DeeDee, I could probably sit here for quite some time pointing out differences, but I have to leave for work soon. I'm guessing that you are asking about the speech itself, not so much the context. Some differences that jump out at me:
The other person was engaged in self-promotion in the body of her posts, while the OP was communicating a concept in a pithy way in her signature line. Using the board for self-promotion was seen by me and some others as misuse of the board itself, while communicating an idea, where the idea itself is not offensive, cannot be. I attempted to censor use of the board for self-promotion, which directly offended me and some others; this thread discusses censorship of an idea that didn't actually offend anyone, and which a majority agree shouldn't.
I would like to add that on this board we have a spectrum of ideas about what should be allowed to be discussed here. At one end I would probably place Grinity (as an example, not suggesting that she is alone). I believe that she has a goal of avoiding offense to anyone, and sometimes even avoiding disagreements in discussions, in order to make this as welcoming a place as possible. At the other end are people who err on the side of absolute freedom in speech (I might be seen as an example of this, when I would see myself as someone who is not at the extreme in the context of a discussion board, while still leaning towards free speech, but is perhaps prone to an occasional faux pas).
I'm a person who believes in fairness and rules, but unfortunately, with speech it's hard to draw hard-and-fast rules about what is offensive, so ruling on borderline cases takes judgment. The thing that bothers me about this thread is that, in my opinion, what's happened is that the OP has bowed to pressure to change from one side of the spectrum, even though I really think her statement was quite innocuous.
This sets a bad precedent, in my opinion. This thread is regrettable for multiple reasons: not just that one user morality-policed another, but also the fact that many here then engaged in a thought exercise to search for theoretically offended future people. The whole focus is wrong.
I think that the upcoming rule/guidelines changes will be a great addition to the forum. I also think that everyone's concerns have a place: we need to avoid offense and make this a welcoming place, but we also need to have a reasonable amount of freedom. We need a happy medium so that everyone can use the forum peacefully and productively. In my opinion, this thread isn't close to that happy medium, even though the OP willingly changed her signature after some public pressure. If the climate were a bit different, she would have felt free to leave her signature in place, after double-checking that it wasn't unreasonable.
The rule simply can't be that the soft end of the spectrum (whom I will lovingly call the Softies) can veto the speech of the others (whom I will appeasingly call the Nasties) at will. That means that the Softies can make everyone else into Softies, taking us far away from the happy medium. The Nasties might occasionally say things that make the Softies worry, but the Nasties often say many useful and interesting things in the balance.
I can't speak for Mark or Julie, but I don't think most moderators of discussion boards would have asked the OP to change her signature line. Maybe at mothering.com, but probably not even there.
