actress as his avatar and in his sig openly professed his "aspirations" regarding her. Some of us mods (myself included) were all "oh my god - we have a pedophile on BC", "off with his head", etc. etc. However, wiser head prevailed and we first tried to learn about this user. Turned out he himself was 13 or 14. Obviously in such a context, his choice of avatar and sig were perfectly understandable and, I daresay, acceptable as well.
So how does this apply to Adolf Hitler sig? I've been tracking that FC thread and so far, AH has not gone off on blatant bigotry, troll-like behavior or any of the other oh-so-evil characteristics of his name-sake. True his positions can be disturbing - especially the one about so-and-so deserving holocaust but much like Mel Gibson, he does have a right to that viewpoint.
Therefore, while I personally find the usage of the nick and avatar AH to be tasteless to the umpteenth degree, I don't believe it deserves an automatic ban. He has to do more to "earn" that
