On the internet privately held forums such as this one have all the appearance of a public forum but they all have limitations which are enumerated by the ones footing the bill. And ultimately it is THEIR right to limit as they see fit. If one does not agree with this, why become a member or even a "GUEST" participant? I am very impressed with the wide latitude within which this forum operates. If someone has nothing but negative and abusive things to say or do in that or to that forum, I suggest they go start their own show and find out how really tolerant they are.

This is a very good argument for having an open and fair system and one that was in place and understood from the start.

It is not perhaps a good argument to use in support of a failed, unrealistic 'system' and one where posters are expected to be seen to publicy take sides, everytime a new restriction is imposed on them by some of their fellow members?

And where any poster who is foolish enough to be prepared to publicly voice their disagreement - is then subjected to witch-hunts, public judgement of their worth and personal abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure that very few would argue that those fitting the bill should have the rights you state.

But some who are not fitting the bill and who take their rights for granted would appear to argue that they now have the right to selectively deny some of their fellow posters any rights at all.

Even to the extent of denying posters the very basic right to know if their post has been deleted.

This 'silent deletion' may be a proportiate response on very rare occasions but is not I would suggest propotionate as the first and only response to used and defended on all occasions.

And if it had always been judged so - I and many other posters would not have joined our forum and supported it for so long on such a basis.