Is "Crosswalk" receiving pressure?

I find this situation very interesting. Is Crosswalk.com receiving pressure?

On August 4, 2007 at 11:49pm I began a thread on Crosswalk utilizing the Michael W. Smith information that is also found within this blog. After receiving, in a single week, in excess of 3000 hits and over 100 replies to that post I have now been permanently banned from forums on Crosswalk.com, a self described "Christ-centered for-profit corporation".

Here is the timing of the events that transpired to invoke their ban:

1) On August 2, 2007 GracieGirl began a thread entitled "SRA...real or not". FYI, SRA stands for Satanic Ritual Abuse. Within that thread she stated, "My struggle is often with alleged survivors who cannot demonstrate any sort of third party verification."

2) On August 8, 2007 I provided the link to THIS 12 minute video to provide the 3rd party verification she was seeking. (PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO YOU ARE SQUEAMISH. SRA IS BRUTAL AND NOT A PRETTY SUBJECT.)

3) Within 2-3 minutes of my post I was blocked from Crosswalk. The video is 12 minutes long so how could they have been that quick unless they were sitting on my account waiting to pounce? How do I know it was only 2-3 minutes? Because after I read my post I immediately tried to edit my response to clarify something I said in that post.

4) Later that day, upon Crosswalk's request, I sent this following email to community@salemwebnetwork.com as well as directly to Fred Alberti (aka Fritz):

[...] I was directly responding to the OP's, who clearly states that she has a background in medicine, questions and statements. The OP says in the first line of her post "My struggle is often with alleged survivors who cannot demonstrate any sort of third party verification." I simply was providing the third party verification she requested. My heart breaks that Cathy O'Brien, the woman who made the video and allows herself to be filmed while in the doctor's office, had to endure the things she did. However, Cathy O'Brien, of her own volition, allowed this to be shown to help enable people like the OP to have the third party verification they are seeking. I believe Cathy O'Brien is an amazingly brave person and her story should not be censored simply because of the affected area on her body. [...]
Sincerely,
USMC10yrs

5) On August 9, 2007 Fritz, the Manager of Communities, at CW sent me the following email. The response I sent back to him on August 13 is annotated in blue:

Dear USMC10yrs,
Thank you for taking the time to request a review of your status with our Community. At no time is it acceptable to post links to images or videos displaying genitals. You did this and as a result were temporarily banned. Before progressing further, I would like to ask you a few questions.
Q. What have you learned during your absence from our Community, and how do you hope to apply it in any future participation?
A: No matter how appropriate it is to the discussion, I may not post links to videos or pictures that show genitals.
Q. Do you agree to refrain from participating in any thread having anything to do with abuse?
A: No, I did nothing antagonistic or insensitive to the people who unfortunately have been harmed by this horrific practice. I do not advocate or accept abuse as acceptable behavior. I am actively involved in helping children protect themselves from such abuses. If you choose to permanently censor me from your website for this answer, I will openly question your objectivity as administrators of a supposedly Christ-based forum. See my email below for further clarification on this point. (The email reference is the one from #4 above)
Q. Do you agree to refrain from posting links to images or videos which display genitals or people in other forms of undress considered to be inappropriate at our sole discretion?
A: Yes, I understand your TOS in this regard.
Q. Have you reviewed our Terms of Service, and do you promise to conduct yourself in our Community in a manner that conforms to the rules of conduct as outlined therein?
A: Yes
Thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions.
Your responses will assist me in reviewing your status and determining your future participation in our Community. To clarify, this email does not guarantee your return to the Community. However, we are hopeful of a positive resolution and complete restoration.
Fritz, Manager of Communities

6) Later that day, on August 13, 2007, I received notification that my account was permanently restricted. Fritz' email was:

Thank you for taking the time to write us with your responses. Unfortunately, because you have not agreed to abide by the topic restriction I will not be able to approve your return to the Forum. Please let me know if you change your mind and agree to refrain from participating in any thread in our forum that has anything to do with abuse.
This decision is final and is not open to debate so please do not email us further in an attempt to reverse the decision to ban you as a result of your refusal to the restriction.
Fritz,
Manager of Communities

WHAT??? Crosswalk claims to have banned me "because you have not agreed to abide by the topic restriction". Let me get this straight. Even though I agree to no longer post links to materials they deem inappropriate I cannot participate in certain topics? Was my case not clearly laid out? Does my email not make logical sense? Have I displayed an indifference or distain for abused people or have I shown something quite to the contrary, a real and sincere concern for those afflicted? Did I not say that I would not post links to pictures or videos no matter how appropriate I thought they were to the subject.

What about others such as RedStone, who was agreeing with me that something does not add up at Rocketown? Why has he also been recently banned from Crosswalk? Let's recap...

~ August 4, 2007 I post a thread that is 100% backed up by verifiable evidence showing that Michael W Smith's Rocketown "ministry" consistently books overtly evil bands to perform in front of our youth.
~ In less than a week, said thread receives over 3000 hits and 100 posts. More importantly, several early nay-sayers eventually admit that something is amiss at Rocketown and begin contacting Rocketown and Michael Smith Productions.
~ A few days later I am banned because I refuse to comply with their irrational requirement to "agree to refrain from participating in any thread having anything to do with abuse".
~ On August 12, 2007 they move the MWS topic to "Conspiracy Central" where it will receive much less attention.

Coincidence? And people wonder how the truth can get covered up!