Can someone please explain to me the logic of entrusting our forum to 'moderators' like Jeri, Joe Offer and kat who quite openly post to say that they do not agree with the basic principle of our forum and who seemingly will not rest until they have turned our forum into the private member's club that they already treat it as?

Could 'moderators' with such views be seen to have any real store in trying to make a such forum work? One that has always been freely open for to the public. Is it any surprise that they constantly talk our forum down and blame everyone except themselves?

As our forum in is current form is not to the liking of these 'moderators' - what has ever been stopping them from forming their own site where thay can exclude who they wish?

Is it not totally dishonest for any 'moderators' with such views to be seen to be carrying on with the pretence of supporting an open forum? Why would they still wish to?

Other than a reluctance to give up what control over other posters that they currently feel they have some qualification for? And in order to continue to impose their judgement on their fellow posters?

It can't be for the common good of our forum as it currently stands? For there is no common interest with those who wish our forum to remain freely open for the public's contributions.

Music posts by Guests to be reviewed
Proposal for members only posting of BS