naawww, Roger, I am overlooking nothing...your views ARE posted openly. I understand that you have certain restrictions... You are just restricted from starting multiple threads to do so, or injecting your views on this issue into threads of others.

I used to have a 'moderate' personal campaign against over-broad definitions of 'folk', too....but I have not spent years insisting that people use the language only in ways I approve of.....If I had, and if I set about that campaign with the single-minded fervor you employ, I would not be surprised to my posts on it restricted to one thread.

"You should perhaps be asking our 'moderators' that question."...nope- our moderators seem to have already determined that both you & catspaw may post their views. The logical conflict is in YOUR reasoning where you ask for freedom for everyone...then suggest that catspaw should refrain...or be prevented....from posting his. (It's not quite clear which)

For the 417th time...the operative rule is: Max has a group of moderators, with a couple of overseers, to help keep the joint running, and they have certain guidelines.....one of which is to control & restrict problem postings....spam is one, porn is one- but you are another. It makes no difference if you disagree with the rules or the minutiae of enforcement policies....just as it makes no difference whether *I* want a narrower definition of 'folk'. I state my opinion now then, and it's tolerated BECAUSE it's "now & then"..

"go thou and do likewise"