Is Interwoven removing threads it doesn't like?

System

I remember a thread created by iwovdave, an Interwoven employee, asking people about the upcoming WebDesk for Editors product. The thread seemed to stop once I asked certain questions, mostly not in anticipation of this new product. Iwovdave never responded. A couple weeks later, I kept the thread going, asking iwovdave to please respond to my questions. Still nothing. Now it appears the whole thread has been deleted.

Why would a thread be deleted? Is Interwoven only interested in topics that support its future development? This is supposed to be a place for people to help others and express their candid views on Interwoven products. Interwoven, through iwovdave, asked for feedback on WebDesk for Editors. I guess since they didn't get the response they wanted, they decided to censor the responses. I think this is bad practice and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm anxious to hear the explanation for why this thread was removed from the site. Or perhaps this thread will magically disappear as well.

Dave Smith
Sr. Software Engineer
Nike, Inc.
(503) 671-4238
DavidH.Smith@nike.com

HCR

Well this is still here and no one responded yet...possibly an anxious engineer with a sticky trigger finger. From my experience they are more geared towards future enhancements and not bothering to fix what is wrong fundamentally. Take for example:
Iwrename used to work without an output path as in iwrename /output/path/filename newfilename
Now in the new version it works like:
iwrenemae /output/path/filename /output/path/newfilename
This is fine and dandy but ALL of their documentation makes mention of the old way and not the new one. When we try and file a bug report (namely because all of our workflows call this function as designed and documented) they state matter of fact that oh yeah all of our documentation is wrong and they will change the documentation. Well that is fine also except for the fact that I have to recode every instance of iwrename to work in the new version which is not documented. They could have instead issued a patch to fix the problem that caused me and probably others a headache in testing.
It is the classic case of a company thinking they are above the users of their product and designing what they want when they want without properly documenting and informing the consumers (then covering up the dirt). I have at least five examples but they are pretty much the same story over and over again and I refuse to bore you further.
HCR