Well, as 2003 comes to a close, we should issue some awards.

without a doubt, that your pulled post was because it was in violation of the TOS. So, naturally you would not say anything....as you are guilty. I never squawk either, because I realize when my post is not IAW the TOS, but there are times that the Mod in particular just will not let a cleaned up post be posted again, because the original post made was deleted and they consider all future post on the rewrite to be deleted even as pertains to a rewrite that is not in violation of the TOS.

Incorrectly it is probably seen as an attempt to "override" the moderator when it actually isn't. I think that is where filtering software that indifferently rejects a post for content helps, since it gives a person the chance to change things before anyone else ever sees it. That still doesn't do away with the problem when a raw hit changes in editing to a subtle dig since the moderator already saw the first more inflammatory post, and removed it. The call there becomes a bit more difficult unless each post is judged on it's own merit or demerit and prior knowledge makes it more difficult to accomplish. The third problem is when more than the moderator have already seen the post and then any removal of it and reposting in a milder form doesn't alleviate the prior inflammatory post which is already in everyone's mind. In that latter case most moderators probably would consider removing any comeback post that seems intended to soft sell the prior post. It's kinda like if one sets off a concussion grenade at a particular location, the next time he shows up they will even confiscate any firecrackers.

.

are firmly convinced that we are the recipients of that "apecial award"

Bo

.