Very few posters feel they do need to be censored. Many still do seem to think that others need to be censored.

But whatever – the question is never simply to have censorship or not. The introduction of any form of censorship is never the end of the story – it is just the beginning.

For there are many aspects to consider. Such as, the best way to do it, what is to be censored, by whom and for what object are. These are the sort of questions that never seem to be even addressed by those who would seem to see no need for them to be censored but still see every need for everyone else to subject to it.

Because these questions have never been addressed, we have the current well-meaning 'system'. Which has no clear object or rules to protect anyone from abuse and is based only on an individual's judgement – in practice this means one individual's personal judgement.

Apart from the question of the objectivity of judges who also wish to post as a fellow poster and the confusion of knowing what opinion or suggestion is expressed as an editing position and what is expressed as a fellow poster – the fact remains that one poster's judgement is as good or as bad as every other.

So when these judgements are imposed and the attempts made to publicly justify the judgement passed – it encourages an atmosphere where everyone considers they also have the right to also pass their judgement on the worth of their fellow posters. To speculate publicly on their assumed motives and to call them names and be as abusive to them as the example being set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff – his known edit-button holders, his anonymous edit-button holders and their few loyal and vocal supporters.   

If peace is the object - my hope is that it will finally be accepted as a starting point - that no poster has (or should have) any control over what another chooses to post.