Is a fine folk artist and writer not allowed by our volunteers to have their own separate thread for folk to comment on their passsing?

Isn't that exactly what he has in "Cyril Tawney Obit"?

Each to their own of course but it makes more sense to me to have all the obit messages in one thread rather than having them scattered between 2 threads. The closed (illness) thread contains a link to the thread so it is easy enough follow from one thread to another.

I don't suppose I'd agree with every thread title change, movement of message, etc. (any more than I would agree with every single other editing action) but I neither expect to or need to nor would bother kicking up a fuss it a post of mine was moved or a thread was retitled.

One of the criticisms I had about Mudcat was the difficulties in going back to find information because posts were spread out into multiple threads, some threads contained more than one topic, meaningless thread titles, etc. As such, I think efforts towards making "research" easier are to be applauded.

I suppose it does depend on how you view Mudcat - as a place just for conversation or as a place that allows conversation but also an archive of knowledge. I know Joe is of the same school of thought as me but I would also assume the actions are approved of from above - I can't think why the ability to cross reference threads and the ability to move threads were added by Jeff (under the authority of Max) otherwise - I know of no-one who would program in new facilites that they don't want to be used.