MissyMa'am, I'd like to thank you for starting this thread.
I agree with you. And in no way did I see you calling for "kid glove" posts, just reminding us all to make the polite choice.
It's not only wording of posts. Sometimes I see posts (and I am not thinking of anyone in particular) that seem to be contrarily misstating others' positions, ignoring qualifiers and explanations. Other times, I see people grabbing on to some theoretical exception to some general rule and insisting that an unlikely but possible circumstance undercuts others' views in favor of their own. And some miss the part about the OP asking how to handle something as nicely as possible, and respond with a "Cut 'em off! You don't need toxic people in your life!" Perhaps the writers of those posts just didn't read carefully, or missed earlier posts. But sometimes I get the feeling that they are sort of spoiling for a fight, and it kind of hijacks the thread for everyone, in addition to being rather mean to the person whose post they are misrepresenting.
But this all sort of begs a meta-question that we deal with a lot, doesn't it? Whether the rules of etiquette define good manners, or whether they are a starting point, potentially modifiable by "local rules" or circumstances, and sometimes insufficient in themselves to be mannerly. Conversely, people disagree whether every violation of an etiquette rule is by definition "rude," whether all violations are equal, or if there are, to use a rough analogy, felonies, misdemeanors, and defenses.
To me, the rules of etiquette are real and important, but they are like the rules of grammar: not inviolable, but you have to know what you are doing before breaking them. I am not of the "Well, it's correct according to etiquette, so if anyone is upset, it's their problem" school of thought.
Including on these boards.
In my opinion, strict adherence to the rules of etiquette does not make for good manners any more than strict adherence to the rules of grammar make for good writing.