I think, Jeri, that you may be confused. As far as I know, Mudcat has never had a policy of prohibiting provocative statements. We do, however, attempt to prohibit or at least control combative conduct. There is no doubt in my mind that robomatic and akenation and a few others who express the right-wing perspective, post statements that are frequently and intentionally provocative. And predictably, we have a few from the dominant liberal perspective who respond like an anthill underfoot. Their indignation would almost be precious, if it were not so predictable.
If they wished, the liberals could use the provocation to respond in a rational and informative manner. Jim Carroll responded just now with a link that was very informative: http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/research/canadaBlanch/pdf/press2012/16Apr12WalesArtsReview.pdf. Others responded with their usual tizzy of indignation.
If we suppressed the conservative provocateurs to satisfy the indignant majority, then the liberals could sit around smugly and admire each other for a while. And within a short time, they'd get bored and infighting would begin, and combat here at Mudcat would be worse than it is now.
So, yeah, I usually find the provocative statements of the conservatives to be disagreeable - but they are very rarely combative. With the way certain liberal Mudcatters get in a tizzy about things, that conservatives have no need to be combative.
Put the blame on those who do combat, Jeri; not on those who simply express disagreeable ideas. The liberals need to learn how to respond with logic and information, not with a frenzy of indignation. The conservatives serve the function of provoking discussion. I don't see that as something that should be suppressed.
-Joe Offer-