Joe,

You said ...tell us what value that thread had, and why a troublesome thread should be left open...

Well I'm somewhat concerned about what CarolC had to say.

She says that 'you specifically mentioned her in a thread' and she posted a copy of that message.

I feel that gives her the right to complain openly in the forum if she has been unfairly treated. Now I really believe that the message she posted came from you.

I feel it would have been better for all of us if you had responded to her complaint openly in the thread that she had started, instead of closing the thread (or allowing it to be closed).

I opened Mudcat this morning hoping to see a reasoned response from you in that thread but instead I see another thread started by Shambles. If you close or delete threads then the people who are complaining don't have an awful lot of choice but to start new ones if they want to get heard.

You complain about Roger continually complaining about censorship and threads and messages being deleted. But when someone complains about YOUR behaviour here, you delete the threads. Then you admonish ROGER and ask him to say something new and something true.

Well it's NEW that you have deleted some threads recently, and its TRUE because you have said so.

Now I do believe that you are trying your best to avoid trouble and contention here, but sometimes it appears to me that your actions are causing even more trouble.

---

I said that two anonymous personal attack Martin Gibson threads came from either Carol or her husband Jack the Sailor - Jack later more-or-less admitted he's the one who started it. That resulted in about eight related threads, all of which were deleted. Both Carol and Jack agreed that the matter should be dropped, so I do not think I should discuss it further. There's a fairly complete outline of the issue in the first message of this thread. What was deleted, was related squabbling.
'Nuff said.
-Joe Offer-