Here We Are - Discussion on Rule 11 changes

[Jock Scot]

Well, since you mentioned it, I'll tell you.

It just so happens that, most of the time, as I am legally allowed and licensed by the state of Indiana to do, I routinely carry... let's say "a can of Pepsi."

There is a specific item of accessory made for the sole purpose of allowing me to do what I am legally allowed and licensed to do. (Let's call it a "beer hat" thing.)

Now, the problem is, when I go out kilted, I can't wear that... um... beer hat thing, as it's not made for Highland wear. But there are items of Highland wear -- e.g., the sporran -- that can be modified or custom made to "hold my Pepsi."

And I can't ask "who makes these, does anyone have one, where did you get one" even though IT'S PERFECTLY FRIKKIN' LEGAL, just because some people choose to get their panties in a wad that I prefer Pepsi to Coke. It's not their damned business, I don't get on them for drinking Sprite -- it's their choice, and that's legal, too. And it *is* related to kilts in that I want to find out how other people who like Pepsi go about LEGALLY carrying their Pepsis while kilted.

I hope that explains my point.

I'm not wanting to talk about ARs or hunting or sniping or RPGs or anything. I'm wanting to talk about a simple way to modify or design HIGHLAND CLOTHING to allow me to DO SOMETHING TOTALLY FREAKING LEGAL.

;)

Tony

Tony, I have no wish to cause upset here, and from your point of view your argument is, as far as I am aware anyway, perfectly valid. But, you forget one salient point, this is an international website and it prides itself in being so and being international means that what may be perfectly legal for you to do, it absolutely is not legal for me to do in the UK. That is the point that Steve has been making all along.

Now as you know I have considerable sympathies with the loosening of the rule 11 , but in reality there is only so far we can go before the "international" part of this website, becomes distinctly and singularly national, ------American. Therein lies the problem, well one of them anyway.

[Spartan Tartan]

Father Bill,

Oh, I completely understand the ratio of posts to Mods...

However, here we have a specific situation (which has been somewhat resolved by moving this current thread) where a thread was in a new sub-forum which stated as a premise to the forum that the flag/report a post feature was no going to be used for the trial period. It was also made explicitly clear that mods WOULD in fact keep a close on this sub-forum for that reason...

Then, not even 2 pages into the thread, someone comes in and posts in CLEAR violation of Rule 11. Subsequent to that post, even moderators posted, but nothing was done to that post. Not at all. Despite that Rule 11 says it would be deleted (which it still hasn't--at least not at the time of my typing this).

I appreciate and understand the challenge that the moderators have essentially given themselves so that those among the rabble could have another venue to share overlapping interests...Pepsi, Coke or otherwise
That said, we have rules. Perhaps it is my own personal problem, but when I see rules, I both follow them and expect others to do the same. If I have a problem with them, I won't violate them and inflame a thread. Instead, I would PM a moderator or Steve himself to open a discussion about my disagreement with the hypothetical rule.

So, whereas I do not expect the mods to read every post in every thread, but I do expect them to do what was laid out at the top of the weapons sub-forum and keep an eye out for rule violations since the reports part was not supposed to be working (of course, it seems that it IS in fact working).

edit to add post script:
PS. I have no problem reporting posts, but then I'd have to report a post in nearly every thread I read. I'd just assume enjoy myself than become among the "reporters". Perhaps, I should just go back and report the post that is of specific concern? Then, at least I am justified in complaining? Hmmmmm... so the squeaky wheels DO get the grease, but you have to squeak the correct way. Now, I understand.

[AJBryant]

Tony, I have no wish to cause upset here, and from your point of view your argument is, as far as I am aware anyway, perfectly valid. But, you forget one salient point, this is an international website and it prides itself in being so and being international means that what may be perfectly legal for you to do, it absolutely is not legal for me to do in the UK. That is the point that Steve has been making all along.

I really don't understand what this has to do with anything.

What does the forum being international have to do with someone addressing a specific question for one person about something that is (1) legal where he is, and (2) would have no effect on anyone else where it may NOT be legal?

For example, we have had folks here mention being gay. Well, there are actually still countries where that's illegal. Heck, you can get HANGED for that. Shall we say that's not allowed to be talked about? No, we should not.

I just don't get -- honestly -- how legal stuff that bears on the topic of the forum can't be talked about because some people don't know how not to click on a thread on a topic they don't like.

Tony

[Jock Scot]

Tony.

I do agree that the "off" button is available to us all. However, experience tells us that time and time again, that that option is not always taken by those that feel strongly enough to want to make a contrary view known. Therein lies yet another problem and we have seen it demonstrated perfectly already in this sub-forum.

[AJBryant]

Tony.

I do agree that the "off" button is available to us all. However, experience tells us that time and time again, that that option is not always taken by those that feel strongly enough to want to make a contrary view known. Therein lies yet another problem and we have seen it demonstrated perfectly already in this sub-forum.

The problem, then, as I see it is that THOSE guys, then, are the problem. THEY are the ones who are causing a stink and are in the process quashing discussion.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "the heckler's veto"? That's exactly what this is.

[Spartan Tartan]

Tony.

I do agree that the "off" button is available to us all. However, experience tells us that time and time again, that that option is not always taken by those that feel strongly enough to want to make a contrary view known. Therein lies yet another problem and we have seen it demonstrated perfectly already in this sub-forum.

But let us be fair that we see this very same behavior in ALL sub-forums...not just this new one.

[ThistleDown]

The fact is that what some want to discuss, on XMarks, is NOT to be discussed. There endeth the lesson.

Here we will NOT be discussing the techniques and special appliances for fornicating in a kilt, either, despite the fact that it is undoubtedly legal in more parts of the world than this other thing is. And for most far more enjoyable, too.

We should really just move on. Intead of flapping lips over something that is NOT going to change, visit a 'women and guns' website where, no doubt, there will be instruction on how to ***** in a skirt.

[Tony]

that made my day TD.

[Pleater]

It reads as though Tony (AJBryant) wants to find a maker of customised or adapted sporrans.

It can't be beyond the wit of man to find one or more skilled worker in leather or Nylon or whatever, who can or would oblige him - can it?

Of course women can suggest more with a raised eyebrow than what it takes some the first 120 pages to get around to......

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

[ThistleDown]

Oh dear! Not political on this particular day, but who was it who said "If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman"?