No idea. My guess is it was considered flame-baiting (if it has been removed). Considering that it provided no evidence for such a claim, I'm not surprised. It was just meant to solicit responses.
I'm not a big fan of overmoderation, especially to the extent of deleting entire threads. Unlike many on this forum, I put a lot of time and effort into some of my posts and don't appreciate my words ending up in internet oblivion.
Time and effort isn't always what counts. I only read the thread briefly then moved on, but it just seemed to give a bunch of inflammatory statements without any evidence to back it up. Moderators are in the position to decide if the post is a sincere post made by the OP, or if its only intend is to solicit emotional and enflamed responses. Given the lack of evidence (that I saw for it anyway), i imagine the moderators leaned more towards thinking it a flamebait thread. I don't imagine the moderators would have a problem with a thread like that starting up again, but it needs an article or some form of argument or evidence to help substantiate it as something more than a thread designed purely to cause trouble. Just the way it works here on this forum. edit: if you want a more direct response, you can always PM a moderator to see what happened. You may not get a response you like, just the way it works here. They moderators are pretty lenient at letting any great variety of inflammatory posts slide, but the post must not (by their discretion) be intent solely at soliciting flaming, providing some attempt at showing evidence and talking points.
Here's the relevant rules: Moderator reserve discretion for what threads are designed purely to elicit emotionally charged responses, or threads that do not contain sufficient elaboration to form a respectful discussion (e.g. evidence or proof). You might consider this over-moderating, but the rules are not too difficult to work with... if you have sufficient enough elaboration and evidence to form a topic.
