[metmom]

How do you know that 26 pulled posts were all Natural Law’s? Because after a post is pulled, the poster’s name is NOT on the page. How do you, Alex, have access to that information, the name of the poster whose posts were pulled, how many, and on what thread? And what are you referring to LAST APRIL for? If YOU are a moderator, your behavior here is very reprehensible. If you are not, who gave you access to this information? This is despicable behavior on your part, Alex Murphy.

You know, anyone with posts pulled that everyone knows really happened can afford to taunt others to provide *proof* knowing full well that the evidence is no longer in existence on the forum.

It's disingenuous to demand proof for something, knowing that it's not available.

As a matter of fact, that seems like pretty despicable behavior itself.

[Natural Law]

"It's disingenuous to demand proof for something, knowing that it's not available."

Actually, the despicable act was making a personal assault and "authoritatively" citing evidence that one knows to not be verifiable. Some might go so far as to call that lying.

[wagglebee]

It's disingenuous to demand proof for something, knowing that it's not available.

By the same token, wouldn't it also be disingenuous to claim that the majority of posts pulled were made by Catholics without proof?

To further complicate matters, it's not at all uncommon for the RM to pull a post which quotes another pulled post.

It's hardly a secret that some of these threads get very heated, from time-to-time a poster is banned, suspended or asked to leave the thread; aside from that, it's somewhat foolish to read much into it.

[Judith Anne]

It's disingenuous to demand proof for something, knowing that it's not available.

If the proof is not available, then what business does anyone have quoting numbers of pulled posts? Unless they have some other way of knowing, that the rest of us don't have.