For the record I, too, need to weigh in on the subject of activist moderating. I understand the need to crack knuckles once in a while; it helps keep the discourse from deteriorating. I have benefited in this regard and I am more careful about what I post as a result. But like others here, I have also seen some actions that draws motive into question.

Most recently a poster here made light of PTSD. It was a one liner and was likely not very well thought out by the poster. The comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Rather, it was a generalized statement suggesting that some political views expressed on these boards may be the results of PTSD. He then went on to state that he didn't believe PTSD to be a real condition. I pointed out that country, flag, and vets were dishonored by this post and I suggested that other vets were also likely to disagree with his position.

This exchange did not involve a personal attack or insult. But it did make the poster look bad. Very bad. And by way of activist moderating the two posts were gone the next day. I did not receive a warning or any explanation for the removal of my post. As someone who has battled PTSD I would like to have heard a retraction and an apology from the poster in question. Further, others readers could have learned something about a badly misunderstood and misrepresented condition from the ignorance expressed by this poster. But that was not allowed to happen. It sure looked like protection to me.

This is one of a number of similar instances that do not fit the stated goals of the moderator. I have no problem being told to tone down the personal attacks. I understand that. But there appears to be pattern of deleted posts that do not fit that category. Let the chips fall where they may.