Well said Doug.

Speaking of Attitude, let me post an interesting line of the poem: "OUR ATTITUDE" of J.Maxwell
...
Too often, we try to choose and control the things we cannot.

Too seldom, we choose to control what we can… Our Attitude…

…our Attitude determines our Altitude.

>Good Morning Nancy,
>
>Well, look, let me try and be more concise (I do tend to wander *g*) in what I'm saying...
>
>If one takes the approach I see you taking. That is, "Where exactly is the line?" kind of thinking, then I'm led to believe you want to cross that line and what you're trying to do is get as close to the edge as possble. Perhaps not.
>
>But in trying to define that line you have already agreed with John that it's essentially impossible. The answer is not to discard all standards though and that's the intellectual/moral mistake I see people making.
>
>If, on the other hand, one takes the attitude/approach, "What is the best way to communicte with someone else?" then it seems to me that one would not be concerned about where that "edge" would be but rather how they could help others instead of constantly picking them apart because the other person somehow violated some artificial rule.
>
>Rules don't help. Desire and attitude do.
>
>You should WANT to stop at that stop sign. If you do not WANT to stop you will run it. Attitude is "larger" than rules.
>
>Rules are for rule breakers.
>
>>I'm asking for a clarification of some rules that are, even John admits, difficult to pin down. You have told me what you thinkproper behavior is, and why it is necessary, but that is not my point. I have not said whether I think it is _right_ for someone to say one word, but not another. I will leave that up to them to decide.
>
>I'm sorry. I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
>
>No, that is exactly the point. You just want someone else to define them for you rather than defining them for yourself. That way it's easier to blame others rather than take personal responsibility. What I am stating is that unless and until you define them for yourself you are stuck in this position. The ONLY way out is for you to take a personal moral stand. You've already admitted that you cannot do this or that you are unwilling to do this. Why do you then expect others to do something in a fashion you've already admitted is impossible? Do you see the double standard here?
>
>You are asking that John et al take a moral stand and to have the right to ask that of them you must be first willing to take a moral stand. You cannot criticize/question others for something you do not have the moral courage to do. My point was about attitude, not rules. From my perspective, anyone who is that concerned about rules should FIRST place their position on the table rather than expecting others to do that and then questioning what they put out. That's very unfair.
>
>What are YOUR rules? YOU go first. If you cannot define them then why are you holding others to a higher standard than you admit you cannot attain?
>
>My solution is based on attitide not some set of artificial rules. That gives everyone PLENTY of room to goof up and to make mistakes and to learn and grow and to be a part of the community rather than feeling like they are somehow inferior to those setting some artificial set of standards.
>
>It's REAL SIMPLE: Treat others the way you want to be treated.
>
>Now, will I fail? Yes, at times MISERABLY. <g> But, the standards hold because they are not based on my keeping them or anyone else keeping them. That gives us room to be forgiving and understanding rather than shrill and brittle. It gives room for growth and doesn't subkect anyone to constantly being criticized.
>
>It takes away the power of those who only care to break the rules and focuses on what really matters: attitude.
>
>>
>>And, yes, people do, in my world, have a right to be rude. I have a right to not listen, ignore, or whatever. What someone says can't hurt me unless I choose to be offended.
>>
>>Frankly, the people who most affect me, who most make me want to be civil are those who just _are_. There are a few of them here.
>
>Well, my response to this is that the whole of the community is based upon the notion of trust. Trust from you that the sysops are going to do their jobs for example. But if one is constantly criticizing them because they've either gone too far or not far enough then I'd want to know why you think you're better than they are? What gives you the right to criticize if not presumed moral authority? Or me for that matter? If you claim the right to criticize the judgement of others you have also claimed moral superiority for yourself, and yet how many people who do this are the first to accuse others that they are doing just that? I do think that in taking the responsibility and initiative and treating others as I'd like to be treated IS morally superior to the position of constantly tearing others down by virtue of constantly questioning them. There's no doubt in my mind. Am I then somehow "better" by taking this position? Nahh.. but the position I take is better and by taking that
>position I help build the community rather than tearing it down.
>
>Sure, people can choose to be as rude as they wish but I think to myself; Why in the world would someone want to live that way? That's really stupid and self defeating.
>
>Why can't you and I just accept the notion that others, very much like ourselves, are fallable human beings and cut them a little slack? It has been admitted that these are hard to quantify but the simple answer to that is that we are more than rules,we're moral creatures and external sets of rules will never be able to replace an internal set of principles.
>
>Ok, so I wasn't too concise... *g*
>
>Still, for me the very simple answer is that attitude is the answer and rules, no matter how many you have, will never cover up a garbage attitude. People who think with bad attitudes will push the boundaries of any rules that are set no matter how generous. The answer is attitude not rules.
>
>Best,
>
>DD