We have our differences, old cock, but that won't stop me from sincerely wishing you all the very best for the festive season.

As the late great Dave Allen said:

Let me explain.

I think you make three points.

First that she is the <cg> self appointed censor. I take a different tack. The site is not a free speech site. There are rules which are set out to the right of me as I type. I think the rules are there to ensure that all discussions at the site occur within certain bounds. Those bounds are meant to ensure that members of the site (especially) are not turned off by the discussion so that they leave. They also exist so that the site is welcoming to people of all sorts. In my view ensuring that the rules are complied with is not censorship; it is making sure that my contractual rights are fulfilled.

I understand that views may differ as to whether the post in question violated the guidelines. My best friend is gay; I work with a few terrific women in decades long same sex relationships;my wife plays women's hockey and as a result of these things I know many gay people, most of whom are just wonderful people (even if sinners in your eyes). The post in question really hurt me. I can accept a post like that in the real world, but this is supposed to be a community and here I have a hard time with it.

The second point is that I have not complained about attacks on Christians. True. I am not sure I have read any such attacks, partly because I hardly go to the Rogoff page any longer. But if see some I will complain. If you alert me to any that violate the guidelines I will support your complaints. I don't think there is any room for any of that here.

I have complained about anti Jewish statements on the site, but except for one war on the Fischer page these complaints fell on deaf ears.

By the way, the fact that attacks on Christians in Iraq are treated here and generally as somehow normal makes me sick.

There was a third point but I have gone on too long already.

My goal is and has been to try to have this be a place where everyone is welcome. Some interferences with that goal hit closer to home than others, but I appreciate you pointing out that I could be more consistently vigilant. I will try. However, if the site becomes a "free speech" zone then I will have to leave-you have seen the real me-I just cannot participate or tolerate and keep employed.

First, merry Christmas to you.

Second, I changed my mind. If I get the urge to violently disagree with any posts in the future, to the point where I think something has "to be done" about it, I'm giving up on the "call for a censor" idea.

Instead, I'll either keep my counsel or argue publicly against the notion I may object to.

I know for a fact that <acirce> holds perceived anti-gay views to be as objectionable as I do- and yet he agreed with your criticism of my approach to such perceived problems.

So- if it's good enough for <acirce> it's good enough for me.

I need to get more practice developing a thicker skin- also, I enjoy the people around here- you for example- too much to take such extreme actions that interfere with friendships.

Nothing wrong with being diametrically opposed on certain issues.

Anyways, thanks for your candor, as always.