Mick keeps trying to explain what the difference is between discussing and "deriding and denigrating", but it seems a tricky point to make.
(He and I have very different positions on a couple of topics, but we don't insult each other as we debate)
*IF* you have a good point, and you make it well in a rational manner, it will do just as much to promote your cause as all the standing-on-the-soapbox rants you can muster. If you feel you MUST oppose someone or some group, go DO it on the barricades where you face your target directly. As far as I know, 99.999% of the BNP doesn't read Mudcat. Exactly who are you preaching to?

   As far as having more censorship...ummm..editing... here at Mudcat, or having an "ignore this person" button, I doubt that will make much difference, as you will just lose the entire context in some threads. If you have a serious problem with some posters, the best "edit button" is your own browser's 'back' button to leave the thread.


(If anyone has real proof that ANY moderator has maliciously edited ANY other person's posts, that should be taken up with Joe/Mick/Jeri...and maybe Max ...and not just tossed into this thread as an insinuation of corruption. That is too serious to just claim without evidence.)