Did I not show some prescience in starting my post above with the following words?
Well, there is not much point arguing with a moderator.
It is normally the case that a recalcitrant poster perpetuates an argument that should be dropped. But we may have a case of role reversal here! When near the end of my post I said
Not that I am going to. I'm giving up.
What I meant was: This is over. I don’t agree with the reasons advanced. I have explained why. I’m going off now. The moderators of this site will (necessarily) win any argument.
Next I see a new post from the moderator. But the argument has changed. Now I could reply to that (and I do have answers) but it will still be the case that he or she will win in the end. However only because those folks up in “PPruNe HQ” make the rules. While that is how it must be, it nonetheless does not necessarily every decision correct.
In any case to chase the copyright rabbit is to head off the subject. The nub of this matter is that, were I to obtain permission to publish this article from the Sunday Tribune – which I think I could probably get in this case – where would the article be posted on PPRuNe?
However, that question has already been answered and I have explained above why I disagreed. That, in my humble opinion, should have ended the matter.
Changing the subject to one of copyright does not change the points I made above and the introduction of a new argument tends in my opinion to support my suspicion that the post was removed for reasons other than provided. But who cares about a suspicion? It amounts to nothing.
I do think it was important to say what I said because of who and what is involved. I equally think it best that we all let this go.
I hope that it is therefore clear that I (1) accept the moderator’s decision, and, (2) I do not agree with it.
PPRuNe has editorial rights, hence we place threads where we think serve the site best. This one sits nicely in here in the opinion of PPRuNe.