It just seems like there's a distinct double standard on this forum bordering on hypocrisy in that the minute an article criticises Kate, whether it be from the Mail or elsewhere, it is roundly condemned as "unreliable".
However the moment anything positive is said it's taken as gospel.
If an article sticks to known facts then it is to be praised, if it resorts to unnamed sources, a source close to, etc printing wildly speculative articles, then yes, people will point that out.
If the criticism is based on good solid facts rather than something an air headed author has invented, then most people will still post it and agree with it. Because Catherine and her friends won't speak to the media, most of the stories they print about her and/or her family is laughable and is treated as such.
As very little is known about Catherine and it is unlikely anyone 'in the know' would speak to the media, then on the whole, when they use the ubiquitous 'UNNAMED' source, close friend, royal courtier, servant, childhood friend, nail filer, plumber, etc the story is unlikely to be true.
It is only hypocritical if only the favourable articles are allowed on the forum and anyone who posts nasty unfounded remarks about her, has their post removed.
The Mail does have the occasional good article, not normally a permanent writer but it also seems to have those that scrape the bottom of the barrel.