I'd like to chat about the convenience of your deletion policy to rewrite history MNHQ

[HoneyDragon]

Convenient deletions so that your own posts go too that's becoming common practise too. After NYE you probably mised not to do that or edit retrospectively as you agreed it was unprofessional.

Yet again we are seeing cases where one member of HQ states something then another comes and contradicts it. Are you not a little embarrassed about how incompetent you look of late?

Hopefully your advertisers aren't looking to hard at the site at present? Or is that why you don't want them to see you struggling?

Even your deletion messages have no resemblance to the context of the thread? I think the majority of incorrect speculation falls at HQs feet on the whole. Rather than site users.

Following "slight whitewash" thread from HQ

This isn't new

I know. It's annoying. They do stuff like spending hours of time best served else where deleting posts for posters who whinge their identity is compromised. Then when the same bloody posters return and post the same shite again and people point this out start wielding the banhammer to folk stating the obvious (which isn't in the guidelines), they randomly delete decent helpful suggestions on this thread, but they can't be arsed to even look at a thread where the op is calling women "dogs". What a fabulous moderation policy.

Yup. New talk guideline - "no stating the obvious"

So the gist of my post was in response to the mention of SassySusan. I 'met' her on the bereavement boards and then on fb. I believe her dd died as she said. My dd was stillborn.
She was angry at her ban. She often posted in various guises after that. Often innocuously and she'd laugh about it in a closed fb group. She created a thread posing as the friend of a mother of a stillborn child using a similar story to mine. She admitted it was her when I called her on it before blocking her. I had all my posts pulled as I had posted about a work issue. I checked today and I still have RowanMN's emails. Nothing about this is contentious. It is fact.
Even then there was, on re-reading those emails, some reluctance to shut down that thread initially. This was in 2014.