But why not start a thread asking the questions, and put a link to it here, so that people who wanted to deal with the questions could do so there and people who wanted to get back to Barry Finn's thread could do so here?

As there is nothing stoping folk from talking about hampsters in the BS thread you have suggested - there is also nothing stopping folk from discussing Barry's original document posted in this BS thread. Horses, bolting and stable doors kind also come to mind - . I have been asked questions in this thread from folk who do seem to think it OK to post them here - so it would seem to be sensible to answer them here also.

I have had, oh, three or four threads which I launched on this forum censored and removed in the past three years. (and I thought they were entirely harmless threads, and hopefully quite funny, which was how I intended them to be when I posted them). So?

You may well have just gone on to accept that Joe alone was entitled to use his personal value judgement to decide for others – what they may find offensive but are not contributors to this forum adult enough to make that decision for themselves? Especially, as there is now a separate BS section – set aside for such things - where anyone opening these threads will reasonable expect to find BS. If they then complain to Joe and Co that they are offended – why can they not simply inform them not to open the thread?

Every little bit of info adds to the evidence that will be news to many of the people who consider that our forum is something else than what it plainly is becoming and are defending the current system – on that basis. Also evidence to others who may not realise that others are sharing the experience of having their contributions censored and who also may disagree (at the time) with Joe and Co's opinion for taking this action.
Is it really so unreasonable to try and ensure that this censorship action is?
Understood (and hopefully agreed) by all the contributors.
Is limited - to where absolutely necessary.
Remains under tight control to ensure that it is not used as an excuse to shape our forum.

This to prevent others from feeling aggrieved now and in the future and to protect those who would volunteer to undertake this censorship.

Frank posts saying that he likes to think of the forum as democracy. Others don't go that far. Some talk of it being a 'benevolent dictatorship' (I suspect those who have not lived under a dictatorship). What is the other one? Oh yes and this is one Joe Offer has referred to – that of the forum being like 'controlled anarchy'. If you are the one(s) in control - I suppose that one might have a nice ring to it – for it basically means that YOU can do just as you please, with the contributions of others.

However, this is a privately owned website of which this part has been set aside contributions from the public and as been pointed out - our forum is not a state so none of these things – including being a fascist regime – are ever going to be exactly the case.

Sadly an objective view of our forum – especially the 'scapegoating' so graphically demonstrated, encouraged and tolerated in this thread, which shows the very worst aspect of our forum – would be that a review of how censorship should be undertaken – would be timely – if not already too late.

Time to ring some changes?

Requested by Joe Offer!
Written by Richard Thompson
Appears on Small Town Romance (1984)

This old house is a-tumbling down
The walls are gone but the roof is sound
The landlord's deaf, he can never be found
It's time to ring some changes

They'll arrest you son if you just stand still
They'll ask you to pose with your hand in the till
They'll ask you to die when you've written your will
It's time to ring some changes>Snip<