Ludd, let's take the examples you listed from Ms. Jack's thread, and allow Brother Schryver's Priesthood leaders to review them. Let's sit down with Brother Schryver's bishop and explain that he, willingly identifying himself as a representative and apologist for the LDS Church was:

1. Brother Schryver, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has been married in the temple, was making ogling comments on a public website about a young divorced woman's breasts.

2. Brother Schryver was rabidly insulting a variety of women, some members of the Church, based on his perception of their looks.


And then, we wil allow Brother Schryver's Bishop and/or Stake Preident to view Ms. Jack's thread in full.

I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall.

“I get mad every time I think about those Kikes. The Kikes are so clannish; and they wear funny cloths. Those stupid Kikes always do what their Rabbis tell them. They think they should be obedient to God. What mindless Kikebots. They actually have 613 commandments; count ‘em—six hundred and thirteen. This proves they’re a mind-control cult. You know, Kikes have committed murder and embezzled money. In fact, when a Kike commits murder, it’s because he’s a Kike. There is something about those Kikes that makes them violent. The Kikes are all rich, too. They control the money and politics of New York. Not just New York, they control Hollywood too, and want to control the politics of the entire country. Indeed, they are a threat to freedom and democracy. And their kosher rules are so-ooo stupid. They make me want to gag. Why shouldn’t I eat a cheeseburger if I want to? You can’t get a good ham sandwich in a Kike deli. I want a ham sandwich, and I’m not going to let those Kikes stop me from eating it. I sure hate those Kikes! They drive me nuts.”

Ludd, let's take the examples you listed from Ms. Jack's thread, and allow Brother Schryver's Priesthood leaders to review them. Let's sit down with Brother Schryver's bishop and explain that he, willingly identifying himself as a representative and apologist for the LDS Church was:

1. Brother Schryver, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who has been married in the temple, was making ogling comments on a public website about a young divorced woman's breasts.

2. Brother Schryver was rabidly insulting a variety of women, some members of the Church, based on his perception of their looks.


And then, we wil allow Brother Schryver's Bishop and/or Stake Preident to view Ms. Jack's thread in full.

I would LOVE to be a fly on that wall.

All one needs to do to see the bigotry on this board is replace the ubiquitous terms Morg and Morgbot with Kike. Try the following on for size:

How do you "ignore" a user on this board? I've heard people reference the feature, but I'm not sure where to find it.

The reason that MI had a problem with Will's posts on Ms. Jack's thread is that it was obvious that Will was not taking the type of responsibility he needed to be taking as a soon-to-be published apologist.

"Ludd" ~ Plenty of "normal people outside of message boards" have reviewed my thread and decided that William's behavior was unacceptable. Some of them were associated with the Maxwell Institute and made the decision to cancel William's upcoming publications based on it. Argumentum ad populum is already highly fallacious as it is, but in this case, I don't believe the populum you're invoking even exists.

Yes, I made a risqué joke to my personal friend, MrStakhanovite. I did that because I know his sense of humor and I know he's okay with that kind of thing. I would never direct that sort of comment at a stranger on the Internet whom I was having a heated disagreement with. I'm not against occasional bouts of ribald humor with friends. I am against using crude sexual references to debase and deride ideological opponents.