I'm rather stunbned at peoples' willingness to censor a post that doesn't violate the posting guidelines.
We talk about subjects here varying from penis size through American foreign policy all the way to evolution vs. creation and the existence of god. We have people expressing misogynistic or bigoted opinions justified by some pretext of text.
I am sure many people get heartily bored with some topics, and some are offended by them; they are free to say that, or just not to read them.
Very rarely does anyone suggest censorship, and even then it's normally due to posting guidelines being violated. If anyone thinks Dwiltshire violated posting guidelines, show us where.
If not, then rather than trying to censor someone, it might be wise to wonder why you have such a reaction to discussing such a possibility. Is it just the GB being killed that makes people react this way?
Would you react the same way if someone had posted a thread with the title 'Imaginary headline: Member of Congregation Kills Elder Who Abused Their Child?'
Is a GB member who supports the maintenance of current policy regarding blood products, not for any real belief in the bOrg's interpretation of scripture, but out of a recognition of the doctrinal credibility that would be lost as a result of amending this stance (which results in deaths), more or less morally disgusting that a child molester?
Whether you feel comfortable with this topic or not, it's within the bounds of possibility that a Bethelite could 'go postal', it doesn't violate the posting guidelines, and I find censorship more disturbing than the subject people are trying to censor. People are free to feel that way, as am I to feel the way I feel.