My error was just a format bug, thanks, I'll watch. The request was merely the same as the text I quoted.

Andy, I looked at everything deleted in the past 2 months, which was the same 2 comments and 1 post of yours that we've discussed. We don't generally delete your criticism of Catholics, even though Catholics have objected to us (and we field them like any other reports). I tried to say more tactfully that, if we're going to have equal rules for all three of us, your comments about Catholicism are likely to need revisiting due to comparability with the comments you've cited. But again, the degree of your excess is totally not the point. The point is what do we do about it. Are you asking me to look for comments of others that were deleted that should have provided a necessary anti-Catholic balance? I don't think any such exist. But in the meantime, without providing new evidence of our abuses, you're continuing to insult CIAMM with "goliath" now, while he has stopped insulting you. Oh wait, I guess you see his imbalanced comparison as an insult; well, your reaction isn't the best attuned to getting him to stop.

A complaint is useless without a remedy. Are you saying you should have the right to post an attack upon the mods of a forum and let it stand to see who votes it up? That's basically disruptive of the whole structure of any forum. If leadership is in error, you go through channels, you appeal to others, like the c:win link. When someone presents an offense to the church they present the evidence that they went through the first two steps of Matthew 18 already. If your cause is so right, it'll stand the discussion we're having now in lieu of a lurid anti-forum front-page drama. You had already started the charge of abuse in the other thread, you could've waited for our two replies there, or taken us aside privately, but you got the idea of testing it with votes (as you keep alluding) and you then reacted to that idea being immediately shut down. We have the ability to offer you to reinstate the thread, against my better judgment, but you're not acting like you want to commit to anything other than the catharsis of continuing to use time in these side points. In fact we have lots of abilities to create new rules applicable to unique situations, but you have hardly asked for anything other than to keep complaining.

Your post colored us as sinners, and you say you can take what you dish out, but then you complain repeatedly about our language. If every comment you complained about were instantly changed, and your comments and post reinstated, would you stop? If we also apologized, promised not to do it again, and demonstrated the policies by which we'd enforce our promise, would you stop? If we gave you whatever other benefits you'd list, would you stop? You have bound me by the name of Christ to finish this with you, and finish I will in his name, one way or another: you can gain your brothers, or we can conclude we made every effort to be at peace with all men and shake the dust of our feet off. Your protestation that we're trying to hide the post doesn't make any sense if you aren't willing to come to terms about getting us to release the post. There are some things we can do unilaterally, but we're not here to guess what bones to throw you without you agreeing that they move the discussion forward.

I try to take all comments in the most positive light, which is why I say (for the fourth time) that I could take his words in the light of describing everyone's equal guilt before God, and that it was rhetorically flawed because you could easily misunderstand it as a moral equivalence. That's not to excuse, merely to explain. And what do you want to do about it? Hosea 14:2 describes the three acts of repentance: apologize, ask forgiveness, and make restitution (including preventing recurrence). Will you permit us to do these things? In what process would you receive the fairness you seek?