I didn't see any posts that were insulting and/or off-topic in the Page 1 thread, so I can only assume they were all deleted. That being said, I have to think it's a healthy discussion to have (whether the actual product is just a rumor or a real possibility). It seems most people not liking the idea of Apple teaming up with 50-cent have a problem with 50-cent's image, whatever that may mean to them. Those defending the possibilty of a 50-cent-branded low-price Mac say "Damn the torpedoes, get more Mac users into the fold!" I find myself agreeing a bit more with the latter point of view - what really disturbed me was that not only was the thread closed, but the mod then seemed to be disappointed with the lack of people "reporting" the posts in the thread to the mods, and encouraged "more policing". It occurs to me that a lot of people probably thought the discussion was a good one and shouldn't have been killed just because of a few stupid posters, and thus saw no reason to report the thread. Isn't it better to err on the side of an open discussion rather than killing said discussion over the comments of an errant few? The mods are certainly free to practice censorship; it is, after all, a private website; however, that doesn't mean that the censorship is a good idea every single time. Suspending the accounts (with a warning) of the offending posters for a few days would surely be a better idea. And if only 1 person had a problem with the thread, why are we letting 1 person kill the discussion that hundreds of other were having? I don't know if it's beyond the ability of the site operators to have a Slashdot-like moderation system in effect, but I think anyone who has ever participated in a discussion there would agree that it takes self-policing to the best level that we've seen so far on the web.