Posting the same argument multiple times, in slightly different word order, and with different examples quoted, does not seem to improve your chances of achieving your desires, and, in point of fact, becomes somewhat tiring even to those who might be inclined to agree with you.

What you suggest here - that I do - is the 'spin' yes. The fact that I or anyone may often post what appears to similar things views - does not mean that anyone is being forced to share them - or indeed even have read them. Our forum is constructed to enable every poster to have the choice of reading and responding or of not even opening the thread. So where is the problem?

One of the problems presented to me - not of our forum's original design but of a later improvement - is that on opening a long thread - folk do not often ( possibly understandably) read it from the start of the thread. As my object is to inform as many posters as I can of what the reality of what the current censorship is - rather than the 'spin' it is defended by - I try to place as much information as I can - in each post rather than expecting new readers to go right back to the start.

This may well be tedious to folk who have followed it from the very start - but are there really that many of them prepared to do this? Other than the usual members of my personal fan-club *Smiles* No one is being forced to open these threads - are they?

2. In any enterprise, as workload increases, it becomes necessary for the principal to take on staff to cover that load.

That may well be true for a editorial staff of a magazine - who would have to select or reject articles for publication. I do not accept that it really holds true for an discussion forum - comprised entirely of contributions from the public - invited by Max.

You object to Max choosing catters whom he knows, and trusts not to misuse the limited, and supervised, powers they are given.

NO. I just question the wisdom of this and try to evidence in different examples - to the rest of the posters - that what these few trusted posters say is happening in the semi-official 'spin' - is NOT in fact what is happening. That some of those trusted by Max - are themselves setting the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to do so and of later justifying and excusing these actions.

Do I correctly infer from your posts, that you would prefer this forum to be edited by people who know nothing of Mudcat, or are you stating that everything should be allowed, including racism, sexism, personal attacks, and libel?

No I would prefer the onus was placed first place on self-censorship and this example set to try and prevent the problem posts from appearing. No real attempt is made at prevention. The current reactive censorship does nothing to prevent these posts from being made but does limit the basic freedoms of more responisible posters by routine changes being imposed upon posts - without the poster's knowledge or permission.

No matter how unpleasant you may judge them - the structure of our forum does allow expessions of racism, sexism, and personal attacks to be ignored. And if these not responded to in kind or at all - and this is encouraged - threads of this nature to will die a natural death.

When it is thought that the possible legal risk to Max of a particular post (such as a libellious one- it can be brought to Max's attention - and he can decide if he wishes it to remain.

Do you think that it really is worth the time and effort of our volunteers to judge, root-out and delete posts claiming the 100th post - whilst many of the abusive (and racist) personal attacks are left in place?

My real concern is more with the general and now routine tinkering and imposition of (some of) our volunteer's personal tastes upon the simple freedoms of ordinary posters in the music section and the shaping of our forum by this imposition.

This is the reality of what is happening under the cover of protecting us all from abusive personal attacks. A noble cause that many of will defend but which has not worked - mainly as many of our volunteers indulge in it themselves and it is not in reality the object. As all the real energy and attention is placed in this shaping of our forum to (some of) our volunteer's personal tastes.

It is going to result in a rather strange and confusing game - when the referee expects also to take part in the match?