She gave the evidence to HR. Why would you expect that it appear in her post?

Indeed. I would point to you and s.petry as fine examples of this. I hope she and others in her position read this and, in the future, just go ahead and post all of the pertinent details to social media. Forget bringing allegations privately to HR. That's what you are advocating for, right?

So, you post this, but don't bother to read the actual account?
From the actual account:

I know, I know, they cleverly hid it behind the first link in the story.

Care to show some actual examples of said ads with people answering them?
I marched in a local Women's March. No one I knew was being paid, or had been approached about being paid. I certainly wasn't. There were thousands of people there. There was ZERO indication of anyone paying for protests. Instead, you have a diverse group of people with individual concerns(ranging from pro-choice beliefs to local Native American tribes showing solidarity with the pipeline protesters, and pretty much everything in between). No one was confused about their message. No one was rioting, either. But I suppose people protesting against Republican policies doesn't fit the "Trump gets mandate from American People" meme.

When I bought my first house, it was a fixer upper($1000 house with a nice lot right out of high school == win). I redid the gas, electrical and plumbing. And the roof, the drywall, the windows, the doors, a new water heater, flooring, a new central heat & air system, etc.
I had to have it inspected(like the leak test for the gas lines), but I did it all myself. The only part that ever caused a problem was some old wiring that I didn't replace in the stand alone garage.
So, yeah, in most places, you can do all of that yourself.

From Vanilla to MoP, I was able to run WoW just fine under Wine. And that was on a triple core AMD system with a shitty Nvidia card. Did something change since then?

Well, I hate to tell you, but the vast majority of Christians would consider you to be a heretic at best. And the same would happen at any given point in the history of Christianity. Your version might be more intellectually palatable, but don't imagine for a moment that it represents a majority.

I'm not sure what "civilized world" you live in, but I have no expectation of being just in striking someone for an insult, regardless of the context. When I encounter ideas and opinions I dislike, I attack them with ideas and words, not fists and weapons.

Why should we assume that anything is "really" feeling emotions? What is the difference between "really feeling" something and "mimicking feeling" something? You have a lot of assumptions flying there.

And if the Catholic church made no formal claims about anything physical, this would be a valid critique. It is not. The church makes claims about evolutionary history(see Humani Generis, the Catechism, etc), miracles(see virtually any beatification process), mental illness(see any "possession" case), decay(see the silliness about incorruptible bodies), etc. This is ignoring such silliness as transubstantiation("this process is physical, but can't be detected pretty much by meaningless distinctions about substance and accident").

And you miss the point. The church STARTS by asserting that a whole host of events, both historical and on-going, are not natural events. Those events are ignored in terms of the scientific method.
And they often only pay lip service to claims of scientific evaluation. It doesn't take much digging around in the miracle claims for beatification, things like eucharistic miracles and the ever present Marian visitations(just for a few random examples) to see that a lot of "evidence" is just hand-waving over dubious claims.

Hmm, all of those papal encyclicals, catechisms and other teachings are obviously out of date, then, since they often make claims about physical processes which are very much in the area of scientific investigation. You should mention this to your bishop, so he can pass it on.

Ah, that's why they have jettisoned the idea of a single couple as the genesis of the whole human race as it's scientifically untenable. Oh, wait, they didn't. That's defined in Humani Generis:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

So, no, a basic fact of human evolution is ignored because of its theological implications. That's not a scientific viewpoint.

They don't even go that far. Hell, they've even regressed in modern times, since JPII gutted the office of the Promotor fide(better known as the Devil's Advocate). It wasn't rigorous before; now it's a rubber stamp. And don't get me started on exorcisms.
I was a Catholic and active in apologetics for many years. This nonsense was a large part of what made believing in that church an untenable position.

The RCC likes to pretend that it accepts evolution. But it puts restrictions on the events(such as insisting on a single couple being the start of the human race) in such ways that it is really incompatible with science. It's just a dodge.