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.

Almost?

In fact it is not at all supported by the facts.

You may not have a problem with your 'interesting/amusing' posts being deleted just because they happen to be in a thread that was entirely deleted (like the Kate Rusby split one) - but that was not what our forum and you were assured by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - was it?

Big Stick's messages were deleted. They were just weird.
-Joe Offer-

Your post may be interesting and amusing but if the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team judges your post it to be 'weird' - he will delete it.

In fact - despite what you still try to maintain - in spite of the facts - and any assurances the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team may provide to our forum - it has been shown clearly that he will do this to (most) posters contributions - as and when it pleases. And this seems to please him more and more often.

It is also a fact that he is not in favour of ensuring our forum can know the true nature and current level of imposed editing by the simple process I suggest of always providing an editing comment. And limiting these to only where this has occured.

This would for the first time to enable posters to know and express an informed view on something that our forum is expected to support and a few blindly and noisely do (as long as the victims are some other posters and not them).

This means that any poster who cannot find their post - will still have to guess, speculate or ask about its fate. And even if they do ask - as this thread shows - they will not be told......

It is also shown to be a sad fact - that some posters can do as they please - and not only be safe - but posting conduct that would be censored - seen to be encouraged when practiced by certain favoured posters.

So the example set is that:

Abusive posting is judged to be both good and bad - by our 'moderators' - depending on who is doing the abusing and who is being abused.

And anonymous posting is judged to be both good and bad - by our 'moderators' - depending on who anonymously posting or censoring.

And they judge others and impose their judgement on other posters for being 'weird'.

Or for being 'not a nice person'? Was any of this in the required criteria contained in the assurance given to you?

For these - whatever debating style, spelling or grammar they may be delivered in - remain the facts. Perhaps it is these facts that can be discussed and addressed?