Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie1
Gee I not one the saying a person LIEs then in the next sentence says they Never Do what was said.... Really!
Then he or his Buddy Deletes the Statements. BUT Only cause what was said wasn't about the Topic but WAS! I Have the Email to Prove it! |
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Who lied or said they never do what was said (and for that matter, what was said?)
Also, any moderator can see both deleted posts and the edit history of a post (or the edit history of a deleted post).
So we can already find out the truth without your email.
No need to try proving anything to the admin board who sent you the email in the first place.
About the post that instigated
this thread, I can confirm that the content of said post was, in fact, the speculation that Dr. Drib stated.
While it could maybe be said to be somewhat heavy-handed to delete comments that are "ontopic" but, nevertheless, speculation (after the warning) which does not inform us of anything new...
IMHO the decision was fair, insomuch as the reason given was factually correct.
If I had been interested in monitoring that thread for compliance to pdurrant's rules, I would've deleted the post myself.
Personally, I don't see the need to insist on "no speculation". Threads will usually accumulate a certain detritus, accompanied by minor
s, repetition, and metacomments about the thread *itself*, so unless there is a really compelling reason to restrict those posts, I wouldn't stir myself to insist on it.
That being said, I posted a similar warning on the closed-Kindle firmware 5.6.5 jailbreak thread, but I kind of feel there was an imminent, good reason there.
Lastly, I'd just like to say, I still feel MobileRead is both informative and fun. (With the exception of the opt-in Politics & Religion forum, which is sometimes informative, and sometimes fun, for a dubious value of "fun"
but usually not both. At least not for the same person.
)
The number of times a moderator spoils the party (any party) is quite, quite low.