I checked the blog you link to (which I assume to be the real, as opposed to the parodic, thing). Several interesting features. One, the blogger is hot. Two, she claims that she can now support her entire family (albeit in Salt Lake City) on the advertisements she links to on her blog. (RB take note.) Three, while I certainly wouldn't put so many pics of my kid on a blog or identify myself as thoroughly as she does, I wouldn't say the blog is "excrutiating"; merely bland, boring (excrutiatingly so, perhaps).

On the wider point about civility: what's really wrong with an agreed set of rules among the blogging community? Since you yourself exercise the Delete (censorship?) function on occasion, you must believe in a set of rules. Why not create a fraternity of those who so believe (with a little seal of approval to go with it)? If you believe to the contrary, then shouldn't you be arguing for a kind of chaos theory of the internet: the more dis- and mis-information, the better? It is kinda fun, right? Like the parody of that woman's blog?
 

Assuming that an agreed-upon set of rules is even possible, and that there is such a thing as a blogging community, would it even be desirable?

I'm just not convinced.

Also, I refuse to believe that she supports her family through blog advertisements.
 

There is a blogging community as surely as there is a movie industry. Agreeing upon rules would, in any event, create a community (albeit many might choose to remain outside it). And as for desirability, reverse the question: what's so undesirable about the idea? Your prior post basically says you find agreed-upon rules "silly", which isn't really an answer. Why don't you explore this a little further and explain why the internet (and blogging in particular) needs to remain free of such rules in order to be true to its inherent nature? That seems to be what you believe and it would be interesting to learn why.