I know for a fact that Johnny regularly copy/pastes from the internet, often not even providing a link.
Johnny's text, after being edited, doesn't state any source either.
If you read PF rule #11, members are allowed to copy 100 direct words, if they copy more, the post can be deleted or edited.
that mods cropped his overlong post in accordance with the rules along with his personal opinion, as there are about 100 words now left in that post.
It's an interesting theory, although I've seen Johnny's original post and if real, it actually has less words that the edit [original = 102 words. Edit = 107 words]. So the text wasn't edited to make it shorter and is still over 100 words either way. I can post what he says that he originally wrote if you want to see it. If mods feel this is false, they could always post what it is they believe he initially wrote [his version has no vulgarity, just a one sentence opinion at the end of the piece of information].
I'm not saying I think there is a moderator conspiracy against him, but if his original text had no vulgarity and hasn't been shorted, then it seems to make no sense to have edited it, other than just to take out his opinion at the end. I think, just like there are blocks of red text in people's posts here, to show moderators comments, it should have been made clear that it was edited, or if something vulgar was supposedly taken out, then it should have been mentioned too. You know like 'edited for profanity' or 'edited to shorten copy and pasted text' or something like that. This transparency makes it obvious what is going on and avoids a situation [like we have] where people on the forum feel they are being unfairly targeted.