Quote from the original 'cut and paste' post, that started these two threads.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

There is not an obsession with 'national security' on our forum but from the measures and justifications, it sometimes appears as if it were thought by some to be of a similar level of importance. I am also sure that there is no intention of oppressing anyone, but there would appear to be an obsessional need for our forum's ruling elite, (not the site owner) to judge and find reasons to delete the contributions of some other posters and of always justifying this action. Instead of simply ignoring the offending posts and allowing us to decide their worth.

The general treatment of any poster who questions the need for these (secret) activities and double standards, also looks at times as if these contributors are seen as treasonous, just by expressing a view that may be different to the accepted one, when expressing views is pretty much the whole point of our forum.

There was no issue of national security in the 'cut and paste' about the school poets but again the 'rules' are invoked there to protect the public, as if there were. I think that most of us would agree that whatever action to limit our freedom of speech, is thought necessary by our guardians to protect us, should be proportionate and consistent. I feel that it would also help and not be so divisive, if it were as open as possible and not clothed in unnecessary secrecy.

However, I do find it strange that folk who have stated their reasons here in the past, (at length) for 'guests' to use a name, (just to post) do not appear to have a problem with an unnamed 'guest' who deletes the posts of others, and then posts to justify this and still remains unknown. Given the amount of discussion on the subject of 'guest' simply posting, I am amazed that unknown 'guests' who are empowered to delete posts and threads, is just accepted without question or comment......

I strongly feel if we are to discuss general attempts to limit freedom of speech on our forum, we accept that putting-up with and even justifying this type of practice here that is counter-productive and out of all proportion to the size and nature of the original problem. After all, this is part of the Mudcat set aside for all of OUR contributions. Some tidying may need to be done (usually at the request of the poster) but I can't see any need for many of the actions, and attitudes expressed by those who feel they are in position to judge the worth of our contributions.

Yes we do indeed all have responsibilities, to go along with our rights. And that includes those who would judge us but appear to think that they do not have any responsibility to us or that they should not have to answer to us. This on the part of the Mudcat set aside for our contributions.