Great idea. Let's eliminate that whole "attack the post not the poster" part of the guidelines. Surely none of us gets upset when someone is...abrasive (is that what we're calling it?). So obviously, since the sole point of the rule is to make sure people don't get their feelings hurt, there's no point in having the rule. I can't wait for the attacks to start flying. But that's just it. Meph rarely attacks the poster. He might phrase his answer in a condescending fashion, but he's not attacking anyone. What happens, is it appears that posters take the condescention as an attack and react to that. But, I've seen few occasions of Meph actually, directly attacking the poster. Vance.... when you get home from school tomorrow, you can walk in the door and say..... "Jenny, when I'm with you, time seems to stand still.", and you'll probably have a very warm and tender evening. Or, you could say..... "Jenny, you've got a face that could stop a clock.", and you'll sleep on the couch. Are ya getting the idea ?? I fully get that, and yes Meph's post are more the latter than the former, but that still doesn't mean he's attacking the poster. He's just attacking the post in a not so nice tone and manner. Is it semantics? Maybe, but it's enough of a difference that he's not breaking the rules of this forum. If I respond to someone, "That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard," I'm attacking the post. If I say, "You're the dumbest poster I've ever encountered," I'm attacking the post. Some may say the first does the same thing, and certainly it's going to cause a lot of anger on the one whose post it is directed, but it's still an attack on the "idea" or the "post" and not the poster himself.