As far as "ground rules:" I was merely echoing what was posted on 08/02/01 under, To Aimee and Concerned Mom, et. al: "....Another good thing is that Danny has removed the offensive material and established some well needed ground rules...."  Since no one objected to the idea of "ground rules," in that particular post, nor the idea of selectively editing the transcript of what had been said, I assumed---perhaps erroneously---that both were tacitly endorsed by those who supported Danny's decision, and that such a thing now existed.  I am not advocating that we institute "ground rules," either, merely saying that that if we are going to accuse someone of not playing by the rules---and ban them from action, as a result---then we should be fair and clearly post them. 

 

As far as "common courtesy:"  I agree that it is desirable and should be encouraged, but not necessarily able to be legislated, in a public forum, such as this.  If we choose to participate in a conversation or thread, then we should also be prepared that it may go in a direction different from what we originally anticipated---that is a risk we have to be willing to take.  We are talking about the Internet---a place with strangers, as well as friends---and all of us are free, at any point, to turn off the computer and walk away.

 

And as far as "common sense:" I would argue that, as thinking adults, it would be downright foolish to accept at face-value everything we hear from a stranger on the Internet, good or bad.  Sometimes wolves come in sheeps' clothing, and the opposite may also be the case.  

 

We all see the truth differently.  The limitations of this medium makes it even harder to discover where our version of the truth lies, and sometimes we have to read in-between the lines.  In trying to discover our own sheep and wolves, it might even be helpful to see people, at their worst, instead of only when they put their best foot forward.  It certainly makes the discovery process a whole lot easier.