OK, Sham, I yield. I am all for freedom of speech. It has to be regulated in extreme cases, and this whole discussion has been had several times before so let us not repeat it. 'Kay??

Amos you were the one that stated Speech is free unless it's critical.

I will just remind you that it was you revived this thread with a (strictly forbidden) cut and paste job. The subject of this was important to you and you felt that it was relevant to this thread. I have no problem with any of that at all.

However, had I done the same thing or someone else had done this and the post was thought to be critical of the Mudcat in some way, I suspect that the outcome would have been somewhat different. The least that would have happened is that this posting would have been accused by some of single-handedly hi-jacking the thread or being off-topic...And you Amos, would have come out with all of your usual justifications and excuses, (as you have) no matter how hypocritical these may read after your cut and paste contribution and comments.

At the worst, some unknown 'Guest' volunteer, may have just decided to delete the post...And this action would be defended as just following the 'rules', by many who, I suggest should really know better and recognise when things have become, too late......

However, one contribution from me in this thread, after that point on the matter of freedom of speech (that is thought to be critical of The Mudcat) is thought to be off-topic. This observation, made in a post from that contributed nothing else to the debate. This is the second thread with this (form) of title and this happened because I made some contributions to the original one that I thought relevant then and I think relevant now. My view of this is that folk are free to agree or disagree with my contribution, or they can just ignore it.

What actually happened was a hysterical reaction and some ridiculous claims that my contributions (possibly critical of the Mudcat) alone had hi-jacked the thread! If such a thing (whatever it means) were possible. That is why this second thread was started, quite needlessly.

My view is a simple one. It is that all abuses of human freedoms, start (and end) with you and I. It is comfortable for us to only blame Governments, institutions and each other, but the buck stops with us as individuals and what restrictions on those freedoms, that we are prepared to find (so-called good)reasons to excuse in our daily lives. I think many would agree, that if we do not wish to appear as hypocritical (and worse), we do need to be careful and consistent, in what restrictions of freedom, we choose to attack and what ones we choose defend - and why?