I have made no attacks - frequent or otherwise upon barmaids or anybody. I am also trying very hard here not use the generic and impersonal term 'volunteer' as this term (or any other) is thought to be an attack upon these unknown individuals. But when I politely address or reply to the individual who chooses to defend all these actions and uses the term 'we' when doing this - I am accused of personally attacking Joe. I can think of worse terms - but i will stick with 'volunteers'.

The facts simply do not support this accusation. If Joe chooses to 'single me out' and personlly attack me (not perhaps in this thread)) and to incite others to do this - because we are not in agreement or Joe may not feel that he should be judged himself as he judges others - the wisdom of that reaction and the example it sets - is a matter for the rest of the forum to judge.

I feel that there can be no justification for setting this public example (especially from those who feel qualified to sit in judgement upon others) - no matter what the provocation may be - but there would appear to be a double standard - as there is no punishment for volunteers who transgress and indulge in personal attacks.

If anyone here has a personal problem with Max - it is a matter for them to sort out - I am not fighting their battle for them. The facts are all here and I am not complaining to or about anyone - especially Max. It is my view that it is Max's view, that the forum has been provided for the public's views - and that it is the public's responsiblity to do this and make of the forum as they wish.

Joe used to set a good example and I fully supported this. Then using the stick was thought to be preferable example to the use of the carrot. I would simply like to see less of the divisive use of the stick and for folk who volunteer for positions of responsibilty to accept that the example they set for others to follow - must always be above question.

No matter how well-intentioned - the idea that unknown numbers of anonymous volunteers are now required to impose their reactive judgement on the invited contributions of fellow posters in order to protect us from offending ourselves - is plainly too silly for serious consideration. But that is what is defended as being necessary.