"Oh, and if a moderator wants to post something in the even remotely in political area and the owner of the site approves it... done deal ... and if some active member has issue with that.. well I guess that's okay too. The value of this site is in both moderators and members... " I would agree if that was the way things unfolded, historically, on this and "that other" site . . . but it's not. If a moderator expresses a political opinion on this site (worse on TH) the worst he is going to get is grousing from a courageous few who disagree with him, followed by defense from fellow moderators, and folks who agree with him, of the type "if you don't like it here you can start your own website" or "it's a privately owned site - get used to it". If I expressed an opinion of the sort Rowuk did (by the way, I agree with what he said) I would be summarily banished from the site and my post would be deleted (leaving the post to which I objected in place and unchallenged). Disagreement with moderators is simply not tolerated and the punishment for doing so is heavy handed in the extreme. I, pretty much, always agree with Rowuk's observations and I admire his musical skills and accomplishments and his ability to put into words the difficult to describe processes of becoming a better trumpet player. I would never lobby to have anything he has said removed or edited out. But don't try and indicate that decisions of that kind are not, often, done in a heavy handed and one-sided manner. They are.