Oh, I wasn't offended. You were criticizing Texans. I'm an Okie. We view picking on Texans as a laudable past time (my oldest son is a Texan. We just try not to talk about it
)
After over 30 years at the bar and on the bench, I am fairly sure I have a grasp on the definitions of commonly used words. Certainly, there are some matters of which I am most ignorant (I recently heard a counterfeit rare metals case, of which I knew nothing). However, I do know that publicly criticizing, and using any form of the word ignorant, regarding another Grand Lodge is not the way to achieve change.
My note on the subject indicated the status of the website in 2008. Yes, it was the national website. You appear to agree that the (inappropriate) representation of a woman is still on the website.
I quite accept that your bylaws do not have a provision regarding funeral attire. The bylaws I reviewed did. My experience as a past presiding officer, chairman of jurisprudence, and a member of a bylaws committee of three different international Masonic bodies is that the national body is responsible for the bylaws of its constituent groups. If it is not, this demonstrates another weakness. Really, though, that was not the greater issue. Rather, it was the public vulgarity, lack of respect for women and inappropriate representation of the fraternity.
Shall I volunteer my recommendation of how to achieve change? I would take senior members of the craft and approach the new grand master and other decision makers informally (this means you have to be knowledgeable as to who helps makes decisions in the jurisdiction). I would not attack the prior decision. I would explain how we have changed and the prior rationale is not applicable to the facts today, such as removing the offending forum section. But of course, this can't be done yet, as the national organization still condones the use of the objectionable patch and publicly displays it's use on the website.