Its pretty simple from my point of view. In the first post of this thread. It seemed to Joe said he was going after some pretty nasty characters. I thought I couldn't be one of them. Apparently I was wrong.

We have some fascinating people at Mudcat, people who have well-honed opinions on just about any subject you can think of. If they're interested in a subject, they will give a well-reasoned response that really gives you something to think about.

, and the well-reasoned messages get drowned in the flood.

I thought I was one of the well honed, but I am apparently one of these. a small number of people have flooded the 'Cat with a huge amount of repetitive information

Although this lesson which I have been taught came as something of a surprise, I respect Joe's right to run this place as he sees fit. He has shown that he believes that my particular brand of satire is "frivolous" (his words from a PM). My point was to try to have some people lighten up and have some fun, perhaps not to take all of this petty squabbling quite so seriously. If that offends the powers that be then I don't belong here. That puts me in a little bit of a bind Carol thinks very highly of many of you, she thinks this forum is important and considers it to be akin to the second home. I guess I don't have to like my in laws but it saddens me that this BS has hurt her. Another reason for me to avoid the MudCat, but it compels me to stay in touch. This exercise has been a success from one point of view. He certainly has curtailed any urges I might have to proliferate threads.

I feel like the little kid who has been told to go sit in the corner. I never liked that I guess, I tested the limits in school and I still do.

BillD have you ever known Carol to do anything other than express her honest feelings? I have no idea what you are trying to say. But I do know you well enough to believe that you wouldn't hurt her feeling on purpose.

Claymore, I'm not looking for retorts or trying to give them, as far as I am concerned, this is just friends trying to work things out.

Joe, I take full responsibility, for misreading your intentions, and for testing your limits. For the record, in answer to the first post in this thread. I did think a little before I posted. I did not think that my thread was ancillary to the discussion, it was a satirical comment on all of the discussions, I respect your right to disagree. My opinions are usually "honed" and "reasoned" I respect your right to judge if they are "well-honed" and "well-reason" I respectfully disagree with you contention that allegedly superior opinions are being "drowned in the flood" If the object is to express opinions then how well the opinions are "honed" hardly matters. I know that no one thinks me one of these people:
very few people are starting a very large number of threads.
If only because a couple of threads per month is not a very large number.

I now notice that I had overlooked this sentence " I really hate to delete messages unless they're clearly harmful" I see now that had I been thinking more clearly I would have realized that this means that you are reluctant to delete threads. That you would not delete a thread even if it was the express wish of those participating even after the thread has lost all relevance except as a "cautionary tale". I had the understanding that it is the policy here to delete threads at the request of the author. I assumed differently I assumed that that policy was still in effect. I was wrong. Had I been that wise, I'd have taken my medicine and walked away.

I would not blame anyone for thinking I have over analyzed this or for thinking I am being to sensitive. Put it down to the stress of five months of forced idleness and wanting to protect my wife. I also want to minimize further discussion of this by covering as much ground as possible. Please do not think less of Carol or attack her for sticking up for me and taking my side. I love her for that. Please accept my apology and let this end right here.

I apologize, I will behave.