"

Fear has nothing to do with it.  Your ""sources"" are poorly-researched and biased themselves; Arbcom actually stated in relation to a case that FreemasonryWatch was too fantastical.  Yet you have your links listed as if they are completely true.  Like most critics of Freemasonry, you have a bad habit of taking things out of context.  However, if a Mason tells you you're wrong, it's ""Masonic bias"", and apparently because we don't want you to reveal some deep, dark secret.  I know perfectrly well that people love conspiracy theories, so there's that to consider, but my main concern is that it appears to be that you are attempting to wage some sort of personal crusade.  Otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to publicize said material on your userpage.  The sources you have were discussed at length, and were shown to be inaccurate by objective evidence rather than personal opinion.  There is a difference.

Now, let's look at it this way: not being a Roman Catholic, if I were to turn around and say that ""Roman Catholics are pagans"" because I could find instances where it was stated or claimed that Roman Catholics worship idols (largely by picking and choosing my quotes out of context as I saw fit), and tried to put it in an article, do you think it would be ""fear"" on your part that would make you remove that information, or rather the simple fact that as a Roman Catholic, you know better and are aware that the statement is false?   Or would that be ""Roman Catholic bias""? 

As for accuracy of sources, so-called ""Masonic sources"" as fed through Ephesians, FMW, and other sites are inaccurate from a fundamental verifiability standpoint.  I would be more than happy to discuss all these various materials so you can see what they really say, but I just don't think they're user page appropriate.  "