The thing is, qtns apparently okaying murder as a "reasonable" response to someone reporting them for having CP is extreme. It should not be tolerated, nor go unchallenged, because it goes against some strong principles that many of us espouse to here. Do we have a moral obligation to challenge extreme actions or stances that could hurt our community, or the framework of democracy itself? Yes, I think we do.

Now, for the record, I do not agree with Markie - and I do agree with you - that failing to challenge qtns on this matter automatically means blanket endorsement or agreement of this stance by the majority of the board. For instance, I do not believe that you and the majority of the board would endorse murder as an "okay" response to someone turning you in for having illegal images in your possession. And I've told Markie this on more than one occasion when I've often said that I've seen no evidence that the board is filled with such extremism or immoral individuals.

But I think his point may have been this: Because qtns is pro-choice and thus seen as an ally by the rest of the pro-choicers, that he is given a free pass - not the same thing as agreement or endorsement - when he makes extreme statements on matters outside the contact issue; whereas in contrast, Markie feels that because he and Ethan are fervently anti-choice in the contact issue, many on the board feel free to "jump" on them for "every little thing" (Markie's words). Thus, he felt that if Ethan had made such an extreme statement, many of the pro-choicers would have attacked him for it, whereas they chose to ignore it if an ally and friend said it. I think that's what his main issue was.