"It occurs to me that beyond civility and intellectual honesty it is
impractical to make rules"
Which means we agree to favour civility and intellectual honesty.
But then, since we do not agree on what these mean, we have to define them.
That's where the rules come in.
Earlier this year I took exception to your choice of words because I found
it (unintentionally) intellectually dishonest. This however is a finding
with which you disagree. Mike took exception to my objection because he
found it uncivil, a finding with which I disagree: clearly, we don't
agree what is intellectually honest, and we don't agree what is civil.
How do we advance beyond this impasse?
The first step is to make it clear that no personal slight is intended, and
apologise for any offense, which you have done and I hope I have done.
The next step is to see if we can define more precisely what is honest and
what is civil, and perhaps also what is not.
What I posted was exactly that: no additional provisions, nothing
impractical: just a working definition.
What's objectionable in that?
Alan