I would have provided a link to the article from somewhat more reputable site, however all the (slightly) more reputable sites I could find mentioning the article only had excerpts, with links back to the original posting site. That original posting site was down. So I was left with that *****.net site.
Granted, if the mods had gotten a bit further before deciding, they might well have pulled my thread on account of the site I linked to ;).
I had a post pulled once (a reply post, not a thread-starter) which contained a link to a banned site (left wing, as I recall). The page I linked to contained a repost of an article from a legitimate newspaper’s site which was no longer available at the original location. I didn’t want to copy the text of the article (for the obvious reason), so I linked.
My reason for posting it was to highlight a glaring example of Obama’s racial hypocrisy, always a popular subject here.
The mod was good enough to ping me with a reason, and it was simply that any link to the banned site was unwelcome, even if the content at the linked page was legitimate and relevant.
I accepted that, and moved on.
The lesson here is that the mods consider the ENTIRE content of a site to be the determining factor in whether ANY content of the site can be posted.
I totally agree with you, though, that they should notify the thread originator when a thread is pulled, if for no other reason than common courtesy.