Bert I am not aware of the deleted thread or its content, but assume it was inflammatory.

It is not more than a little ironic that certain posts containing abusive personal attacks in this thread are pemitted to remain and the asumption made (and not corrected) that the deleted posts referred to were in some way inflammatory and so justifiably subject to censorship? If no trace ever remains of the censorship actions - no one will ever know and that could well be the whole point why it is done and why it is defended. Forget about the personalities involved for one minute and ask yourself if the lack of these safeguards is really a good thing for the future of our forum.

Copy and pasting is simply a tool - not a disease to be stamped out. In reality, it is what these deleted cut and pastes are copies of - that are the reason for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's eagerness to delete them. It is the evidence of the abusive personal attacks that he has posted and the example set by these, that I am trying to bring our forum's attention and which the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is trying to ensure that I do not. A point of some ammusment to me when he refers to my 'abuses'.

It's not underhanded... you agreed to it when you became a member of Mudcat....

Like many other members who joined at the same time or before me - the understanding was certainly not this. Had it been so, many would not have contributed for so long and made our forum the fine place it just about manages to remain. But it was founded on honesty, tolerance and an accomodating open approach - not one of F*** *** if you don't like it.................

It was NOT then written that 'the management reserves the right etc'. But there was no need for this as such a thing was part of an unwritten mutual traust and acceptance. But now that it is written - it does not say that the management now promises to behave like the worst of our minor public servants. Those who insist on imposing inflexable petty-fogging restrictions upon us that can make our lives so unpleasant. Often using these impositions to hide personally motivated actions behind.

Perhaps a little common sense can prevail at this point? What on earth is the point of now introducing (with no obvious reason for it) the practice of just having posts deleted with no sign or explanation?

When this judgement imposed by unknown numbers of anonymous fellow members - can you think of anything more designed to result in a totally divided and paranoid forum? Is that really the object? So that posters concened about these increased censorship moves can then be accused of being paranoid?

There can be no other result but a paranoid response - if censorship actions (if they really must take place at all) are not openly indcated and explained. I suggest that it is time for a move back to mutual trust and equal treatment and away from all that divides contributors.

If there is nothing to hide in these censorship actions - where then is the harm in recording where and why they have taken place?

And if those who currently feel themselve qualified to impose such judgements do not want to be open in their dealings - perhaps such imposition should stop?

As this recent step-up in unrecorded deletions is said to be in response to the wishes of Mudcatters - perhaps the wishes of all Mudcatters can first be sought in poll - to ascertain if this is in fact the wishes of Mudcatters?