The only restriction on this poster is one he richly deserves. It applies to his constant attack of the moderating of this forum.

The so-called 'moderating' on our forum is not being 'attacked' by me or anyone. The attempt is only to enable open discussion on this issue (and others) without 'silent deletion', imposed thread closures and other selective restrictions.

If these selective restrictions are so richly deserved - why is any poster who constantly posts to defend the so-called 'moderation' on our forum is allowed (by our 'moderators') to post this uninformed judgement of support in as many threads and as many times as they wish. Often accompanied with abusive personal attacks and name-calling - following the example set by (some of) our 'moderators'.

But this 'moderation' does not need to be 'attacked'. For the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly announced the failure of these measures to impose on our forum the peace he requires. So why are these failed and counter-productive measures defended as if they were in any way effective - when their chief architect has now publicly admitted their failure?

Proposal for members only posting of BS

Would should now be openly encouraged to be discussed on our forum (and not restricted) are suggestions as to how the peace that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Mudcat Editing Team's measure have failed to impose - can be enabled.   

THE POINT OF THIS WEB SITE IS HAPPINESS