As always, your answers are curteous and I believe sincere. But, I think you are mistaken in your emphasis. I hope that is all it is.
Mr. Firehammer: No one is obliged to answer every stupid and inane criticism of their views...
Mr. Stoylarov: Barbara Branden's comments are now classified as a "stupid and inane criticism"????
I don't know. I have no idea what Barbara Branden's comments were and either do you. I would certainly be surprised if Barbara made stupid or inane criticisms, or ones that I would consider that, but what my evaluation, or your evaluation, of her comments might be is irrelevant. We are talking about someone else's choices, not ours, and their choice has to be based on their own evaluation.
I intentionally left personalities out, because, "who said what," does not matter. What matters is whether or not one has a moral obligation, or not, to allow their own property to be used in a way they judges is wrong, and not allow themselves to be intimidated by those who accuse them of not being able to answer the accusations. You and I are not in a position to know the reasoning behind the choice; to judge someone as immoral for an action one does not know the reason for is itself immoral.
Mr. Firehammer: Answering some absurdities lends them credibility.
Mr. Stolyarov: Not answering them may also suggest that one does not have the capacity to do so.
Suggests to whom? ... and so what? What difference does it make what someone else thinks of one's reasons and motives? In real life, the opinion of those who make absurd charges is worth nothing and certainly not something someone should waste their valuable time worrying about or trying to correct.
It appears you actually agree with the next point, so I'll only comment on this: But then again, according to your statement, it is not legitimate for me to even pass judgment on the matter!
Of course you can, "pass judgment on the matter," so long as that judgment is for yourself. It is wrong to make that judgment for others or to expect them to accept your judgment in place of their own. It is wrong to call them immoral for not choosing to act as you believe they ought to have acted, especially when you do not know the provocation for their action.
Now, Mr. Stolyarov, I think the problem is one of perspective. It is possible Diana acted irrationally when "barring" Barbara Branden from her site, but I do not know that, and you do not know that. Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to make moral judgments when one doesn't know all the facts?