But Shambles...don't you realize that posting reasoned responses to your recapitulative exhortations requires us not only to consider the contextual parameters of the indicated isssue, but also to analyze the temporal framework of the argument so as not to introduce irrelevant personal judgements which have already been judged by the majority of the respondents to not focus on the current situational aspects of all the NON-judgemental impositions which may have been earlier, or at least in different threads, already rendered valueless in the minds of those whose concerns regress to the former devalued impositions of judgement by not only anonymous volunteers, but also, rightfully, by other members (who, posting under their own names, might also BE one of the judgemental volunteers) who decide not to enter the debate without knowing whether the subject at hand has, in fact, been imposed, whether in the thread title or merely during non-judgemental editing which I am led to understand that you also disapprove of in most cases where previous permission has not been sought(from the original poster (or originator of the thread) prior to the perviously mentioned discussion, which, by virtue of its temporal priority, ought to supercede ANY subsequent discussion of judgements, whether anonymously imposed or merely parenthetically referred to , either by you, as 'chief inquisitor' of the investigation, or by newer members of the forum, many of whom have not had the experience of BEING improperly edited or their words censored, and thus who might, perhaps, be reluctant to join the majority whose previous experience has been inevitably affected by repetitious reduncancy relating to the incessant verbosity inundating the very foundations of the entire issues of whether, in consideration of the best interests of our forum, the anonymity of the volunteers (most of whom did not actually volunteer, but were, I am given to understand, recruited,)should be compromised due to the unmitigated Gall of one dissatisfied member who evidently has little other hobbies than to compose interminable and self-referential posts which intrinsically relate to one individual concept of discussion and the overriding value system thought to be, by our moderators, not essential to the more central core of the entire point of having an open forum where dissimilar viewpoints could BE discussed without being left vulnerable to extraneous digressions about imposition of personal taste by those who have no interest in the inveterate balderdash which usually accompanies such digressions and causes many entirely incomprehensible paragraphs to be perpetrated on an umwilling readership anyway?

Wouldn't you agree?