The difference, I think, is in the tone or inflections buried in the response. And although we THINK we are invisible behind the cyber-wall, in fact, we aren't. We communicate almost daily, more than some of us communicate with our spouses or kids, and the more we do, the better we are able to read these tiny inflections. Truth is, we know each other better than we think (and probably more than we should). These 'cyber-relationships' are very similar to normal relationships, in that we seek out as friends those with whom we share similar values, similar interests, similar tastes, and similar intellects. Within every cyber-community such as Synthzone, there is an 'eHarmony' at work. There are some that see any hint of disharmony as a threat to the commune and want it immediately squelched. Others see this as a normal part of large group dynamics and, in fact, how many perfectly harmonious REAL families do we know? I think Nigel has an uncanny sense of what is and is not out-of-bounds and 'governs' accordingly.

This has gotten a little off track but I basically agree with MAC that we are sometimes a little too quick on the trigger when defining that transition from 'discussion' to 'argument'. On inner-city basketball courts, the common response to a claim of being fouled, is "I don't see no blood".

chas