Maybe because it was a thread started with the idea of causing an argument, or pursuing an agenda Roger?

Well I wouldn't know about such things, for I just simply try to post my views.

When it comes to pursuing an agenda and being seen to be making attempts to prevent other posters from posting their views - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, you and a few noisy other posters would perhaps be the best ones to know and to judge such things as agendas?

Public speculations of the possible motives for a poster starting a thread are as pointless as they are endless.

For a thread's intention matters little. It is up to all the posters our forum what the thread becomes and I would suggest that they should be the ones allowed to decide.

But where there may be threads and posts where 'silent deletion' may be judged to be a proportionate response by our anonymous 'moderators' - are such threads as these really the ones and is this drastic action to be seen to the first and only method of dealing with them?   

And is our forum now so frightened of argument and only for the like-minded now?

But if such action is judge by our 'moderators' to be proportionate - should this action be imposed secretly? Why can not the fact that such action has been judged to be proportionate to be imposed on our forum and in their name - be at least recorded openly?

Then you would not need to speculate and use the word 'maybe'. For you I and all the posters on our forum would know and could then have a say if we judged the action to have been proportionate.

Then you would not need to speculate and use the word 'maybe'. For you I and all the posters on our forum would know and could then have a say if we judged the action to have been proportionate.