But even if I were not a nice person - perhaps I would still have certain rights?

What is expected is that all aspects of this issue can be seen to be freely discussed.

Like all posters - if Max wishes to join the discussion - perhaps he has that right and if he does not wish to join the discussion no one is forcing him or anyone else to join in.

No one is being forced to even open these threads - especially those who post and refresh them only to pass personal judgements of the participants. But a few favoured posters are now openly encouraged by our 'moderators' to feel they have some right to try and prevent, certain discussions from being freely conducted.

Perhaps if our 'moderators' did not feel they had some right to make public any criticism, and speculation about the possible motives individual named posters and reveal to our forum assumptions and details about them which perhaps they should not reveal in public - calls for what are described by our 'moderators' as 'complaints' to be taken up privately would have more credibilty?

Complaints from posters about what other posters choose to post - in order that action is imposed upon them - are now encouraged on our forum and Snitchers Corner (The Mudcat help and Trouble Forum only seems to cater for such complaints.

But anything that may even look like a complaint about the posts of ours that our 'moderators' choose to 'silently delete' are viewed by our 'moderators' and their few vocal supporters as unacceptable.

As it is - such things simply demonstrate the double standards that our forum is now expected to unquestionably accept (and many posters appear to be prepared to).

For there are no calls for compliments about the conduct of our 'moderators' to be made privately or to be restricted to only one thread - are there?

Until there are - I will continue to try to discuss issues that are of concern to all posters - in public on our forum.