If you recall it was because someone said they had certain kinds of info via pm- a threat, by PM, is certainly that kind of information. We can have no way of knowing if there actually was a threat, and if there was, who made it first. By asking for proof we ask for exposure of confidential information, and by just accepting the allusion to the PM's we possibly accept lies. Because it is no win, I believe the rule was put in place.
BTW
This whole thing makes me feel ill. They dynamic here is sick. I can no longer evaluate this. It seems to me if you want to tolerate religious freedom, you need to tolerate the speech of Chris Land. If you cannot tolerate his speech, and feel the need to ban it, then you will forget what religion can engender. His view is the view of many people. Just as someone else, whose name I won't mention, espouses the view of many people who hate Jews. I think such views should be personally condemned, but it bothers me to see group enjoyment, and sport made of such activities. What CL did was not a violation of the thread header. Allegations against him, using nebulous PM's certainly seem to be- since they are analogous to another case, which I will not describe in detail, since I do not want to violate the rules. |
