A common definition of CENSORSHIP is "the suppression or deletion of material, which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor" (Wikipedia). I never questioned Ran's or his nominees' right to delete anything. I simply asked if doing so, censoring, was a good thing for this site.
Thus far, it appears that for the majority, economics and politics, inextricably intertwined as they are, should be off limits. The primary reason given is that these subjects are divisive and lead to bad feelings to the extent that some of us may not wish to play golf with others who hold contrary beliefs. One gentleman went so far as to provide names of posters who delve widely in OT subjects, but are positive and a joy to be with. Curiously, two on his short list have a long history of being highly opinionated and not afraid to create controversy. But I digress. If this site wishes to go PC, I can handle it.
Dick,
Don't let Barney pull your chain. He is just toying with us on the site. BTW, he has company in the snowy Midwest. I know another who just tosses things out there to rile things up, though he does it a bit more adroitly.
SL,
I have similar problems with discipline.
A good memory for subject matters which interest me is one of my blessings. Nothing about the mandatory caddy discussion rattled me, nor do I think it was improper for this forum. Simply, I disagree with your authoritarian stance on this matter, and some of the same objections you raised to support the deletion of the Obama thread seemed to apply to that one as well.
If it came across that I was selling myself short, that was not my intent. I harbor no illusions of changing your mind or otherwise posting anything that you don't already know. As you noted so well, the answer to why I even bother is that "I guess I just can't help myself".
As to being "disingenuous", that too was not my intent. The pure course architecture thread on this site is a most rare occurrence. Even those that Patrick Mucci starts often run into various tangents that stray well away from the source. I am not complaining mind you. I didn't start the Obama thread nor veered its course toward tax policy (I don't think), but I feel fairly justified in claiming it has a connection to golf. Who knows, perhaps if it hadn't been deleted , we may have been able to develop the themes (not to your edification perhaps, but maybe to others) and tied things together a bit more neatly.
Regarding the lipstick on the pig, I try to avoid these things whenever possible, so there is seldom a need to dress them up before going out in public. In your way of thinking there may not be a tie-in between the populist, golf-playing Obama, his policy of higher taxes, and the well-being of golf. A few of us disagree.
I don't think that the notion of government interference was brought up here. It is not a matter of a right to free speech. As I stated at the outset, Ran's right to censor is not being challenged. The question posed was simply: is this a good thing? The concensus answer, to my chagrin, appears to be yes. Fortunately, life will go on. Cheers!