The Usurper:

I've not declared the 9/11 discussion a dead horse.  I said that as long as there is a discussion about it it's fine by me.  For all I care, if the board wants to talk 9/11 stuff until the cows come home that will be ok.  But if it's a one-man-show, well then there is a limit to how long it should go.  No one is interested in having ideas shoved down their throats.

If you are mission-oriented, this is not the place to accomplish a mission.  We are few in number.  Try theologyweb.com.  The big boys hang out there.  There are other forums as well but theologyweb has many PhD's that participate. 

Post on any issue you want.  No one is saying you can't.  But don't be condesending, divisive, dominating, and if there is no interest in a particular topic, let it go.   There are a hundred other political topics to discuss.

I have always been in a position to block posts if I had good reason.  I have maneuvered nothing.  This board is still in its infancy.  I have rightly set up parameters so that no one person can dominate or push their agenda.  It's not a conspiracy.  I need no "excuse" to block posts if they are considered divisive or too aggressive.  I've always been in a positon to moderate posts. 

The guidelines are not an announcement that this board needs to be controled.  On the contrary, it's more an announcement that this board will be run in a way that is fair-minded and gives all participants equal voice.  It is also an attempt to head any and all problems "off at the pass."  As I said already, these guidelines can be found on many forums.  Check out the more popular fourms and you will find they all have posting guidelines.  Operate withing the parameters of the board and you have complete freedom.  There is no "control" over what is discussed.

You may not be interested in a controled board, but I'm less interested in any one person dominating the board, or forcing their agenda down the throats of others. 

I have no intention of using my authority to guide the debate.  I will bring things back within the parameters should things stray too far.  Any moderator worth his or her salt would do the same (or should).

There is no reason to "debate" the guidelines.  No one even knows how the board will be affected by the guidelines.  They are certainly not restrictive.  Is 9/11 the only topic in the world we can discuss?  Hardly.  If people are interested in it, chat away.  If not, drop it.  When will you be satisfied you've said enough of the subject?

If you want to provide links of interest, do it.  If you want to copy and paste items of interest, do it.  But if these links and copy/paste items are a substitue for an argument, then we have a problem.

I have items of interest I will post from time to time as well.  There are ways to do this that are in keeping with the guidelines.  I've put out ideas for discussion in the past.  If people ignored or didn't comment on the items I posted, I'd go on to the next one.

I'm not the umpire and I have no stake in which team wins.  The analogy doesn't fit here.  I haven't moderated anyone to silence them.  I've handicapped no one when a discussion was taking place.  That will never happen unless there is a flagrant violation of etiquette.

There is another alternative open to the board.  If people don't like the decisions I've made, go to the globals.  If they agree with you, they have the authority to remove me and find a replacement.  If they made that decision, I'd have no power to stop them.  I'd be out and someone else would take over.  That's the way the system works.