OK Don.

1. Is it your contention that clones, who are members of this community, should be debarred from expressing their opinions on this site for as long as they hold editing authority?

Yes. For their protection and the protection of posters as any imposed censorship action MUST be seen to be objective and apply equally to all posters without any question of personal motivation or bias.

2. By what process of thought do you arrive at the conclusion that knowing exactly which members hold that authority will ensure its more even handed use?

I am not sure that I have ever said it would but as anonymous posting on our forum has always generally been thought (by many posters if not the site's owner) to be problematic and divisive– the concept of posters who can impose their judgement upon their fellow posters is one guaranteed to be thought equally problematic and divisive.

3. Who are the "many" you constantly refer to, who, according to you are concerned about the level of "censorship" on this forum?

I am not too sure if I have ever made such a claim. If I have – I am sure you can provide some evidence of it and if you can – I shall reply to it. There will certainly be more that Bill D's 27+ who will be concerned about all aspects censorship and would wish to be free to discuss it. Possibly the rest of our forum's contributors would qualify?

4. Why do you persist in suggesting that those who disagree with your basic argument should go elsewhere, while claiming that any who suggest the same course to you are guilty of bullying? You seem to be thoroughly dissatisfied with the management of this site, which would seem to be a good reason to do as you suggest to others, and set up your own.

I don't but perhaps I can also ask you a question?

Why do you not also take issue with and ask those posters who have made almost a religion out of telling their fellow posters that if they do not like the way things are – that they can leave? Why not take issue with those who have set this example?

Don - for some time our forum has had a double standard where complaints (often about what their fellow posters contributed) were encouraged – if these complaints coincided with the personal opinions of our editing team. And often they would result in changes to ur forum being imposed. For example with the 100th post claims and more recently with the so-called copycat threads.

However, if these complaints or suggestions were not in line with this thinking – the poster making the suggestion would eventually be advised that they if they could always leave if they did not like the way things were (or rather the way they were being changed to). This mantra would be taken up by usual few supporting posters, who would echo this concept – but often not in such polite words.   

Perhaps it would be better if all complaints about what other posters choose to posts were ignored and all posters encouraged (by example) not to post only to judge the worth of their fellow posters but to concentrate on making their own contributions as positive as possible?

For the situation has now changed and there is no going back from this point. For it is now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team who is publicly complaining and admitting that this current censorship cannot impose upon our forum the peace that they require. And fomally proposing to the site's owner that our forum now be changed from a public forum to suit their requirement for a private members only club (for BS).

If it is now suggested (by me) that it is they and those who wish such a major change - who should leave and form a private members club of their own and finally leave the rest of us in peace from all these imposed changes – is this really such a surprising suggestion under the circumstances?

Does it not seem a very sensible solution for all concerned?