Although I tend to come into every conversation confidently knowing that I am right -- and that all who disagree with me simply must be wrong -- I have been helped a time or three to see and appreciate a different perspective during some of the knock-down-drag-out threads.

This DITD forum seems to have an incredible assortment of backgrounds, and yet we've all found our way here for the common purpose of hoping to better understand the care and feeding of our very own giftie. In the end, I really don't care if I'm getting my advice from a granola-munching, gun-toting druid, or a bible-clenching, tree-hugging redneck -- or any of the numerous variants in between. (FWIW, I've got my Sierra and American Rifleman magazines side-by-side in my bookcase. Oh the horror!) I'm just eternally grateful for Mark's gentle and infrequent wielding of the Moderator's Hammer, which allows for our diverse population to truly get into the proverbial meat (or tofurkey) of things when necessary.

(Frankly, I'm amazed that we haven't had tons more heated conversations given how tightly intertwined education and politics tend to be. I think this demonstrates our ability to self-regulate.)

I think/feel/believe that this wonderful forum -- as it currently exists -- does a great job of self-moderating, and that developing an extensive set of guidelines or rules will just serve to stifle energetic debate. You can't blow your nose at some sites without a dozen self-important, hyper-ventilating dolts citing this & that rule, or dragging in the Moderator Staff for an informal hearing.

In the end, it's probably helpful to have these conversations on occasion, but I definitely vote against any serious effort to extensively codify the behavioral expectations of these forums.

(Uh-oh -- did I just violate the "No Straw Men Rule" that was discussed a few pages ago?)

Peace, Hugs & Keep Yer Powder Dry,

Dandy

Being offended is a natural consequence of leaving the house. - Fran Lebowitz