Mods, and more importantly, Admins can still see when a thread gets deleted. Thats just one of the many procedures in place to keep Mods in check.
Words have meaning, thus, if I respond to your words, I am also in effect responding to their meaning.
Free speech doesn't even enter into the equation on a privately owned site like Sherdog. That line of argument is a non-starter.
Good, but I don't think admins routinely look through deleted threads to see if they shoulda been deleted. So it'd be better were they archived for review in situations like this. This incident is actually a great example, because you've done exactly what I predicted, in failing to tell me why my thread was moved.
No, you've committed a logical fallacy. Yes, words have meaning, but that doesn't necessarily mean that if you respond to my words, you've responded to my meaning.
Take this example: I ask "what is the capital of Georgia?". When I say "Georgia", I mean the country in Eurasia. Its capital is Tbilisi, and thus, were you to respond to my meaning, you'd answer Tbilisi. But you think I'm referring to the U.S. state, and thus instead, you say "Atlanta". You see how you responded to my word, but not my meaning? To be fair, in this example, it's simply a failure of communication. You genuinely tried to respond to my meaning, but you thought I meant to the U.S. state, not the Eurasian country. That could quickly be cleared up during the course of that conversation. But this example doesn't suit what's happened here. For that, let's look at a different example:
You and I know each other well. We have a friend called Geoff. My nickname for Geoff is Giraffe, and you know this. I say "What's Giraffe up to tonight?". You know I'm referring to Geoff, who's working nights as a security guard. Yet you respond "probably eating Acacia in Africa somewhere." You see the difference between this example and the last one? This isn't a failure of communication. You know what I mean, yet you chose to respond to my word (Giraffe), not my meaning (Geoff).
When I said "Could you specifically quote a rule that I broke?" I was asking what rules warranted my thread being moved. If you didn't understand that, then fair enough, it's a failure of communcation (thus it'd be a case of example A). However, I clarified things in the follow-up post, when I said "Semantics; respond to my meaning, not my words; I'm asking why my thread was deleted", yet you still haven't responded. Respond to my meaning ("why was the thread moved?") not my words ("Could you specifically quote a rule that I broke?").
I did what you suggested btw, and my thread doesn't break any of the rules in the thread you referenced. It doesn't "fighter bash"; it doesn't flame; it wasn't an "empty post" e.g. "Rickson by armbar"; it wasn't a "graphic post"; it didn't contain copyrighted material; it didn't contain profanity in the thread title.
What I said about free speech was regarding my own beliefs for how forums should be run; it's a point regarding how I think the forums rules should be constructed, not about how they are currently. If you want to talk about that subject, telling me why the thread was deleted would be a great start.
You barely responded to my last post. Is there a reason for that? Should I expect this to continue?