Technicalities are the best way to avoid discussion (you came to the wrong department, we've discussed it already, come back tomorrow etc.) I have never heard one single good explanation why a caricature which shows a known person masturbate (and placing it next to his portrait, so everyone who looks for his portrait is forced to see it!) or why a caricature which praises terrorists who blow up buses and call for more actions like that, should be considered educational material. I didn't get an answer why paraphrases of this caricatures are banned, even though the caricaturist himself allowed it by releasing his works to the public domain. Whether the administrators mean it or not, there is a strong sense of corruption here. There is a strong feeling as if the Commons took a political stand, not only by hosting these cartoons, but also by the way they are categorized, and by banning opposite opinions. Even though many people say privately they object these caricatures, and even though at least one of them was voted for deletion, some administrators insist on keeping them, without providing proper explanations. Most of the explanations resort to technicalities (as we've seen right now), some of them claim that the Commons are not censored while they censor the opposite opinions. I want to know how many people on this mailing list actually support keeping this caricatures, and what they think about the way they categorized. I want to hear a good explanation (for a change) why they are considered educational. I would say even more - the offensive nature of these caricatures demands that these questions be raised periodically, so we know for sure that the controversial decision to keep these problematic files is not coincidental nor accidental, but is indeed accepted on the community. Dror K