As instructed, this post will attack messages. I find the wording rather harsh, since I choose NOT to attack anything, and prefer to engage in healthy debate with qualified equals, but in order to walk the fine line laid out by our esteemed moderator, I will follow the prescribed terms of behavior. (1)The message of censorship: The fundamental problem with censorship is that the censor is reading the material through his/her own eyes, and interpreting it through his/her own viewpoint. Often, when the censor reads something that evokes a personal emotion it is implied that the emotion is universally felt, and that it was the intent of the writer to evoke that emotion. Each of us filters the world around us through the context of our own personal lives, and cannot experience it exactly like anyone else. Sometimes that results in a reader feeling offended. To censor the offending writing based on the filter through which just one reader views it does one of two things. It either results in only the most vanilla of writings to exist- those that no one reader has an emotional reaction to. Or, if the censors are a small group versus the entire reading audience, it skews the published material toward the opinion of the censor(s). I attack the message of censorship because I believe that in order to develop a more robust world view, the reader is best served by reading a variety of opinions and perspectives, filtering them personally and responding to the content. If the reader is offended, I feel the reader has the right and perhaps obligation to point out the offending material, and the writer can then expand their understanding of how the written work is understood, beyond their own small realm. All involved benefit. For example: if, in response to a writer's statement, the respondent wrote, "I find it hard to believe that educated people even ask this question" or "for shame that someone your age doesn't act with human decency" both of those statements imply a negative judgement about the original writer. Should those writings be censored, or should the original writer respond by stating that the phrases are offensive? In censoring it, no one is educated by the realization that such statements are offensive to the OP. While it would be a violation of Knot rules to copy and post an actual posting, please know that these are paraphrased from responses given on the knot by an unnamed moderator within the last 60 days.(2) The message that grammar and spelling do not matter: In a setting where the essential function is to communicate via the written word, promoting that it is not better to utilize the rules of the language we are writing/reading is counterproductive. When the writer abandons grammar, syntax and spelling, the comprehension of what is written is far more likely to be incorrect and misunderstood. Having said that, it is certainly understood that writers who speak (and probably think) in primarily another language will struggle with using the English language proficiently. Other than getting directions to the bathroom or a beer- I would be completely unable to communicate in any other language. In addition, there are many native English speakers for whom the rules of grammar and spelling were not learned, for any variety of reasons, some of them inherent in the individual, others through no fault of their own. I attack the message because I think that the writer without the grammar and spelling necessary (not perfect, by the way) to convey their message will be misunderstood-- and that acknowledging the challenge of reading such writing is valid. On the other hand, stating that you "hate anybody" who does not follow a rule is rather extreme. (3) The message that rules can be applied arbitrarily: I believe in equity and parity. The range of responses varies widely on the boards, and even the advice to new members encourages posters to start on certain places, such as month boards and local boards before advancing to national boards, where the responses may be less gentle. If the Knot ackowledges that up front, then it must accept it as well. Second Weddings is a national board. It is obviously not Snarky Brides or one of the other well known challenging boards. It is also not a local or club board. If other national boards are not moderated with the level of rigidity that this one is, then it is neither equitable nor fair. I also attack the message of lack of parity when the one applying the rules fails to follow them as well. (4) I attack the message that lying is to be accepted and not challenged: Just as a completely made up example- If I tell you that I live in a 32 bedroom castle on a 4000 acre estate on the ocean, would you not find that a bit far-fetched? And if you suggest that you would like proof of that fairy tale, perhaps a picture, should your request be considered "luring" me out for ridicule? This is the internet, and anyone can write anything they want. I would expect that seeking to validate a hard to believe claim would be par for the course. (5) I attack the message that a resume is needed to post on the boards: Published or not, certified or certifiable, employed or not, moderator or mere lowly poster - I value the opportunity to interact with a variety of writers. I don't believe that any one has more right to participate than any other. Some I will enjoy, some I will ignore, some I will challenge, and some will elicit profound emotional responses from me. WHO anyone is really doesn't matter. ~Donna