I will repeat myself:  If people can't see the connection between perceived lack of diverse content and the repeated concerns expressed by those who try to post diverse content by now - I can't help them.

If X is a prick, call him a prick. But don't moan that he's censoring you. The site is not more his than yours, and not less.

I have no idea what you are talking about now.  I've not thought anyone a "prick" (except Rahm Emanuel, and I did call him that.)  And aside from Rahm, who is my elected representative, so I feel entitled, I do not think I will join you in advocating name-calling.  I am not a fan of that method.  

I've also not claimed anyone is censoring me.  

Others have claimed they feel the preference for self-censorship in light of the way their diaries have been received.  I was acknowledging that several people here have said as much.  You explicitly asked for more content.  Yet absence better explanation, you appear unwilling to acknowledge that some long-time members prefer self-censorship, or to seriously advocate a more tolerant atmosphere.  It's your prerogative - I frankly don't care.  I write what I want anyway.  But you asked for more content.  It's kinda of like trying to talk to a wall.  The message does not appear to be getting through to you.  I can't figure out why.  And of course, it is not just you.  In fact, it is a whole culture.  But it is your post I am responding to.  

I'm not expecting you to notice anti-French bias. Don't expect me to notice anti-poemless or anti-woowoo or anti-whatever bias.

Anti-poemless bias?!!!  Where?!!!  I'll smoke the bastards out!

Oh.  Wait.  No one has mentioned any anti-poemless bias.  You just made that up.  I believe the technical jargon for that is "strawman."  

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.