OK, so maybe anger was part of the reason why I moved those Spam messages to the top of this thread. Shambles doubted the existence of the Spam that was the reason for the closure of the previous thread, so I moved those messages here as proof. And yes, I was angry. I think I had a right to be. Nobody likes to be called a liar.

If you volunteer to work in the kitchen - the fact that you may get hot and bothered does not entitle anyone to throw pots and pans at the customers.

Some tasks in life are truly thankless and if you really expect universal thanks for undertaking them - perhaps you are being unrealistic?

No one is forcing anyone to work in the kitchen and if they feel their best efforts are not appreciated - perhaps after all this time it is time to come out of the kitchen?   

Especially as it has already been admitted that these best efforts are ineffective.

As for me calling any poster any names - the record will show that unlike the example set by some of our 'moderators' - I do not post such things (for my detractors could be relied on and would have provided evidence for this).

And the record will also show that I will stick to the discussion and do not respond to provocation or respond in kind to the names that I am called by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, some of the 'moderators and the certain favoured posters.

Those noisy few who unlike me - are not only seen to be free from any posting restrictions if they do post such things - but who are now actively encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, to set the example of posting only such things to our forum.

All the evidence is here - posters can judge for themselves if the assurances given to our forum by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are in fact seen to be honoured.

Or if any apolgy is issued to our forum when an assurance is seen not to be honoured.

The point about any of the 'silent deletion's of posters contributions - be they posts that meet the ever-increasing critria you assure our forum that they must - or when entire threads are deleted when they are seen not to meet the required criteria - is that our forum does not know what the true nature and current level of this 'silent deletion' is - but are expected to support it.

If anyone has any blank cheques like this - they can send them to me.

If all such actions were recorded by editing comments and all editing comments were limited to where action by our 'moderators' had actually been judged necessary - poster to our forum would be able to judge if these actions - imposed on their behalf, in their name and in order to protect them - were proportionate.

Currently our forum is expected to take this on trust - from fellow posters/'moderators' who do not trust our forum enough to operate under their names. I suggest this is too much to reasonably expect.

Perhaps if our 'moderators' were to be seen to operate more fairly, openly, and consistently, to honour all assurances given to our forum and to show more trust and respect for poster's invited contributions - they may then reasonably expect to be trusted more and to shown more respect in return?