What is preventing me? A debate has two sides, a debate has a topic. I asked you for a topic, you said it was up to me, I gave you a topic and you responded with many opinions but none that were specific to the topic I chose. Frank

OK, you said that I could pick the topic. I picked the renaming of the PEL threads. Frank

I offered a debate. You said that I could pick the topic. I did. the topic was "The Closing of the PEL threads". Frank

As none of the PEL threads were either renamed or closed (when current anyway) - I have pointed out that there was really little mileage in debating any of those topics. And you had already made the judgement that I read the post from Joe that you included in your last post and the reasoning behind the renaming of those threads is very understandable to me.

Are you saying that you think it not only understandable but acceptable on our forum - for anonymous fellow posters to impose judgement and editing action - based not on what is being said but only on their many listed assumptions about what a fellow poster's possible motivation for their postings may be? When it has already been agreed that the PEL issue was a perfectly valid one for our forum.

Would you still consider it understandable and aceptable when these assumptions were wrong?

And would you consider that after four years these groundless assumptions should still be motivating the selective editing actions still being imposed upon this poster's contributions? Not to mention the continuing personal abuse and name-calling from our volunteer fellow posters - which I suspect you would also consider to be understandable? When Max has stated that he see his role only to facilitate?