that's just a tad disingenuous, sir.

I'm glad you said "just a tad", tsuwm.

Here is what you posted on your "snollygaster" thread after we had our very civilized exchange about this by PM.

I nearly didn't add this post, because it didn't seem to add anything to the dialectic of the forum; but then I thought of the clever, rhyming salutation and, what with the icon, I was good to go! : )

To which I replied onscreen with this:

"Well, that's a jolly good show." [with a big face]

I thought that was the end of it, tsuwm, and that your concerns had been satisfactorily addressed in my PMs in reply.

Note: This post is quite lengthy and I have been criticized for making lengthy posts. In deference to that criticism, I invite you, tsuwm, and other readers to skip directly to the bottom of this post for my concluding statements. I have highlighted those statements in bold for your convenience.

Returning to my reply:

As you know, in the last PM I sent you regarding "snollygoster", I said:

1. I thought both of your words "snollygoster" and "snallygaster" are "excellent" words worth remembering.

2. My limerick is intended as a "mnemonic tool" to aid in remembering your words while having a little fun with them at the same time. I told you I would add a lead to each limerick I posted explaining the reason for the limerick, which I did.

3. I acknowledged that my "snollygoster" limerick was imperfect, but I explained that I deliberately sacrificed perfection in the rhyme to get both words "snollygoster" and "snallygaster", along with the meaning of each, into 5 lines.

4. I said I was glad we are both agreed that mixing a little fun with learning is a good thing, not something to be discouraged.

I didn't hear further from you on this, tsuwm, apart from your complimentary post quoted above ["clever rhyming salutation ... I was good to go"], so I naturally assumed that whatever "complaint" you had about my limerick was satisfied.

Now you seem to have a different view of the matter. Your new position seems "a tad disingenuous, sir". :)

Tsuwm, I thought we were getting along just fine yesterday, and I was very happy about that. Frankly, I thought it was very presumptuous of you to say that you are "good to go" with my limerick as though you have some special status around here to decide what is acceptable and what is not under the rules as you personally interpret them.

I chose to ignore that presumption yesterday when you responded positively to my respectful and exhaustive explanations.

But now that you seem to have recanted, I must tell you very simply and directly that I do not agree with your new opinion, and, furthermore, while you have every right to express your opinion, and even to change it, your opinion on this subject has no more weight or value around here than mine does.

The fact is, tsuwm, I do not acknowledge that you have any more right to ban my limericks for arbitrary, unfair or capricious reasons than Jackie does, or Of Troy does, or ASp does. I have gone to great trouble to explain that the limericks I posted in Q&A are intended as mnemonic aids which are relevant to the word being discussed, and potentially useful and informative.

Once you guys get into the censorship business, or even think you have the right to censor other people's harmless and inoffensive posts, it's a very slippery slope from there.

Next thing you know, someone will want to censor free verse in Q&A even if it is clever and responsive to the subject under discussion. Or they may want to censor TEd Rem's "butterskotch sundaes" [mentioned earlier] which everyone loves because they are just plain fun.

If you really want to censor something in Q&A, tsuwm, why don't you and Jackie get together and ban hateful language, vulgarities and personal insults. If you and Jackie were to do that, your efforts to censor harmless, informative rhymes [good or bad rhymes or both] would look less bizarre.