It matters little if I had said this - for it would just be my view - politely expressed. But if I an to be personally attacked (by a known volunteer) for expressing this view - perhaps some evidence of me saying that 'this is our website' can be provided?

This the part of Max's website that he has very kindly given over for all of the public's contributions. This is our forum and Max at least does appear to try his very best to always honour this. There must be serious question if this current forum arrangement (with its procupation with 'what 'we' allow') - as it works in practice - does honour this. Perhaps it could be reviewed and a lighter touch be applied?

And perhaps this adversarial defence - to any possible criticism of all this imposed judgement upon contributors by anonymous volunteers - be change to a more useful one?

Those that really need protection are the posters who find their perfectly acceptable contributions have been deleted - against their knowledge and wishes - along with an entire thread by someone who chooses to judge other posters - but remain unknown.

Volunteers appear to have many choices - I just suggest that choosing to remain anonymous whilst able to delete the invited contributions of others members of the public - is not one that is open to them. Or an honourable one in these circumstances. Nor is setting the example of undertaking personal attacks, inciting others to do this or of making it acceptable to 'make fun' of the invited contributions of others from this responsible position.

No - it is true that our volunteers are not on trial here. But it would seem that the rest of the public are. If personal attacks are to be thought not acceptable - perhaps our volunteers can be seen not to be indulging in them and the public can be set the example of how to post responsibly?