No, I highlighted the relevant part that fits the charges. You're working awfully hard to absolve him of the death penalty - you don't approve, obviously.
I just wonder if the moderators will one day grow tired enough of "policing" these threads and sentence them to the "death penalty."
That's not your call. You referencing the threat of the "death penalty" for the thread is weak, if there was a problem there would be numerous deleted posts before the thread was frozen. How many have you counted on this thread
The highlighting should go fartherNo, I highlighted the relevant part that fits the charges. You're working awfully hard to absolve him of the death penalty - you don't approve, obviously.
No, I'm saying (without saying what the proper course of action should be) that the death penalty is simply not the only option given there. The text doesn't stop at that first comma; there's an "or" after it with the part about imprisonment and fines.
That's not your call. You referencing the threat of the "death penalty" for the thread is weak, if there was a problem there would be numerous deleted posts before the thread was frozen. How many have you counted on this thread
There are no such posts so far by my interpretation and standards. Instead, I'm posting before we reach a point where people would report more posts.
My idea of the threads being banned is based on this message about why a previous thread was locked:
"911 conspiracy crap is unwelcome on FR at any time. If you 'Q' posters try sneaking it in on 'Q' threads, you’re going to lose the thread."
I'm thinking that having this thread reported and investigated for potential threats is legally even more problematic than conspiracy ideas, it's best for us to avoid losing these threads, and it's better to speak before we lose these threads than try to speak somehow after we've already lost them.