I agree too with both of you. I know I will never be able to change the minds of the PDS’s here, but there are always lurkers who may be on the fence. Should we just ignore the remarks?
Your milage may vary. My opinion is that we should ignore gratuitous insults, as responding to them means nothing to folks reading this forum in order to be informed. If I tell a Palin detractor that I think he's delusional, or that she has "PDS," it is wholly subjective and of zero value.
On the other hand, posts attempting to convince people not to support Palin that rely on a) lies ("oil windfall profits tax"); b) disingenuous half-truths ("she quit when the going got rough"); and c) assigned motivations that contradict her past ("she's only in it for the money") should and can be refuted with cool-headed posts that convey hard info and links. Readers/lurkers who are on the fence become INFORMED, and see that many of we Palin supporters support her because our opinions are INFORMED.
I personally avoid (usually!) calling folks "trolls" or "PDSers" or "haters" or "sycophants" or any other subjective, emotion-based term of insult. I WILL out-and-out accuse a poster of lying if I can prove it, or of saying I don't believe him/her if he says something that conflicts with his overall position -- "I think Palin's great but ..." after a long posting history of attacking Palin, is a clear sign he's trying to placate me and lurkers, and I'll call him on it.
I do my best to avoid anger in my responses, yet I'm always happy if, by being scrupulously civil and respectful (and yes, it can be done even when telling someone, "You're lying" or "I don't believe you when you say you think ..."), I can get a Palin detractor to loose his temper and be reduced to rage. In my opinion, it's a service to everyone, because it separates the wheat from the chaff -- the sincere Palin detractors who express valid (at least in their eyes, or within the confines of their knowledge of Palin) concerns, from Palin detractors whose "concerns" are emotional at their foundation, based on things they KNOW are falsehoods or half-truths.
The behavior of a candidate's supporters speaks volumes about that candidate, and so does the behavior of a candidate's detractors. The more times that Palin detractors are made to reveal that they are emotional, hot-headed, and have weak arguments, while Palin supporters keep their cool and respond with solid, informed arguments, the better the chance that those on the fence will figure out that the resaon Palin detractors have to be deceptive and devious in their arguments against Palin, is because they're on the wrong side.
Those are my personal guidelines for posting. As I said, YMMV.