Thanks for the helpful conversation everyone as we flesh this out.
Anchor: You stated above "Again in my opinion - the moderators are not here to judge truth from falsehood (except for the benefit of our personal reading) - in that regard I maintain we are no different from the non-moderators."
I could not agree with you more. Indeed, your role here as a moderator is not to judge truth from falsehood, and thats the philosophical point I was making above. Yet, the subtle caveat to that point is that even though we all set out with the best of intentions,
personal preference sets in...inevitably. I think that we have some very sensitive and perceptive souls on here and they are picking up on this preference.
None of us like being biased or judgmental (well some do
but we strive to be as unbiased as our biased minds allow.
I think we need to move away from this idea judging new information and approach it more from an evaluative stance. You evaluate it against everything that you know and understand, and decide whether it is right for you. Some may call it a semantic difference but I am certain there is a distinct difference between Judging and Evaluating.
I was also campaigning for the right of Bill and Kerry to to evaluate information as well. I don't always agree with them, but I see which direction the ship is going and I wish to be on board. That is all I have ever wanted from life. To sail inexorably towards that star of truth, wherever it may lie.
I'm sorry for what happened with the Heather material...but we did in fact get to read it. So thats a plus. I think these things tend to work themselves out.