Shambles - your readiness to interpret leads you
into doo-doo.


    My support is for you taking the stand of wanting
clarity and fairness and rightness and openness and non-authoritarianism over editorial activity.


    To respond to your other substantive point,if anything
of mine is deleted when part of a thread that is
unacceptable, I can live with that personally. That's
partly because Mudcat isn't the world and the editorial
team are not world legislators (the advantage of our
multifarious non-totalitarian world); and partly because
the rest of the time, what I post gets 'published'. (And
I do believe I'm far from unique in get virtually everything accepted.)


   So saying that if we write interesting / reasonable
/etc. stuff,it'll get in, far from being unsupported by
the facts, is, in fact, almost entirely supported by the
facts.

   Anyone can worked up about the editorial teams errors,
flaws, misjudgments, shadow-side, and I support Shambles
choosing to do so. (One of your more unfortunate tendencies Shambles, and you are NOT alone, is to set up straw men and
then lay into them, in your case by choosing for others what
they meant, then criticising them for those meanings which
you have attributed to posters, and which may or may not have anything to do with said posters. On the other hand,I like your coolness, sticking to matters and not arguing ad hominem,
[ersistance in your cause(s)


The dubious editorial practices of main-stream media is far
more important, and a bit less discussed.


I respond to Roger because you make specific points.






       Ivor