assuming for a moment that you are right about the "shaping of the forum" by some members, what would the motive be for such an action? Because without a motive, the rest of the conspiracy theory falls apart. So - who benefits?

It is you who has introduced the word 'conspiracy' - I make no such claim. If they were such a thing - you would probably be right in suggesting there would need to be some motive (other than just control for the sake of control). This fairly recent 'take-over' of our forum - is not a conspiracy - it is a cock-up - as I have clearly evidenced.

Volunteers are still deleting the same things they shouldn't be doing and without Joe's knowledge - as they were in 1998. And exactly the same excuses for it are given (by Joe) - instead of ensuring that they are not repeated. But still the 'spin' than many still blindly accept - goes on. So does the abuse of anyone who tries to point and evidence the reality, holds a different view or suggests even the slightest change.

It is a fact that the shaping of our forum by imposed closures, deletions and general tinkering with things that are no one's business but the original poster's - now goes on under the cover of censorship. I don't think or suggest that this cover is intentional but this censorship is supposed to protect us from abusive personal attacks but it clearly does not. Possibly because our volunteers are too busy eleswhere tinkering and nit-picking with 'small-beer' that are really none of their business - like deleting Flamenco Ted's 100th post clams (because some people are said to find these posts obnoxious).

As for the amusement of some members: I think it's down to the fact that they believe such an exercise to be both unnecessary and nit-picking (in the context of there being so many more important thread subjects in this forum). That's all, nothing more sinister than that.

Again, I did not suggest that there was anything sinister in this. But if the idea of all this censorship and secrecy is to prevent abusive personal attacks - it is counter-productive for known volunteers in responsible positions - like Mick to set the example of encouraging posters like John in Hull - to think that abusive personal attacks in posts like - 'Shambles why don't you F*** ***' - are in any way witty or entertaining.