I wasn't saying that no one ever agreed with you, I was saying that no one has come to your defense that the clones are making personal judgements about you by making these changes.

Again - what you are saying is not factually correct. And as I have said, Bert has long been trusted by Max to have an edit button and unlike some of his fellow volunteer posters - sees no reason to undertake his role anonymously.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert - PM
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 10:37 PM

I have to agree with Shambles on this. If someone originates a thread what right does someone else have to change the title?

Unless the thread is offensive then it should stay as it is. So if YOU have the ability to edit threads then keep your bloody maulers off unless the thread is a personal attack, a threat, or is offensive.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert - PM
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:04 PM

Oooh wow. There's a lot going on here.

First Shambles and Katlaughing and Wolfgang and just about everybody posting here. No not just about - EVERY SINGLE PERSON posting here, I consider to be a dear friend. So my opinion is based on the issue involved and is not personal in any way.

The issue is that Shambles has been targetted for editing by one particular elf.

So if that particular elf would BACK OFF AND LEAVE HIM ALONE then the problem will go away.

I will also state that I consider the elf in question to be a dear friend. So it is not a personal thing. Now Elf in question just take it easy and let Shambles and all the rest of us have their say without interference - PLEASE


Frank - Would you aree that most posters would consider that being called name like 'idiot' by the Chief of The Mudcat Editing Staff would constitute a "personal judgement".

In the light of this - and the many other assumptions and public speculations made by our volunteer fellow posters - about the possible motivations behind a fellow poster's contributions - how can any poster to our forum really be expected to accept that any selective changes imposed upon my contributions were not personally motivated?

Would you agree that over the assumptions contained in the justifications over the PEL threads alone - that there would at least be some doubt that these subsequent and selective imposed editing actions were as free from personal judgement?

My view has always been that any imposed editing is censorship and that any censorship is a serious matter. There should NEVER be any question that any censorship is free of any personal motivation on the part of the censor.

The current situation where a fellow poster can express their personal preference on the forum - as is their right - but then (in some cases anonymously) insult and impose this preference upon their fellow posters - is one that is open to abuse.

Just as importantly - the secrecy and division involved make it impossible to honestly defend from any accusation or suspicion of abuse.

Would you agree that to enable it to be honestly defended - that any imposed censorship needs to be seen to be open, fair and to have a clear objective?