Thanks for the comments Ric. It can't be easy to moderate every comment and thread but it seems to me that your last post essentially said that if someone sees things in videos or makes a comment that does not conform to what you see then discussion is to be eventually terminated. This is an oversimplification on my part for the purpose of discussion.
I know that I have seen contrary reviews here by folks like Mr. Van Asten who went on at very great lengths sometimes and occasionally had his logic shown to be faulty, but that was his way of participating. If you didn't want to read his responses or threads you could just ignore them. Ultimately he got banned. Others have been banished from contributing "in their way". Yes, sometimes it feels personal I'm sure. But, read what you wrote. "but it just got weirder and weirder." It was weird because.... you thought it was. Did/does Mr.Mellon, whom I disagree with re this lawsuit approach amongst other things, deserve to have his opinion called weird? Eventually you shut down the thread he was on because of his view.
Sorry Ric, I know some control must be exercised but should the moderating not be confined to making sure there are no personal attacks, inappropriate materials such as pornography, inappropriate language, etc. Does an opposing or non conformist view need to be banned? You have said before in other posts that you let things go on for longer than you really wanted to but why cut it off if people are reading and contributing, for whatever reason they have. Eventually, if the forum chooses then the thread dries up. You have lots of threads with no new posts for months.
It even bothers me to write this post for fear of being banned and that shouldn't be the case. I didn't post for almost a year because of this subject.
Is this why Mr. Mellon is suing you? Because you disagree with him and he with you over the moderated forum concept?