> > Very objective. Funny that you seem to espouse freedom of choice and decision in this metric/imperial debate. Yet you practice censorship. Interesting.
> >
> > Bill 'the aforementioned' Symes
>
> Just so Sam doesn't have to deal with it, maybe I can partly answer to that...
>
> 1) Sam is running out of space for the message forum, so he can't keep every message.
>

But, I think Sam could delete a bunch of the old messages that people probably don't read any more, in order to free up space for new messages that aren't otherwise objectionable.

> 2) If it sounded insulting and antagonistic to him, he probably didn't want other people to have to deal with it.
>

Can't argue with that.

> 3) You don't often post, so Sam doesn't know you well enough to know whether or not you were trying to be antagonistic. As in, eric's original post sounded pretty antagonistic and insulting to ME, but eric's been around a while, so we give him the benefit of the doubt. Is it fair? No, probably not.... but that's the way it is.
>

I think that this approach has the unfortunate effect of turning the message forum into a clique for posters who have been around awhile and post a lot. Newer posters are more or less shut out of the message forum, and have a hard time becoming regular posters, because their posts are frequently deleted.

> 4) Sam is Sam. You don't question him, he can make decisions. Freedom of choice, yes... but freedom of expression all the time, no. They're two different things.
>

This is Sam's web site and Sam's message forum, so complaining about "censorship" is pretty silly. But it does get frustrating for people whose posts tend to be deleted more often than not, even when they're not insulting or antagonistic.

"Moderation in Moderation" :)