>Isn't dripping sarcasm just another form of flame?

No, I don't believe that my post said anything that was insutling or of an attacking nature to anyone. Attacking ideas is OK and attacking people is not.

>I would agree that the title of guidelines rather than rules would probably be better phrasing,
>
>That'd be a nice start, sure. It's just semantics, though.

I don't know if ti is just semantics. I t seems that if it were title guidelines there would ahve been less reaction, I do reserve the right to be wrong though.

>Nancy already provided the template. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody." Period. Let the market decide whether you use rational judgement or not. That shouldn't be so scary, should it?

You and Nancy may be right, however after careful consideration the "rules" were released as stated and we now have to let them go and see how things fall out. If they fail to work they will be reviewed.