If there is not - what harm can there be in being see to operate openly? This is after all a forum on a website - not the FBI.

You may not think this when our 'moderators' refer to them being under attack and use terms like hijacking..............


News From Max on Nov-17-2006

The Mudcat is under attack. We blocked the spammers last week from posting, so now those same people are hammering the site until the web server crashes, over and over again. We're working on a technical way to defend ourselves. Stay patient

Perhaps it would be a better example to set if the impression was not given of our forum as being in constant state of warfare and individual posters were not seen to be singled out for public censure by our 'moderators' in this conflict?

And who are seen to openly encourage from certain favoured posters - the sort of posting of foul personal abuse that our forum is assured by our 'moderators' that they are there (some of them anonymously) to protect all posters from?

Reasonably worded and sensible suggestions do not become 'attacks' or 'hijacking' simply because our 'modertors' may not agree with them.

And they do not become this - and at the same time - an excuse to publicly abuse and bully posters - when they are ignored and may have be repeated to enable our forum to discuss them.