Hi Poppa!

Sorry to drop in to the middle of this, but I have a few views to respectfully share.

First of all, I missed your deleted post so I can't comment on whether or not that deletion was appropriate. Second, I do abhor censorship but will admit that I like the idea of behavior guidelines. And I have NO idea how one would clearly delineate the difference between the two. Egregious examples of either extreme are easy to justify but the stuff in the middle gets rather murky.

One of the things I like about Gardenweb is that the atmosphere here is generally very civil. Occassional snarkiness arises, but it is not a common thing (at least not on the forums I hang out in) and we are spared a lot of really crude stuff. I've completely given up on a usenet forum that I used to frequent because of the porn advertisements and other junk that gets posted there and never removed. These messages generally scream their rudeness in all-caps subject lines, so it's hard to just completely ignore them.

I also used to belong to an email list dedicated to needlework. This was supposed to be a closely monitored list that was completely on-topic, but someone posted a poll about animals that was designed to garner support for a feral cat group. When I politely asked that the topic be dropped as it was unquestionably off-topic, I was personally attacked by many individuals. While the list monitor privately agreed that it was off-topic and that I should not be attacked for my request, she did nothing to change the situation. I quit the email list and did not renew my membership in the sponsoring organization.

So I'm glad that Gardenweb actively takes steps to avoid these types of situations. Sometimes a bad call is made in removing a post; sometimes a member may not realize how they have offended someone else. I do wish that in removing posts the powers that be would inform the writer why his or her post was removed.

I did find the Gardenweb User Agreement and linked it below. This spells out several reasons why posts may be removed, at least three of which basically say they can remove posts at their discretion, end of discussion.

Okay, I will list my reasons to delete a post:

1. Politics or religion - these can stir up too much trouble
2. personal attacks and rantings - yeah, this takes some discretion to define
3. excessive profanity (you know, those people who can turn certain words into nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and gerunds, for pete's sake!)
4. promotional postings or totally unrelated, off-topic stuff

So those are my thoughts - was this long enough?

I'll try to hang around the garden writers forum more frequently so I don't miss your posts before they are pulled! (Note to Iron Belly - am I supposed to insert a smiley face here so Poppa knows I am joking?)

V.

Here is a link that might be useful: GW User Agreement

I promised myself that I would not get drawn into this type of discussion because in the end nothing changes.
When a post or a poster is ejected (sent to Disney) it is usually because someone has made a report to the administration. When you think about it this hands over the power to a certain type of person who is not likely to be the same person as the one who can hold his own in a controversy about an opinion. I was accused of stealing or attempting to steal, on this forum something that, in other circumstances, would be considered slander or defamation of character. I challenged my accuser and also reported this cowardice to the webmaster but too late, because the other guy got there first and I was banned as a result although he was not. This allowed him and a running buddy to continue slandering me (see pseuds corner below) and I could not defend myself.
I have had stalkers (hence my present name) come at me in threes, one being the same guy, and they would drop one line put downs on whatever I posted wherever. I have been sent to Disney for trying to fend them off but remember that when this gets to the webmaster I am "bickering".
I have concluded that there will never be a way to challenge anothers point of view if that person is a coward, or if that coward is tuned in and runs to the administration.
If I have a point of view, as I do on this, I can defend it and articulate it but I make no claim that it is the only view and if anyone wants to challenge it they can but please use the same criterion.