I agree with Jenni that censorship is not the right answer in this situation. 

 

There were a number of people who chose to keep the "debate" going the other evening, but only one was left to accept all the blame.  As the saying goes, It takes two to tango, though, in this case, I counted at least five or six.   At any point, any one of those involved---as well as those who professed to be offended by the spectacle---could have clicked the mouse and changed the channel.

 

If there are to be a new set of "ground rules," it would only be fair to state them clearly at the top of this page.  In my opinion, the "offending person" might be accused of letting her emotions get the better of her and not understanding the silent code that exists on this board.  But how was she supposed to know?  She was a newcomer and the rules were not clearly posted. 

 

I agree that it is sometimes more appropriate to do things in a more "politically correct" fashion.  But we are talking about an Internet message board, not a Fortune 500 boardroom.  By its very nature, the Internet is a public place, and chat rooms and message boards, such as this, are understood to be open forums.  If, as consenting adults, we choose to participate, then we must also be willing to accept the risks and limitations of the medium we have chosen.

 

The exchange the other evening might have been extreme for this particular audience, but I do not believe that it crossed the lines of accepted "chat room" behavior.  If this has instead become a private club, with "undesirables" who can be censored or banned, then it is only fair that the criteria for membership be clearly posted at the door.