In his case,it is any weaknesses in the Mudcat editorial team's activities or thinking. Shambles does it philosophically. A trouble with reasoning is that it is idealistic, and the world isn't ideal, so reasoning's job is endless.

Ivor - that is at least partly partly true but it is not me or what I post that is the problem. But it has been pointed out in this thread that if you are not part of the solution - you are part of the problem. But whatever posters may think of me - do you just sit quiet and allow your ideals and principles to be compromised by the activities and thinking of those operating hypocritical double standards and doing it in your name? Or do you speak up - while you still have the chance?

For it is not just a philosophical/idealistic concern in a world that isn't ideal. It is practical matter of reaping what is sowed on our forum. And from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's - for the record statement - what he has sowed and is now grown - it is not the crop he requires it to be. But our 'moderators' do not seem to see any connection between the example they publicly set and this example being followed. And as they show little sign of ever changing the example they set - it is only going to get worse and make them even less content with our forum.

It is in order to prevent our forum from seeing and from discussing these many weaknesses that I have special posting restrictions imposed on my posting. And others (whose post are far more offensive) and you, do not.

But as I have demonstrated - that does not mean that your posts are safe from 'silent deletion'.

But the point is that there are plainly many weaknesses in the Mudcat editorial team's activities and thinking. Not the least of them being the question of does a discussion forum, open for the public's even require any form editing team? Censors possibly - but what is to be edited when all the copy is freely invited by the site's owner?

But surely it is healthier to have posters demonstrating and discussing these weaknesses (in order that our forum does not continue to suffer from them) - than it is to have (often anonymous) members of that team judging the worth and publicly demonstrating the weaknesses of individual named posters?

Is it healthy for them to be seen to abuse their privileged postion by setting the example of double standards? By indulging (and permitting) posting activities - that they would judge and impose editing action on - should other poster follow this example?

Is it only the thinking and activities of named posters that is now open to public judgement (and subject to name-calling) by our 'moderators'? Are they then to be considered to be above judgement by the public whose interests they are supposed to be protecting?