Well, let's see ... If you believe in hell (which Objectivists do not), then hell is supposedly for eternity. And if you were to confess that you believe in hell, then you should be punished for saying that in an Objectivist forum.

If you are an Objectivist, then your punishment is for contradicting your own philosophy.

So you are pretty much da**ed either way. I guess you have pretty much condemned yourself to your own form of Objectivist "hell" of finding that there is no way out of your current condition.

If it makes you feel any better, I have been to Hell (a tiny unincorporated town of a few hundred people in Michigan not far from Ann Arbor that was indirectly referred to by Bob Seger in "Fire Lake"), and back.

In the exalted sphere of culture that I pretend to inhabit, being rude in a discussion is considered to be an admission of failure. It means someone has got angry, has not replied with a thought, only with an emotion.
Surely, a contradiction with Ms Rand's philosophy.

On another site I live on, there is a punishment tool, a virtual wet cabbage leaf, a slap with this is administered to the guilty, or innocent.
The Gulch admins go for the sin-bin which I recall from ice-skating. Few good players evaded the sin-bin, the game depended on the ref being respected, right or wrong.

Ok it may look as if I am not serious but there is an amusing point in your question- a favored member! The member is one of the few who has read and studied Objectivism in detail, understands much, and explains it to the backsliders. The method of explanation, sometimes a harangue, sometimes is harsh on those of us who are slow on the uptake or even (shock horror) do not agree. This is known to the member, and some easing off would be appreciated. But it is like a strict schoolteacher, a disciplinarian who gets us to think harder, therefore, just, tolerated.