John,

Just to throw a little wood on the fire... *g*

If you use the rule, "someone might be offended or insulted", then I can bring to the table the notion that I am offended by people who do NOT bring God into their discussions. I could find it offensive that someone speaks and writes English rather than French, Spanish or German. I can say I'm offended that someone here might use VB rather than VFP (*gr&rvvf* from JVP!) ad nauseum.

The problem is that the standard is too fluid when based upon someone else becoming offended by what someone else writes. Where's the personal responsibility?

I agree that it's often hard to have exact rules for all the kinds of situations that could possibly arise. I'd also suggest than ANY RULE is always going to have to be implemented AFTER THE ALLEGED OFFENSE. These kinds of rules are always this way.

Seems to me that what you need is an assertion of PRINCIPLES that all can agree to. That is, with the permission of Michel, who afterall has the ABSOLUTE right to install any rules he choose, as this is his place afterall. *g*

My suggestion would be to treat others as you would like to be treated but since that rule has an obvious religious source I guess we can't use that one, can we? *bg* Let's just toss that one out since a lot of people are offended by it and it would be an OBVIOUS attempt to FORCE one view on another... *g*

Buddha said, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you," whereas Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

IOW, the problem John is that someone has to take a stand. Having said that I'd think that it should be more defensible than, "because." *g*

Best,

DD

>You are right about frequent violations to a strict interpretations of the rules. I am one of the violators of the "no joke" rule on a frequent basis. But there is a difference here and I'll attempt to explain that.
>
>First off, Jim's "water-cooler" analogy has been bugging me but I couldn't pinpoint why until now. Where it falls short is that BSing around a water-cooler is generally done when you know everybody there or at least have some idea that what you are saying is not going to insult anyone. Most people don't discuss strong, personal, and controversial ethical issues at the water-cooler.
>
>In this case, we have a news item that suddenly starts to look like it's going to be a springboard into a discussion on religion and prayer in school, not to mention gun control. These are areas where a profound difference in opinions is likely. There was already one response to the thread calling it inappropriate.
>
>So I froze the thread and I stick by that decision. It is the first thread I have ever even considered freezing.
>
>If Michel or any of the other sysops disagrees with that decision it will be (I'm sure) unfrozen. If a majority of the other sysops or Michel strongly believe that I made the wrong call, I will be glad to resign my sysop status.