Amos

I would hope that a good re-read of this thread will demonstrate where the unfairness lies. It is the 'heavy touch', it is unnessary and simply not proportionate to the problem. Which Jeff with a light touch and without upetting anyone, has largely now solved anyway.

Joe's over-reaction seems to come from the idea that there are 'Mudcat people'like Joe, who are under constant 'attack' from people, presumably not 'Mudcat people' like Joe. Which appears to be just about anyone who does not totally agree with him or produce a post or thread that is not exactly to Joe's taste, or up to Joe's test of worthyness.

Not agreeing with Joe or anyone else is not 'slamming' them. However, it surely is not necessary for Joe to provide propaganda (biased information), to demonstrate the wisdom and justice of his editing powers?

Amos did I really make a demand? as Joe claims? The actual words are all here. I am not asking anyone to take sides, there is far too much of that already, but my concern was moderately expressed, but quite clearly not moderately dealt with.

As demonstated, Joe sees everything as a challenge to his authority or an attempt and has a knee-jerk reaction to this. When you happily place yourself in this position, you must surely expect a few bullets to fired at you. If you insist on just firing them back, or verbal jousting', with the contributors, even the identified and more civil ones, I feel it risks making a bad situation into an impossible one.

What is engendered by this paranoia, is a climate where folk feel they should be commenting on the suitablity, validity, category, length grammar, spelling etc, and bringing the abberant behaviour of others to the attention of 'Miss. Rather than just joining the discussion in the thread or just ignoring it.

Our many-named shadows, whatever their motivations and short-commings, are clearly not stupid and have and will exploit this weakness to the full.

You asked me to specify - I have asked more than once, if the originator of a thread, or poster concerned can be asked for their view before any major judgements are imposed and actioned on their posts. Not an unreasonable request, I would have thought to achieve the aims you refer to..... But where is the answer?

Despite all the references to Joe, this is NOT a personal attack on him, as I recognise his sincerity and many qualities. However it is strong criticism of what he has done here, appears to be blind to and has every intention of continuing to do, despite the views expressed here of a number of people who do not support it.