Exactly, Amos. The "facts" do not support the conclusions. Especially, to my mind, to claim that editorial changes effected by volunteers appointed by Max is a claim to superiority by those volunteers is specious.

So that is OK then - there is NO problem to address.......!
That you may consider the conclusions are not supported by the facts - does not mean that the facts are not still the facts and that they can then be ignored. The treatment of my contributions is a fact evidenced here - you seem content that this special treatment is somehow deserved and open support of this unfair treatment is somehow excusable.

I don't feel qualified to sit in judgement and impose my personal views upon the freely invited contributions of my fellow posters without their knowledge or permission. Those that do feel themselves qualified to place themselves in this position - would I suggest feel themselves superior to me (and the rest of us lesser mortals).

Perhaps MMario you could try seeing it NOT from the position of the volunteers - but from the position of their victims?