Thanks for your considered reply, though. I must admit, I found it much easier to understand than some of your more convoluted ones.

Thanks too for your reasoned contribution to the debate. Time I think for a more convoluted one.

The Mudcat Forum has become many things to many people. Its strength is when it freely encourages and equally reflects all of its input.

Its weakness is that rather than accepting all these different aspects as equally valid – values judgements are now being made about which aspect are more important than others. Fellow posters are making these value judgements and not the site's owner Max - and these judgements (over seemingly every aspect) appear to be ever increasing. To the extent that it getting to appear that contributors now first requires the permission of these fellow posters.- and must only now submit any contribution in the manner and form that meets the approval of these fellow posters – or be subject to routine imposition by them (even when undertaken anonymously). This is not the welcoming view to all contributors that was once thought to be traditional on our friendly forum.

My reading of Max's words here over many years is that he sees his role on the forum as to facilitate – to provide what the forum wishes and not to judge these wishes. His own wish would probably still be to get rid of all these troublesome folkies and concentrate on blues. However he can always tell us – if this view is wrong or has changed…..I see that the role of these fellow posters should be to follow Max's lead and to facilitate – not to impose their personal judgements upon the rest of us..

When these fellow posters see their role as judges make these attempts to shape our forum by their value judgements – Max is placed in a difficult position – as he may think this IS NOW the popular view. I don't think that it is the popular view but any other view does tend to be shouted down or ignored. Possibly more on a matter of personalities than by taking a serious overview of where support for this general approach is leading. The taking of sides – is usually what happens. This is not helpful and demonstrates the deep divisions that are caused by the shaping of our forum on the judgements of only a few fellow posters. To be seen to be giving the views of these fellow posters support – could be thought a way to ensure that any imposition would always be made upon the contributions of others……..?

The traditional ethos of our forum that - all animals are equal is compromised by the fairly recent introduction of – some animals are more equal than others. In a purely practical sense – peace is never likely to break-out with such an ethos and our forum will just get more and more divided - if the view of those who consider themselves to be more equal – is the only view now thought to be a valid one.

The single largest value judgement by these fellow posters – made needlessly in my opinion – is that our forum is primarily some kind of research tool – and that all the other aspect of our forum are secondary, subservient and expendable to this aspect. The idea that valuable information contributed should be as easily assessable to any reader is sensible. But a further value judgement has been made – again by fellow posters that the rights of our forum's readers – are secondary to the right of its contributors to say what they wish in their own words. That changes to the words of contributors will now be routinely imposed upon them – without the contributor's knowledge or permission – for the purposes of (manual) 'indexing'.

As our forum's readers and writers are one and the same – it would not seem sensible to me - to place the requirements one over the other. But that is what is now argued by these fellow posters. My view is that if these fellow posters manage (by this routine imposition) to inhibit contributors (in any way) there is nothing (new) going to be contributed - for anyone to later read.

This brings us to the seeming need for these fellow poster to be feel qualified to judge when a thread title is wanting and for these fellow posters to impose any change upon this – without making any attempt to first obtain the originator's permission. And to their justification – that is seemingly supported by some other posters – that to always make the attempt to first contact the originator – is too 'cumbersome'.

Do you consider that this attempt to always show the correct respect to invited contributions – is ever too 'cumbersome'? If the attempt to first contact the originator is thought to be too 'cumbersome' and to inconvenience these fellow posters – perhaps you may also consider that he proposed change is not really important enough to take the risk of imposing? Every action has a reaction to it. The reaction to needless judgement and routine imposition - is unpredictable on our forum – but there will be one. If this reaction can be avoided – it is probably wise for all concerned - that it is.