I post in a couple of forums. I show images, offer insights into how I got the image, and always try to help others. I don't say bad things about people, I ignore many comments that do bother me in one way or another, and I've always tried to say things in a manner that does not imply anything negative or critical. I realized a long time ago that we are all different and we all think very differently and I like those differences for the most part. I posted something in a forum and someone responded and then I responded back. Nothing in the conversation, either his comments or mine, were offensive in any way from my point of view. The moderator of the forum, who is a very nice person, sent me a private email saying that a part of what I put in my response was cut out by the moderator because the moderator felt/believed/thought it was not "friendly, supportive conversation."

The topic was about SOOC to some degree, although not the original post. The sentence below was written by one of the posters, and I believed it was actually written in jest but I responded, his post said, "Realize you are upsetting the people who say that the SOOC is a gift from god and it is "My Style."

My response was "In reality the only image straight out of the camera (for the most part) would be a RAW file, not a JPEG file. As we all know, a JPEG is a processed file, letting the camera make all the decisions, so, a camera is the artist for a JPEG file, not the photographer. And any "style" that may be involved can be contributed to the camera, not the photographer." Part of that response included the words, which were cut out by the moderator, "A rational, thinking individual would know this." I meant the sentence not as a criticism of anyone but as a reference to rational, linear thought processes using science, i.e. RAW is not processed but JPEG is processed so only RAW can actually be SOOC [and, in fact, it is often referred to as a negative], even though there is a belief that SOOC applies to JPEG. I had no ill intent nor was I trying to "put anyone down" in anyway.

The moderator's response to me was this: "Here we are again, Connie, chatting about topic content. I deleted a sentence in your reply to --: A rational, thinking individual would know this.

Please remember that -- Forum is about friendly, supportive conversations. Let's please leave criticism of the great unwashed to main discussion forum.

Thanks much!"

I am stunned that this person would reply in this way, "criticism of the great unwashed" and I have no idea at all what the person means by that. I am also insulted to some degree that this person would assume that I would say something offensive. I can only guess that saying the words "rational" and "thinking individual" were found to be offensive words by the moderator. Obviously the moderator saw those two words and interpolated them to his/her way of thinking, her thinking had absolutely no place in my mind.

What is the role of a forum moderator? To cut out things they don't like, don't agree with, or something THEY think is bad or wrong in some way? How far does a moderator go? I can see a moderator taking down a vile, ranting post as that would be obviously hurtful. But after that, what are the guidelines? Are we now a society that believes we can only say things one way and there is no room for saying something another way? I can also see a moderator posting something in the forum that says, in essence, "hey, cool it." And I've seen that before and that does seem to be needed at times. This actually reminds me of the discussions going on now with Amazon and Facebook and perhaps other sites. I absolutely agree that our conversations should be civil and inclusive and that no one has the right to berate, belittle, or generally snarl at others but should all of our words now be formed by the moderator or some "thought police" type person?

I have to admit I am more than a little perplexed by the email I got. Obviously I won't be posting in that particular forum anymore (and I really did like the forum and have learned a few things in it) as I don't care for that type of extreme policing. Your thoughts on this?

Connie, surely you know how easy it is for someone to find where you posted those words. No need for secrecy once you've quoted your own comments.

I didn't see this main forum topic until I'd sent you my reply - a reply I thought was so thoughtfully written, I've included it as an attachment here for all to enjoy 😇

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't gratified to read that two people (so far) have interpreted the comment in the way I feared others might, and that another has mentioned the value of a "relatively focused venue where we can discuss our hobby without the vitriol and constant flame wars."

Whether you agree with my original action or with this attachment isn't really of concern, though. After 7+ years on UHH, I've seen and heard it all. I receive a lot of public and private support, and I receive occasional public and private "hate mail." Onward through the fog!