I for one would be deeply dissapointed if Chip was driven away.

As an impartial, it has to be said that Phil does like to antagonise Chip unnecessarily. If Phil makes a post, Chip has every right to respond on a public forum - or are there separate rules for certain members.... This doesnt sound very democratic.

Furthermore, if somebody makes a comment about someone, irrespective of who, and how many times before, then that person should be given the right to react in an adult manner. If Chip, as he states did this, then why ban him?

I accept that a warning has been given to both parties, but if Chip reacted in a grown up manner, then he has not breached the rules.

I also accept that being a MOD is a very hard job, and that we dont necessarily know the whole story. Notwithstanding this, by systematically deleting any evidence of the disagreement between them, we cannot make our own judgements. Was the post offensive to anyone other than the two of them (ie racist etc)? If so, then it should be removed rightly and immediately. If not, then maybe a more impartial view could be taken if the evidence could be viewed by all.

As always this is my opinion based on the information I have. Clearly there is more to the story, but I would be absolutely gutted if Chip was forced to leave over a personality clash!

JJ