I a sorry if dealing with all the different aspects of this issue is confusing - but we are not now permitted to discuss this subject and the double standards involved in the current 'system' of censorship - in more than one thread.

The following is relevant to the issue of our moderators deciding to close a pefectly clearly titled thread with many contributions and containing a good discussion on the thread's title - with the excuse that the thread's originator requested it to be closed.Censorship and attitude rolled into one

If you open that thread - you will see an example of the full incompetence of our current 'system' of censorship - which I suspect is the reason why the origignator's request to close this thread was so eagerly agreed to...Despite the philosphy of threads being a community effort - explained by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, below. What do you think?

It is also relevant to the imposed closure of the new thread started to replace it to enable that discussion to continue. An option that is said to be open to us.... Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO

-----------------------------
PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 26 Mar 05
>snip<

So, Jeff created a utility that allows us to change thread titles, and we use it. With almost 78,000 threads, it's important that thread titles describe the contents of the thread. It's simply a process of indexing Mudcat threads so that it will be easier for people to use them. The philosophy is that the needs of the general community are more important the the wishes of the thread originator - although we do try to take the thread originator's intentions into consideration.

Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort.

This philosphy would appear to depend on how our moderators judge the individual posters concerned and whether they wish our forum to see the contents of the thread or wish to try prevent this by imposed thread closures - despite whatever the threads originator's request may be?

For I made a specific request when originating the replacement thread   Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO   for that thread (and its links) to be allowed to die a natural death and not be closed.