Of course when Max's public statement is posted - what it says before is ignored and what it goes on to say - is omitted. Such as:

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 11:15 AM
>snip<
My bad of course for messing with Roger. He doesn't see he's been messing with us for years, but.........And to some degree, your bad too. He's used an old quote hundreds of times and I know you'd like to have it that way (no rules) but it doesn't work once a site grows past a certain point which Mudcat has. Responding to Roger earlier might have saved some of this. I dunno'......So how about reinstating Roger and I'll agree to quit messing with him? Just ask him to back-off the campaign against Joe. No more censorship complaints. If he understands that we are all playing under the same rules perhaps......maybe he might........well its worth a shot isn't it? Roger has written some beautiful poetry and songs and staying in that vein, he needs to be a part of this community.


Ron - It must be quite clear from the special restrictions imposed on my posting only by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that our forum is not all playing under the same rules - or being expected to. Until we are all seen to be playing under the same rules and posters can feel safe from having the same treatment imposed on them as they see imposed on me - it is hardly likely that any poster will be prepared to take the risk of posting anything that may result in this.

Our current 'moderation' IS well-intentioned. That is why it so supported and why it is so dangerous. But the bottom line is that it simply does not work. Which is even now admitted by its chief achitect. But not only this - it is counter-productive and only encourages (directly and indirectly) the very conflict it is supposed to be dealing with whilst encouraging posters to mind everyone's business but their own.

Very few people would expect a regular football match - with an open invitation for all to take part - to be thought or seen to be a fair contest, when the referee judged it to be acceptable for them to also play in the game as a participant.

Perhaps in order for this to be seen to be a fair game - they may expect this referee to make a choice to either be a referee or to be a player? Especially when they started sending other players off for what they judged to be unfair play.

Even without the referee wishing to play both roles - most people would be surprised that such a game of football would ever get completed - if this referee kept trying to change the rules, in order turn it into a game of rugby. And tried to exclude some players from the pitch altogether, whilst trying to pursuade the rest of players that this change was a far better idea than the original concept.

It would not be too much of a surprise if this referee was not asked or expected to play whatever game they wanted and by whatever rules - but to do this elsewhere and to leave everyone else to get on with their football match.