Here We Are - Discussion on Rule 11 changes

[Zardoz]

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

As Tony said, we have quite a few gay folks on the forum. And while he's right that there are still countries where that's illegal, a better analogy is the topic of gay marriage. Same sex unions are not 'legal' everywhere, but where legal they happen. And we've had quite a few discussion and photo threads about said marriages here in my time on the forum. Now gay marriage can be a social/political powderkeg just like firearms, and I know we have folks here that come down on both sides of the issue. I'm cool with it, but I know some folks on here are not .

Here's the thing; lets say somebody puts up a photo of their same sex union. Now while that photo has a lot of potential for rule #5 violations, as long as the comments are from folks who I guess are OK with it- kept to "nice kilt", "good luck" etc. the issue won't come up.
Now if somebody commented that the event was destroying the fabric of society, (and again I assure you there are folks here that have said that sort of thing elsewhere) that post would get flagged as the rule violation, and rightly so. I'm pretty sure that has never happened though, either out of fear of being labeled a homophobe or just knowing how to be civil, these folks always seem to ignore the topic or at least hold their tongues.

So if I were able to come on here and say something about the again potentially 'problematic but legal where I live' topic of firearms; "hey I found a new IWB holster that works great with my kilt" and post a photo of said holster and what it carries, I'm sure a lot of people would say "nice holster" or "is that a Colt" etc. But unlike the gay marriage thing, folks who think stuff like "possession and use of lethal weapons is nothing short of an obscenity" never seem to hesitate to throw their opinion in the mix, I guess they feel like they're among friends here. And that is when the thread goes bad.
But unlike our marriage thread where the blame is on the troublemaker, in threads about 'weapons' the OP likely to be blamed.

[PodKiDo]

You're not going to get anywhere with this Tony. The powers that be have decreed modern firearms and their discussion off limits. Reason will not prevail. At least now reenactors can show and discuss historical firearms, which is what started this row in the first place.

[Dale Seago]

As Tony said, we have quite a few gay folks on the forum. And while he's right that there are still countries where that's illegal, a better analogy is the topic of gay marriage. Same sex unions are not 'legal' everywhere, but where legal they happen. And we've had quite a few discussion and photo threads about said marriages here in my time on the forum. Now gay marriage can be a social/political powderkeg just like firearms, and I know we have folks here that come down on both sides of the issue. I'm cool with it, but I know some folks on here are not .

Here's the thing; lets say somebody puts up a photo of their same sex union. Now while that photo has a lot of potential for rule #5 violations, as long as the comments are from folks who I guess are OK with it- kept to "nice kilt", "good luck" etc. the issue won't come up.
Now if somebody commented that the event was destroying the fabric of society, (and again I assure you there are folks here that have said that sort of thing elsewhere) that post would get flagged as the rule violation, and rightly so. I'm pretty sure that has never happened though, either out of fear of being labeled a homophobe or just knowing how to be civil, these folks always seem to ignore the topic or at least hold their tongues.

So if I were able to come on here and say something about the again potentially 'problematic but legal where I live' topic of firearms; "hey I found a new IWB holster that works great with my kilt" and post a photo of said holster and what it carries, I'm sure a lot of people would say "nice holster" or "is that a Colt" etc. But unlike the gay marriage thing, folks who think stuff like "possession and use of lethal weapons is nothing short of an obscenity" never seem to hesitate to throw their opinion in the mix, I guess they feel like they're among friends here. And that is when the thread goes bad.
But unlike our marriage thread where the blame is on the troublemaker, in threads about 'weapons' the OP likely to be blamed.

Hmmm. . .As a hoplophile I could probably be expected to support PodKiDo's position. (I loves me them implements of destruction!) But as someone who by any reasonable definition IS a weapon AND who is interested in seeing "balance" on this particular forum consistent with its owner's intent and guidelines, I rather like what Zardoz just said.

[tripleblessed]

I am continually bumfuzzled by the attitudes of those who continually point out the international nature of the forum as an excuse to trash the US members about topics that are of interest in many quarters, not just here. These are typically the same people who scream the loudest that if your taxes aren't paid in Scotland then SHUT UP, as a non-Scot you have no right to an opinion about anything north of Hadrian's wall. Or wax poetic about about the diversity that is Canada, but, by the way, SHUT UP because we in Canada don't like what you're saying. And here's how you should do it where you are, and if you won't, SHUT UP. Very mature. Very respectful of the international nature of things. This venue (the web) is supposed to be about the free flow of ideas and information, not prior restraint of free speech, which I was told in the UK is even more free than in the US. There I saw the evidence, here, not yet.

Probably inappropriate to point out that the web is the result of the US DoD, and that our Scots have often pointed out that without the military being kilted, kilts would likely have faded away. Or that the the Empire and Commonwealth
emerged from the success of very effectively weaponed and trained Scots and Irish, inextricably linked to and bound up with the kilt.

If you agree with a thread, post. If you disagree with post, say so. I f you don't like the topic, pick another thread.
If you choose to engage, then discuss, even vigorously, but without attempting to steal another's right to speak. That
said, even when I disagree with the rules or find them anathema to thinking adults, I do attempt to abide by them,
an effort hopefully apparent at least most of the time.

If you feel this post is rude, my apologies. it was not intended to be so. Observations of a historical nature.

[Phil]

Probably inappropriate to point out that the web is the result of the US DoD

- er...no. Try looking here - http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...erners-lee.htm - for the truth.
A bit of a rant, tripleblessed, and do I detect a scintilla of resentment, xenophobia even in your view which I interpret as saying that nobody other than a US person should express any views on subjects and that they should never have any value or influence over those of the said, more important, US person.

[Phil]

As Tony said, we have quite a few gay folks on the forum.

I am intrigued as to why you think that there is any relevance between an individual's sexual orientation and another's views on the merits or otherwise of firearms. Another contributor raised a similar correlation in respect of alcohol as discussed in the 'Pub' forum again as if there were some relevance. I won't even go into paedophilia which someone else found appropriate to throw into the discussion and which most certainly has no place here.
There have been many gay individuals who by their creative efforts have enriched humanity for the better. Think of Oscar Wilde, Elton John, Freddie Mercury and so on. Similarly alcohol, while not always a force for good and often self-destructive, nevertheless has sometimes oiled the wheels of creative effort for the likes of the poet Dylan Thomas and others. Firearms, on the other hand, have created nothing, destruction being their sole purpose and intent. So how any logical person can combine two such opposites into any cogent argument is beyond me.

[Singlemalt]

Mods, this has gone way off in a different direction than I intended with my OP and I don't want to have my name associated with it. Can I ask it be closed, if others want to continue this type of discussion on another thread I have no problem with it. I can ignore them and choose not to participate. It just does not seem right to have to hit the ignore button on a thread I started.

[Chas]

Singlemalt, before it closes, I would just like to say Thank You for starting the thread.

Regards

Chas

[CDNSushi]

Mods, this has gone way off in a different direction than I intended with my OP and I don't want to have my name associated with it. Can I ask it be closed, if others want to continue this type of discussion on another thread I have no problem with it. I can ignore them and choose not to participate. It just does not seem right to have to hit the ignore button on a thread I started.

This thread is closed as per the request of the OP.

Thank you all for participating.

JD
For the XMTS Staff