I was being sarcastic. I'm not really offended by avatars. Sorry.
My comment about a blank avatar was to highlight the absurdity of making a rule just because a very few people used others' avatars for editorial purposes.
There is something I learned a long time ago. I got caught in a business discussion involving a customer who had pulled a fast one resulting in no real loss--just some heavy annoyance about the way he treated an employee. Right away, others in the discussion started coming up with "rules" we might implement to prevent a recurrence. I just quietly asked, "Does this sort of thing really happen often enough to need a rule?" Everybody looked at me like I was Yoda or something, promptly agreed that nobody could remember the last time it had occurred, and dropped it. The point being that not every situation needs a rule.
Frankly, I find matt2636 more annoying than a rule which will rarely be enforced.
Rules ≠ laws. Laws (at least under Law Enfarcement) tend to be enforced whether they ought to be or not. Private rules are little more than guidelines, which provide an indication of administrative action should you violate them badly enough. They don't
have to be enforced every time their letter is violated, simply because they exist. This forum is lightly moderated.
Worrying about the
quantity of "rules" is about as obsessive as my buddy who counts the pieces of chicken in his Tikka Masala. Is the Tikka Masala good, and filling? Then it has enough chicken. Can you say what you need to say without being banned? Then the forum doesn't have too many rules.
