No longer a question specifically for Jock

[Jock Scot]

Right then where were we?

Before I delve into detail, I don't think that I am talking so much about a change in rules(although it might be useful to consider an "exceptional circumstance" scenario), rather more about clarification and an additional "helpful hint" type thing placed within the rules. I have spent the last hour wading through the rules and the "war crimes" posts and looking in vain for Alan's first post in his thread that started it all, and within those posts and the rules there are undoubtably misunderstandings and differances of interpretations. Before I head into the dry detail perhaps a few general points first.

Steve and the mods are bound to have more than a working knowledge of the rules, the rest of us probably don't. Most, like me, probably have a very vague idea of the rules. Probably most of the rest of us rely on the fact that if we keep off, nudity, firearms, religion and politics and keep to talking politely about kilts then we can't go far wrong. Until something like Alan's first post arrives! When I saw it, I took a deep breath and looked for my tin hat! Actually I had no problem with it, but others did and said so and someone "flagged" his post. Alan obviousely was well aware that could be skating on thin ice, but was he?

Well, perhaps the ice was not so quite as thin as some thought it might have been? Had the politics aspect not been included which torpedoed the thread it seems that the conversation could well have continued. ----------------and this is where the misunderstandings of the rules by some of us comes to the fore. Sushie, in his noteworthy "Henry Ford" post in the second "war crimes" thread and I paraphrase, said, "you can say whatever you want in the misc. section(forum), as long as you stick to the rules" and this made me think and did cause me to have a look at the rules.

My conclusions will follow in a while as I have to do something rather pressing. Bear with me!