It's a BATC forum and he has every right to do so, but I also believe he should justify his action.
There is discussion taking place and none of it is offensive.
Both CQ-TV and CQ-DATV are benefiting from feedback of what our respective readers like or dislike
I can only say that nobody at CQ-DATV requested this action, quite the reverse.
This is purely an action that either an individual or the BATC committee took.
CQ-DATV is open and happy to publish all your comments on any subject even the locked thread, it is after all a free ATV magazine open to everyone.
email@example.com (not my title just an email address)
My apologies - I was short of time yesterday evening and did not want the topic spiralling into mud-slinging.
I do support the principle that there should be open discussion about the content of CQ-DATV. However, given the nature some of the comments that were being made, I took the view that the BATC Forum was not the right place for that particular ongoing discussion.
As a forum moderator, even before I was BATC Chairman, I have tried to keep the forum as a place to exchange technical ideas. It is less suited to exchanges of social and political views.
I was quite simply trying to keep the forum on-topic. If you want to discuss Analogue vs Digital, or DVB-S vs DVB-T go ahead. Just not politics.
CQ-DATV is often more than just technical exchanges of data, least I hope so.
I think the thread feedback was balanced and useful there were points both ways,
I for one never realised the magazine covers were such hot topics and no I was not behind it.
So, we both agree no to mudslinging, but let’s also agree the locked option ought to be reserved for when and if it happens, not I thought it might go that way.
Feedback is always valuable, yes, this forum is restricted to BATC members, but I still care what they think. I don't feel CQ-DATV is a rival to CQ-TV just an attempt to try different ways of reaching out to the people who are keeping our hobby alive.