I just hold and express my view. A view that I always had thought was shared by most of my fellow posters. Shooting me down now will not change our forum to the place that I and many others felt welcomed to when we first contributed many years ago and the fine example that was then given by Max (and indeed Joe Offer).

This warm unconditional welcome that now seems only open to folk like Catspaw and others, who are permitted to completely ignore the Official Line and are excused from the punishment automatically meeted out to unlucky others for making offensive and abusive personal attacks - for the most ingenious of reasons [see above].

Folk like me, who ask perfectly valid questions are subject to offensive personal abuse from volunteers like Joe, who seem to think that being questioned is the same as being attacked and that this then entitles them to personally attack in response using offensive langauge, that was not first presented to them.

The result of this weak attempt to impose this double standard, is to totally descredit this fine forum. And these very people post to invite me to stop contributing and to go somwhere I like better?

At the moment a lot of people (including Joe Offer) are constantly setting the example of moaning about the worth their fellow contributors and the merits of this or that thread. Others are still encouraged to complain constantly about whether others should use a name or not etc. Pedant's complaints are now almost always listened to and our forum shaped to accomodate this moaning. Posters are still being encouraged to secretly request that the postings of others to be judged and editing action imposed upon oter posters without their knowledge. Now, unknown numbers of unknown volunteers are encouraged to make personal judgements on the worth of the contributions of others.

Jeri accuses me of saying something that does not sound nice. Does any of the above sound very NICE? No it is nasty - if it were necessary and effective - there may be some justification for it - is there any? Does it really HAVE to be like this? I don't think it does.

Have I been moaning about my fellow posters? Have I been making personal and abusive attacks upon them? I actually LIKE our forum and accept that I may not agree with the views of others - and that tolerating this IS pretty much the whole point of it.

However I may not like the fact that our forum appears to have been taken over and a completely different set of values is now enshrined - as if this was always the way things were. It is not - and had it ever been - I, and I supect many others, would not have felt welcomed and repaid that welcome by many positive contributions over many years.

This is my view and I am evidencing that view - if you don't agree - fine. Post and say so, that is debate and if we can debate everything from the universe to armpit hair here - we should be (if there really is a will) able to debate measures to prevent flaming and abusive posting - without being encouraged to resort to flaming and abusive posting.

As for it changing anything - who knows? I don't see anyone else trying so I will have to do my best as I don't see that I have much choice but to try. I suspect that possibly some small things may already have changed? Given the stonewalling and blind support, it is ulikely that anyone will ever know. If so, it is a shame as I will just have to carry on trying. I don't accept everthing I say is so unreasonable or impossible - and even the smallest of movements in he right direction would be welcomed.

Some simple answer to simple questions will help as none of my detractors, in their haste to shoot the bearer of the message, has yet answered or debated these.

Why cannot this approach be always taken in such cases? Despite its nasty and counter-productive nature - why is such imposition thought to be the first, best and often the only method?

Will the routine deletion of entire threads continue because volunteers 'can't be bothered' - only to delete what they judge to be the 'offending' posts or in future will deletions always be confined only to the 'offending' contributions?