Your third paragraph above states that you are making no personal Judgement, I quote the following 'gems' from you own posts, most of which are indirect attacks on Joe Offer

And why? Because Joe now feels he cannot impose upon us - the kind of 'peace' that he requires.....

Perhaps you would accpt that there is only one result if rules are seen to be made-up as you go along - by and mainly to suit the preferences and tastes of one poster? And when other posters can see that these rules are not consistently enforced upon all contributions equally?

Where for example is it written that there is limit to be imposed on the number of posts that any individual can post and if do written what this limit is? Was anyone - apart from Joe Offer - aware that there now appears to be such a limit?

Again whose judgement is used and expected to be trusted here? When the anonymous imposed judgement upon the named postings of their fellow poster is about as guaranteed to cause trouble as I can imagine - yet this form of anonymous posting by members not using their usual posting name - is currently defended!

For Joe Offer has stated that the current measures, that have been extended steadily over the years, cannot now deliver the peace he requires. Where is there any evidence that a further increase in imposed restrictions called for on our forum will succeed in imposing Joe Offer's required peace upon us, any more than all his other attempts?   

One thing is sure - the Mudcat Discussion Forum that we have all freely been able (in theory) to contribute to as we wish - will be finished if Joe Offer's proposal is accepted by Max. And if Max does not agree with Joe Offer's proposal - there is no certainty that the status quo will continue.

It could well be that Joe Offer's proposal to Max that he brings an end to The Mudcat Discussion Forum in the form that most of us appreciate it - is the issue?

If next time I visit Harlow I bring with me a bucket of very smelly turds to throw over you in public - I do not think that you would judge that to be a good example of how scatological humour is possible which is not in fact offensive?

I am beginning to think that if were to throw the bucket of turds over someone else in the audience - that you would laugh along with the crowd and you would describe that as a good example of scatological humour that is possible which is not in fact offensive.

Please make no mistake - putting and end for any need for free public discussion IS what Joe Offer is now proposing. It is this proposal that I am suggesting IS discussed in this thread and which some posters have tried to discuss in this thread. Hopefully they can be allowed to continue this discussion - as it may be the last opportunity to do so?

As has often been pointed out - our forum is NOT a democracy. So calling for a vote was not the intention of this thread. The whole purpose of this thread and the whole purpose of our forum is open discussion.


Read learn and inwardly digest as they used to say.
Giok