Roger...the recurring theme in your campaign is 'judging', that is, one poster commenting on another in some way...even if done humorously or obliquely. You would, I gather like them to NOT do this. Yet, you also seem to advocate complete freedom for people to post whatever they like, and suggest that people can choose not to open threads and/or can ignore posts they don't agree with.

I can't see how your two views can be reconciled...they 'feel' to me to be contradictory.

Do you not accept that a position where certain posters can impose their judgement on the judgements passed on other posters in order to protect them from judgements - is not only contradictory but will only ensure that constant judgement of each other's worth will become the only game in town?

And are you really suggesting that any poster is in fact forced to open any thread or to respond or cannot ignore posts that are not to their tastes?

Mudcat's current stated policy is to allow most posts, except for direct personal attacks and other 'serious' transgressions. Teasing you and arguing with you are not the same as threats or virulent, serious, attacks....which WOULD be censored (and have been)...

If that were any way true in practice – you may have a point. But it is not true and you can have even more evidence provided to demonstrate that it is not true if you really like? But in fact you already know that your statement is not true but (unlike Bert and to his credit) you just choose to ignore these facts.

Everyone' s judgement is as good or as bad as everyone else's. But what happens in practice on our forum is that a judgement is imposed upon a fellow poster and then explained, justified and presented to our forum in the hope and expectation that this judgement will be publicly applauded. Should any poster be brave enough to voice a contrary view – they tend to be viewed as a dangerous insurgent.

What you have created is a circular, self-feeding process in which you complain about 'judgement' and censorship in such a way as to provoke MORE reaction and 'judgement' about your tactics and opinions about your motives!

Do you really not see that you are the controlling focus of all this debate? There are dozens of folks occasionally or regularly commenting on YOUR efforts to influence policy & behavior here who would NOT have much to say if YOU stopped your incessant picking at the situation!

The point is simply to demonstrate that every poster CAN ONLY control what they choose to post or not. And that they have no control over what others may choose to post. When these posts are addressing the subject of the thread – as rather rarely this post of yours is at least partly addressing – where is the problem? Why is not possible to either post to address the thread's subject or to ignore it?

It is really the greatest cop-out for so-called sensible educated adult posters – who have a range of options - to claim (as you do) that they are somehow being provoked into posting only personal judgements of their fellow posters............

Some posters do this because they choose to, it obviously gives them some form of pleasure and they appear to wish to be seen to be members of some kind of controlling mutual admiration society.

My hope is that other posters may be encouraged to contribute to the actual discussion and feel they will be safe to do so and be free from post containing only such persoanal judgements from their fellow posters.

Mudcat policy IS that there will be 'some' editing done by Joe and his staff. This policy will protect YOU against really gratuitous, serious attacks...but not against raucous commentary when you keep adding fuel to the fire.

You can't have it both ways...if posting is to be free, open and 'mostly' unedited, then commentary on the process is open to everyone..not just you.

It should be clear to you now – from the amount of 'raucous commentary' I been subjected to by Joe and his staff and their supporters - but not responded in kind to – that such things can be ignored and have no real affect on me and is not the issue. For they say far more about those who post such things. However, I do not see why others should be subjected to it. I also fear that those few posters who are encouraged to set this example are inhibiting other posters by this form od posting.

If your ONLY real interest is to remove or 'out' all the editors (Joe + clones), then you are endlessly struggling against stated policy that Joe WILL be chief editor and that there WILL be a small staff to aid him, some openly, some not. Since this IS a private site, Max may have this policy as he chooses, and continuing to rail against it only leads to these interminable threads.

How can threads be judged as interminable – by posters (like you) who keep posting to them and refreshing them?

But the main point is that you simply ignore the fact that Joe has now publicly admitted that all this imposed censorship has failed and has proposed that Max turn the posting of BS into a members only club…………..

What is the position of all this admittedly failed imposed judgement by posters upon others – that you support - if Max should not accept Joe Offer's proposal?

Will you be joining the private memmbers club that Kendall is starting? You may be happier there?