::::>there wasn't actually anything wrong with it but you just didn't like it because I posted it? If I'm interpreting your remards incorrectly, I apologize but that's what I got out of what you wrote. It's like the Katrina stuff on the front page, you let a LOT of political remarks go, I made one rather inocuous one and it was suddenly time to lay down the law on me (of course, others continued to slip through). Mud, I really have no problem with following your rules, the problem I have is understanding them because they appear to be so arbitarily applied. And again, and I mean this in the most repectful way I can say it, don't you think it's a little unfair for you to pop in, see one link and assume that's all I've posted lately? Yes, a high volume of what I post is anti-Bush but in all fairness wouldn't you have to agree they have given me an awful lot of material lately to work with? But that's hardly ALL I have posted and IMO you just over-reacted a little bit in a well-intentioned effort to keep a closer eye on things.

1. http://mudlizard.com/swamp/display.pl?page=aux=read=792144 you are not alone;
2.  if what you got form my comments is that that I just don't like you;
3. What you are referring to as rules I consider to be nudges to help make this a better forum for all;
4. It might be a little unfair of me to just "pop in" but if I had to monitor this forum everyday I would just as soon get rid of it altogether...so "pop in" moderation what you'll get from me here for good or for bad.  For that reason my comments will likely always seem arbitrary, however the theme and the intent is the same, and that's to promote what makes this place good and minimize what makes it bad;
5. There was no over-reaction, merely a reminder of what I have asked of participants whenever I'm here;
6. My opinion of the amount of material provided by Bush et al has nothing to do with what I want to see out of this forum.