>Badly -informed attempts to minimise what editing action is actually happening and why, are probably just as - if not even more harmful that any unfounded exagerated claims. But what would be the point of making any claim that you could not support with the evidence? What contention of mine do you doubt and what supporting evidence can you provide that the 'official line' - is what is always and only what is happening?<

Kevin said:
If there was a serious problem here about over-censorship and immoderate moderation, I think I'd definitely have run up against it - and I haven't. I've often looked at the Help forum, and the instances cited

It was exactly because of such ill-informed (if sincere) defensive postings that I have made a point of establishing the firm evidence that will support every claim that I have made here. For if such evidence is not supplied - the defenders (in a usually blind defence) will demand to see it or they will dismiss it as a generalisation. I have requested the evidence from you to support your claim and you have not provided any. But what exactly is your claim? Not that the firm evidence I refer to is not there - for you have already given evidence yourself here of such an instance.....!

Your unsupported claim is simply to minimise all these instances by saying they: don't add up to very much, so far as I can see.
Which to my mind is a bit like ignoring the pain of the individual victim and saying that just a little bit of rape never did anybody any harm, that rape is acceptable if you don't see much of it and shit happens!

Now that is a matter of opinion, to which you are (still just) entitled to express here. However it does not get rid of the firm evidence that I have provided that others can decide their own opinion from. It does seem to me, to be very much out of line with your caring thinking on so many other topics. Your care in this instance would seem only to for those who inflict the injustice that you accept IS happening - rather with the victim. The censor here has a choice as to whether they volunteer to place themselves in the position to be judged or criticised for imposing the censorship based on their judgement. The poster suffering the imposition - has no such choice, they just discover their contribution to have been judged and deleted.

If and when the poster's only offence is only to have the bad luck to have posted a positive contribution to an entire thread that is deleted, along with all its posts, because the volunteer did not judge that it was worth the time and effort to ensure that only the 'offending' posts were deleted - is just this one such example of "over-censorship and immoderate moderation," - just one too many????????

I would rather have many 'offensive' posting remaining on the forum (for ever for me and others to use our oen edit buttons and ignore) than accept that even one contribution invited here by Max, is deleted simply for lack of care.

I suspect that on other issues - you may agree. With all respect Kevin, is it not really up to the poster who has had editing action imposed upon them to decide whether this 'adds up to very much' and not you?

Many of the examples I referred to in the HELP forum (and elsewhere) and have followed up on, start off with a surprised poster asking where their contribution has gone, after having judgement and editing action imposed upon them. To my mind if not yours, these posters wishes do 'add up to very much'. In nearly every case - I have gotten rather tired of keep reading (after the damage has been done) that 'this or that volunteer should not have done this or that'. And that 'the correct procedure should have been this or that'.

We all screw up but we all hope that we learn from this and correct what is causing the screw-up. As I have said, I have given up long ago in expecting our forum to be free of censorship and concentrated on damage limitation, for if it is to be done - this sensitve issue has to be done right, it has to be seen to be done right, to have some clear and consistent aim and to be open to suggestion and review - if it is to be defended in any way.

We do all screw-up. It is as well to first accept that and to find out the true situation before setting out on a defence based mainly on the fact that the cock-ups you are defending were well-intended and caused by good people. I have never doubted this but I wonder why there needs to be all this secrecy.

However, If the postings of equally good people are being lost because volunteers cannot be bothered to sort out the 'offending' posts and continue to delete entire threads - I greatly fear that it won't be long before all the good people join Jerry, Art and the others. And you and I Kevin will be left here trying our best to talk to ourselves - whilst the 'vandals' carry on as before and our postings are deleted by unknown numbers of unknown volunteers, just because we were unlucky to post in the same thread as our 'vandals'.