Frankly, I wish the host and the guest would simply take the issue outside and deal with it. Whether it is 1 person or 100 people affected by it, there is something that is disrupting the party that does not need to be dealt with in such a fashion by either side.

Ron - my 'crime' is to try and post my views, others do not like these views and are currently encouraged to feel, by the example set that is in some way noble or 'fun' to be seen to try and prevent my posts (and my posts only) from appearing as posted.

That I may be generally perceived as public enemy number one and have clumsy special posting restrictions imposed on my posting is in reality seen to adversly affect our forum far more than the posts of any single contributor. That these accusations about named posters are made publicly by our 'moderators' is the way they have always operated. This dog has been given a very bad name indeed.

But I am not THE problem - all this is only the most visible and inevitable symptom of the real problem. To which any judgement of my posting - (to which these restrictions are themselves a reaction) - must be seen only as a confused reaction. They are mainly to air the following concern.

Can any poster who sees the value of our host Max's continuing in our forum's commitment to open public access now feel sure that this principle will be given a fair shot - when (some of) our 'moderators' are publicly seen not to wish this to continue?

And why would anyone wish to continue in such a role when they have publicly stated that they have no longer any interest in the host's concept or of ensuring that it succeeds? Could they not been seen to have a vested interest in ensuring that it does not succeed?