>Al,
>
>There was no requirement whatsoever to include "proof" as you call it.

So, according to you, making allegations without proof is OK. I disagree.

>First, I knew that Steve had admitted to doing it to Rod in an email - but that was not my call to bring that up. That was Rod's call - and he did that. Second, more than a few people did see what I wrote - and did notice that it was gone. In fact, Steve was noted as being the last editor of the topic when my stuff disappeared.
>
>Al - you asked for proof - and you got it. Your "timing" requirement is completely beside the point.

What have you proved? That posts were deleted. Given that the nature of the posts is unknown, it's a large stretch to infer unethical behaviour from that. No-one who knows of your animosity with Steven Black is going to accept a charge like that just on your say-so.

As for timing - I knew nothing of this "affair" until I saw your message footer. You had a chance to present a rational, reasoned argument, backed with facts or proof, to hundreds of UTers. Instead, you used inflammatory language and hid the few cards you held instead of being upfront.

John, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, if you're going to be a lawyer I expect better. I'm disappointed, not to mention unconvinced.