I made the comment before I saw that Joe'd actually spammed the thread.

There is still no lack of irony.

As the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, after using that thread to litter with the spam that he removed from other threads (where it has remained since August 2006) - now claims, rather incredibly, that he has now closed it (for a second time) in order to prevent that thread (1) from being littered with spam!!!!

Then - even more incredibly, when a new thread (2) was started and linked, as suggested, to the old one - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team then litters this new thread (2) with the new spam that he had removed from the first thread (1).

The same very spam that he used as an excuse to close the first thread (1).      

I thought our 'moderators' were supposed to be deleting spam posts?

It seems that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - for his own personal schemes- has more uses for the bathwater than he does for the baby. As the spam is saved but all the non-spam posts in the threads - are judged by him to be expendable.   

Are the rest of the 'modertors' as confused by the message all this is giving about how they are supposed to be dealing with spam?

Or more importantly how they should be dealing with non-spam posts?