In this post, your blockquote from BTB came from this thread:

Three Pro-Gay Groups Seek To Elbow Their Way Into Prop 8 Lawsuit

If that's the thread where you went looking for your comment, then of course it's not there. But if it's lost, it's because you went looking in the wrong place. It is actually on this thread:

Anti-Prop 8 Legal Team to Pro-Gay Groups: Back Off

Scroll on down and there it is, right where it always was. It's the fourth comment down.

I corrected my misspelling, but at least my error didn't slander anyone. The least you could do is be classy (or whatever) and correct your error. We didn't lose your comment. You did.

I hope we don't further divide our voices – we are unrepresented enough without challenging each other and pointing fingers at each other. We should be encouraging each other, correcting each other when necessary and contributing to the benefit of one another.

This is not a competition between LGBT activists/advocates. It IS us verse them – and we are WAY outnumbered.

We may lose this court battle, but we won't lose the war. I firmly believe we are on the side of what is just and right.

As Timothy Kincaid noted, there are two different articles on BTB discussing the same issue; the one KipEsquire linked is a different article than the one in which he commented.

You may not agree with BTB on this issue (I definitely agree with a lot of your points, and I am now following you on Twitter!), but you need to admit that you made a mistake on this one, and jumped to conclusions. I think you owe BTB an apology. Your passive-aggressive edit to this post is kind of immature.

But that's just an outsider's two cents.

Nevertheless, we did not do anything to you comment.

Unlike this site, we do not seen every comment to moderation. Ours post immediately.

Your comment was not removed or revised or amended or adjusted or moderated or anything else. It sat right there on the thread where it sits from that moment to this one.

You may be confused because we have two threads discussing this topic. And the one on which you left your comment is not the one to which this thread links. So perhaps you mistook the two and forgot where you posted your thoughts.

This looser definition these groups seem to want the court to use suggests a civil rights group can intervene in any trial-level case where later appellate review might result in an adverse ruling to their interests. While I'd love to have every criminal defendant with 4th Amendment issues get full ACLU representation at the trial level (whether they want it or not), that's not the way the system works. If they'd adopted this attitude in the 1980s we might still have a viable 4th Amendment. I certainly wouldn't expect to see these groups telling criminal defendants not to fight now in the hopes of a more liberal court giving a more favorable ruling to future defendants down the road.

Olson/Boies might not be the perfect vehicle for the greater societal message we all want, but so-called leaders telling these attorneys to abandon their clients (and their clients' case) for some greater societal good is simply wrong.

[Kip replies: I actually have not taken a position on the underlying merits of the motion to intervene, either in this post or generally speaking. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of those who simply cannot ascribe anything other than ulterior motives to the groups making the motion.]

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/08/13074#comment-44401

We do not edit or delete comments based on opinion. Please remove your statement saying that we did.

[Kip replies: The comment was there, then it wasn't. And it was still not there at the time I published this post.]

Thus the Boies/Olson suit has to be litigated properly the first time. There may not be a second chance. I hardly blame, for instance Lambda Legal, which as you point out is anything but a "Johnny Come Lately" to the issue, for wanting to ensure that what it considers the best arguments are heard in the District Court and in the Ninth.