I'm sorry to single out grindael like this. It's not really appropriate; grindael's posts actually stand out for how substantial they are and I'm always interested to read them. Having pled for slack over poor communication in general, I'll have to try to claim the principle now myself. There was surely a better way for me to make this point, without unfairly spotlighting grindael; besides being more polite, the better way would have made the point more clearly without the distraction of personal criticism. I failed to find that better way in the time that I had, but the point still seemed worth making, even if I could only make it badly, so I hit Submit. For that, I plead guilty to bad argumentative writing myself, in this post. Sorry, grindael.
It is an interesting point, but in 'spotlighting grindael,' and his post about Stoddard, you actually did make your point
very badly, 
as in, you are wrong to point to grindael's post as an example of what you are arguing.
A bit further back in the conversation, naidna argues this:
...and narrowing down the conversation without bringing in examples that are pertinent is called contextomy.
While your point is a good one when discussing things that are far apart in time or type, like, oh, pointing out that it might be possible to excuse the twin tower bombings because of the crusades, talking about one press destruction in the context of another one that happened a decade previously in an ongoing atmosphere of antagonism ... would be 'context.'
In response, fencesitter asked this:
But let's say you have a point that the depredations over the years against the Mormons have to be included when talking about Nauvoo and failure to do so is a sign of hypocrisy
This arose because naidna made an argument, in the midst of all this 'context,' that because Joseph Smith wasn't "convicted" of anything, he didn't "need to be pardoned" for anything.
Talk about lack of context.
Whhich brings us to grindael's post you are referring to. Grindael brings in two examples of the same behavior, one that resulted in a conviction, and one that did not, and shows quite convincingly that the behavior itself is more relevant and provides more context than just arguing that the isolated vagaries and inconsistencies of a legal system prove anything.
Quoting at length about a charge on which Smith was acquitted is a confusing way to discuss Smith's criminal record with a Mormon, however.
Not if you were following the discussion.
Instead Niadna focused on the longish quote about Stoddard and ignored the other guy.
Exactly grindael's point. Naidna argues 'context' when it suits her argument, but she ignores the 'context' when it doesn't. Grindael made his point perfectly.
I will grant you, however, that it was a long, long thread to keep up with, which would go a long way toward explaining why a single post might look confusing.
we should also cut people slack for not following every argument perfectly.
Indubitibly. May the odds ever be in our favor.