WD ethics

Over time and from my possibly defective recall, I have had two significant posts declined by WD, with possibly a 3rd post today delayed; the longer the delay the more certain the decline.

The 1st post was during a (still unresolved) dispute over a certain 'tanty.' Possibly now to be considered as 'water under the bridge,' the episode has not lost its disturbing character with age. (In plain text: justice was not just not seen to be done, it was not done at all - Oh, 'only' IMHO, as usual.)

But that was then and this is now; although WD may do what it wants - from 'Bringing up Baby': "Do what you want! (I know you will anyway)" - WD itself claims 'ethics,' i.e. here.

In particular, I draw your attention to this: "4. Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary". My comment: perfectly OK with me.

I'm under the impression that if a post is declined, one may call for an explanation; I do so now call, in respect to the two declined/delayed posts listed below[1]. The widely characterised as 'propagandistic' FoxNews employs a slogan something like 'We Report. You Decide.' By declining publication, WD does not allow its own audience a similar luxury.

My recently declined post and the one pending may be viewed 'in here.'

I thank you in advance for your (indubitably fair) consideration.

-=*=-

[1] Post considered rejected (to Craig's Cease fire! 1599):

what are ya? (all his own words): ('in here' as sprog imbroglio; WD suppressed)
1st: on November 24, 2006 - 9:45pm.
final: on November 25, 2006 - 12:17pm.

Post possibly 'only' delayed:

propaganda ('in here' as propaganda; WD pending)
1st: on November 28, 2006 - 9:45am.
final: on November 28, 2006 - 11:57am.