That's a rather simplistic reasoning if I may say so, and entirely ignores Tom's point about people whose sexual urges are "not right" joining the priesthood. Obviously allowing priests to be married doesn't make it impossible for child abuse to happen, but then he didn't say that. Your assertion that married men are "just as likely" or even "more likely" as unmarried men to molest children really requires more evidence than you've given so far if you want anyone to take it seriously.

I don't approve of his attack, but as far as failing to refute points go, you're the one who first made a one-sentence post ignoring most of what he said. So no, I can't agree that his reaction proves you right in any way.

I didn't defend it, quite the contrary. As for double standards, do you think I've never had cutting remarks sent my way? Tom is an equal-opportunity offender that way. It's certainly true that you get more abuse slung at you than probably anyone else, sometimes justified to some extent, sometimes not justified at all. But then, some people have long memories, and once you've lost their good graces, it's hard or impossible to regain them, assuming you'd even want to. And yes, things sometimes turn uglier here than on wotmania, though sometimes it's the other way around, it rather depends on which admins are active on the board at a particular time. When I think people get more abuse than they deserve, I sometimes stand up for them, but some people don't really see the point of remaining semi-polite even when annoyed, and I can hardly convince them otherwise. So frankly, when you make a reply like that to a post by someone who you know dislikes you and is known to be harsh to what he considers stupidity, you shouldn't be surprised when you get a reaction like that. I still disapprove of that reaction, as I said, but in a situation like this, I'm not exactly going to do much effort to defend you - firstly because there is no point and secondly because you could and should have known you'd get a reaction like that.