It's really difficult to communicate with you because you keep repeating yourself, going around in circles, and ignoring our answers. Therefore, the temptation is either to ignore you or to scorn you.

When you do respond to my questions and not personally attack me and incite others to do so–simply for holding and expressing a different view - then post not to apologise - but to excuse these actions - these answers simply tend to create even more questions. Resisting temptation is what responsibility is about. If you can't set this example – then perhaps you are not qualified to judge others?

But this is what a discussion is. I simply see this as a discussion among equals on what is a discussion forum. Like many others I like this forum. Perhaps those that do appear to like the fact that Max has opened this forum for contributions from, all of the public – should stop complaining and find another site? One where they can pass judgement on whoever they wish?

I think I've answered almost every one of your questions, time and time again. Mick and Jeri and some of the other volunteers have also given you answers. Many of our answers have not been to your liking, but we have always given honest answers. We have no reason to be dishonest. While most of your arguments have validity, they are usually simply a matter of choice. When we have chosen an alternative path, you continue to argue, as if yours were the only way. It's hard to argue back because you're right - but so are we.

Then why argue, threaten and storm-off, rather than continue to use reason and logic in a ongoing discussion?

For example, I have chosen to make editorial comments in brown, indented, directly under the message asking me a question. You don't like that practice, and you've stated that time and time again. Your reasons for not liking it are valid - but this is just a matter of choice and judgment, not right and wrong. You speak as though every editorial act here is a grievous wrong, and that's just not the case. It's simply a matter of choice and judgment, done to achieve a goal of.

The choice to respond to a question posed in a thread – and NOT refresh the thread – is not a choice or judgement that is open to us all. This last example that you claimed to be an editorial comment – was in fact nothing of the sort and could and should have been posted in the conventional way - that everyone else is limited to. My reasonable request has simply been that a consistent approach is kept in the use of this – so this is not thought, as our volunteers doing just as the fancy takes them, and abusing their trusted position.

Whatever opinions and wishes may be expressed (and not just by me) - it is a sad fact that every one of these discussions ends with you stating (in one way or another) that you and your volunteers are going to carry-on doing exactly what you want to. No matter how poor the logic or justification for it and the message being given out by this.

There is nothing comfortable or civil about volunteering to deny to others – against their will - the freedoms that you take as a right. As for your so-called but undefined, 'troublemakers' – I and I suspect many others can and are dealing with them ourselves – by ignoring and never responding to them. Something you and your volunteers seem to find impossible to do or set a responsible example in.

Surely our volunteers being seen to set this example will do more good and be less counter-productive - than all of this judgement and reactive imposed censorship taken against their fellow posters?

I'm tired of being held to answer for things I answered long ago. Besides, it's really kind of spooky to think that somebody is keeping a record of every statement I make.

There is nothing 'spooky' in the fact that everything you post here (except of course the posts and entire threads that volunteers decide to delete) can be retrieved in a simple search, to come back and haunt you. This is just another reality of the forum – it does not allow us to re-write history. If you don't like these realities and are now tired of the responsibility you have volunteered for – perhaps you and your volunteers can give-up judging us and find some place where the realities are more to your liking or where you can shape them to this?

I use the term censorship and the term volunteer as these are the polite ones. What is currently being allowed to happen on our forum can be called many other less polite things. All I would request is that IF these measures are thought to be required and effective – that they be open, fair and consistent.

And all those who feel qualified to judge, criticise and impose action based on that judgement are known and are always accountable to their fellow posters. And if they fail to set a good example – that they will face official actions similar to that which faces other posters who are thought to transgress.

I really care little about other's and Joe's abusive personal attacks upon me, for these can always be ignored. However, his incitement for others to do this and his excusing of it – from the privileged position of feeling qualified to impose judgement on others for the same offence – is a serious abuse of this position. It makes the whole forum look oppressive and it is not acceptable - if the whole point of all this imposed judgement is undertaken in the name of "comfort and civility".