"Jacobite" garb

[Jock Scot]

Oh I quite accept that mods rely on "reports" from the members and do entirely accept that moderators are volunteers who do not need to man their posts 24/7. I also quite accept that the members---including me---- should not and do expect the mods to read every post all of the time. I for one am grateful for what mods do. However --------

I have given an example with the dirk thread (which is immediately below this one in the Historical kilt themes) and it really does illustrate the inconsistencies of rule11 when compared to whenever firearms are mentioned.Now I suggest Brian's outburst is, at least in part, frustration at this inconsistent state of affairs. Particularly when the Jacobite garb thread has managed to survive for some 400 posts and without wading through it firearms must have been mentioned more than once and apparently both the members and the mods were happy enough with the situation until the latter stages of the thread.

Nevertheless Steve is adamant that IF weapons are to be allowed to be discussed, even in an oblique way, it MUST be in a kilt context. Fair enough, this is a kilt website after all. But a thread discussing a sharp pointed lethal weapon such as a dirk and a dirk's primary purpose, certainly in 17/18th centuries where the dirk was a first class, close quarter, killing tool. Cutting up haggis was never its intention! In this thread(17/18th dirk) there is not a mention of the kilt and as I have mentioned in my previous post , the kilt is a prerequisite to mentioning weapons. Weapons don't have to be firearms. Now, I quite accept that bringing in a modern AK47 assault weapon into a Jacobite Garb" discussion would be totally wrong, but when we are talking Jacobites, armies, battles, etc, then muskets, swords , dirks are not an unreasonable addition to the conversation, I think.

So why did no member complain about the dirk thread? I hear you say. Well speaking for myself, I was perfectly happy for it to continue firstly and most importantly, because I could see nothing wrong with it and it was interesting and secondly, as I could see that it was falling foul of rule 11(well OK, in my opinion) I have let it run to prove my point should an occasion arise in the future. Well, that time has arrived.