Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot

[_RockSlider]

I suppose Shades is going to lay low on this one, maybe avoiding the continued building of one of those monuments this site is so good for.

[_Buffalo]

Bc,
What would be the difference per se of an avatar of Harvey Milk and an avatar of Joseph Smith in terms of sexual predation?

+1

[_Corpsegrinder]

As I've said before, if an avatar of Harvey Milk says something about my sexual proclivities, what does an avatar of an vaguely Asian, girly-boy say about your bedroom habits?

Kathoey

[_asbestosman]

I initiated that and I stand by it. Anyone who sees fit to have Harvey Milk for an avatar without other explanation is a sexual predator either implicitly (Romans 1:32) or explicitly.

I take it you like to hang around former prostitutes like Lady Eboshi? I don't remember hearing these women say that what they did was wrong.

[_Buffalo]

Sexual predator:

[_SteelHead]

Come on buff, give Joseph Smith some credit. We all know that if the agency denying angel armed with a flaming sword hadn't been in the room threatening to terminate Joseph's mortal prohibition, then he would have never have practiced polygamy.
.
.
.
.

[_Buffalo]

Come on buff, give Joseph Smith some credit. We all know that if the agency denying angel armed with a flaming sword hadn't been in the room threatening to terminate Joseph's mortal prohibition, then he would have never have practiced polygamy.
.
.
.
.

Just like when Oral Roberts claimed God was going to kill him if people didn't pay up.

[_Juggler Vain]

Sexual predator:

Sexual opportunist?

In any case, people often dismiss that image as an abstract, unfounded anti-Mormon smear of Joseph Smith's sterling reputation, but it's not. The best historical evidence available indicates that this happened, in real life, in 1843, to Almera Woodard Johnson. Here's a link to the specific historical event depicted in that image:

http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/?p=15

If you think this is tasteless, you should see the (unpublished) image depicting the Fanny Alger affair.

-JV

[_beastie]

So far I understand that it wasn't just the legal threat, because other posters have made legal threats without being permanently banned. But it also can't be the legal threat in combination with taking action that could shut down the board, at least temporarily, because other posters have also done that without being permanently banned.

So what it is? Personality conflict?

[_beastie]

Can anyone provide a link to the recent problem with ldsfaq?