I have to agree. I think it was in pretty bad taste but as a friend from Cambodia commented after reading the related threads: at least you can say it and the worse that happens is some people get mad. As he lost family to Pol Pot, I'd sort of expected something more vehement, although he can hold forth at length on the US support for Pol Pot.
I'm not sure how re-naming it changes anything or why this is a "unique case". For me, statements like that wave a red flag and I have to ask: Under what conditions is a little censorship okay? What criteria can be applied? Because its "just a mudcat forum"?
I understand the motivation and a part of me agrees, but I suggest that looking at it a little deeper reveals a (potentially) more serious issue: That of prior restraint. While hardly a landmark first amendment issue, it points out the old truth: no one ever has to argue to have popular speech or ideas protected.. Lets change the name. And the next time it will be a little easier. Starting is always easy. Its stopping that causes problems/
Which wasn't my take on your motivation. It would just seem to be a sort of "collateral damage".
If all 8500+ registered mudcatters voted to change the name, would that make it any more right?
I think the use of Pol Pot's name to make a point was in pretty bad taste. The same can be said for a lot satire. It's supposed to make people feel uncomfortable. This one certainly did.
The solution would seem to be not to read it.