No problem with the complaints, Roger. When you have something new to say, say it. We'll listen, although we may not comply with your wishes.

That all sounds very reasonable. It is a shame that the facts do not support this. And it is sad that whoever the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now refers to as 'we' – no longer includes all posters. But it is very clear from his imposed actions and his defence of them here – that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does have a real problem with anything he judges to be a complaint – and would appear to take it very personally indeed.

Where it felt by a 'moderator' that some public lip-service has to be paid to the concept of posters being entitled to express their views – it is not really possible for them to be seen to prevent a poster saying what they don't want them to. So to enable this - some pretence must be found which sounds respectable and can be defended as if it has some justification.   

It's the endless repetition that drives us all batty.

What may be judged to be batty or repetitious should be able to be easily ignored and not seeming first on the list for all forms of imposed censorship. Such threads would surely not be of interest to many posters anyway and if this were the case - would die an early death. But it is not the case here - is it? The type of threads that are now restricted and subject to imposed closure attract many hundreds of posts. It is the popularity of threads and posts concerning our forum that really appears to be the problem for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team....

And I think that "batty" statement is typical of what you term my "abusive personal attacks" on you. Seems pretty tame to me. On occasion, I may have implied something a bit stronger, but I've been careful to say that indirectly. Oh, I think that once I said, "I'm sick of your shit, Roger." Is that considered abusive?

As current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - you are now the judge of what is tame or abusive on our forum. I suspect if I posted such a thing about you – it would be judged as abusive or mean-spirited and deleted. But it is well known by now that I have no problem with posts containing name-calling and abusive personal attacks on me. They say more about the poster making them. They are easy to ignore. And it is very easy not to respond in kind to them. And I have lots of practice at this, as I am offered no protection from these – by those whose role on our forum is supposed to be to protect posters from this.

I'm almost afraid to say that because now you'll bring up three quotes from five years ago as "proof" of how you've been abused. You've disparaged my honesty and integrity and reputation constantly over the last five years or more, and I suppose I have occasionally slipped and expressed an honest reaction to you. The fact of the matter is that I do my best to ignore you except when you say things that are just too outrageously untrue. You'll notice that for every hundred words you say against me, I might say one in response. Then again, maybe it's more like one word from me against a thousand from you.
I'm sick of your shit, Roger.

If the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team cannot now stand the heat then why not get out of the kitchen? No one is forcing him or any known or anonymous members of his team to carry on. Why do they appear to think they now have some right to get angry and throw plates at the customers?

And I am almost afraid of posting them (again) – because spurious reasons will then be found to delete the post or close the thread. However, it is interesting that it is not claimed that this example of posting these abusive personal attacks. by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has not been set The attempt is now made to minimise and find justification for setting this example and shift the blame to the posters who are being publicly abused.

But the point is not whether the many examples of abusive personal attacks are the worst examples – but that they are the examples set – for others to follow as acceptable posting - by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Who would not judge the same sort of excuses - as he now provides here for the posting of abusive personal attacks as acceptable - when judging that the imposition of 'silent deletion' is acceptable for other posters accused of the same thing.

The fact that our forum is also supposed to accept that there is no personally motivation involved in the selective censorship actions imposed on those posters who are singled-out for abusive personal attacks – would be laughable, where any logic applied………I find it very disturbing now - to see the ease by which some posters can take away from other posters - those things that they themselves accept as a right………

Perhaps a return to where all posters are once again posting on equal terms is not such a terrible concept?