Definition of two words.

[ibrew4u]

This is just silly.

There is no way a .03 mm Tonker Express with 50 round magazine could be concealed in a sporran.

Unless...perhaps while wearing an 8 yard 16 oz wool McTavish hunting modern...

[cessna152towser]

As Steve said there has been no change to our policy, simply a clarification of how the forum views hunting, fishing and "trophy" photos. Perhaps my earlier post may have signalled a wrong message.

[Jock Scot]

Worry not Alex, the world will carry on spinning regardless!

[Luke MacGillie]

I hate to be obtuse, but if we are discussing how to wear a great kilt, can I post a photo outside of the weapons area if I happen to also be armed when the whole purpose of the photo is to show the mechanics of wearing one? Does the level of armedness matter? IE only a dirk is fine, but a dirk and backsword is verbotten, or having my Murdoch pistol is pushing it and flaunting my brown bess is right out? Do paintings count?

While there is a bit of humor in my posting, Im quite serious in my desire to both contribute to this forum and follow the rules.

[tripleblessed]

I hate to be obtuse, but if we are discussing how to wear a great kilt, can I post a photo outside of the weapons area if I happen to also be armed when the whole purpose of the photo is to show the mechanics
of wearing one? Does the level of armedness matter? IE only a dirk is fine, but a dirk and backsword is verbotten, or having my Murdoch pistol is pushing it and flaunting my brown bess is right out? Do paintings count?

While there is a bit of humor in my posting, Im quite serious in my desire to both contribute to this forum and follow the rules.

Herein lies much of the issue. Kilts, and the wearing of them, are bound together inextricably with their history. One
cannot change history, or indeed, any part of life by ignoring it. The crux of this issue is intolerance. Because some
wish not to be reminded of some aspects of reality, they seek to bar others from being realistic. It is intolerance, not
awareness and intelligent adult discussion, that engenders violence. This, in turn, leads to the use of weapons, and
indeed many items not intended as weapons, to commit mayhem upon others. Intelligent adult discussion, on the
other hand, often leads to better understanding and resolution of the conflict, eliminating the need for weapons.

No one, I think, is advocating the use of weapons. At least I believe I am correct there. The vets I've worked with
often were harmed by the use of weapons, either by the wielding of them or as a result of someone else doing so.
Many recovered, or mostly so, from the outer damage. The greater harm was the inner damage resulting from
seeing and participating in the violence and realizing our lack of limits in the heat of the moment. Our willingness to
do outrageous things to each other. Only greater understanding, building bridges, and recognizing our vast mutual interest and commonality can create better relations. Ignoring reality breeds intolerance; intolerance leads to violence.

[Steve Ashton]

I hate to be obtuse, but if we are discussing how to wear a great kilt, can I post a photo outside of the weapons area if I happen to also be armed when the whole purpose of the photo is to show the mechanics of wearing one? Does the level of armedness matter? IE only a dirk is fine, but a dirk and backsword is verbotten, or having my Murdoch pistol is pushing it and flaunting my brown bess is right out? Do paintings count?

While there is a bit of humor in my posting, Im quite serious in my desire to both contribute to this forum and follow the rules.

Rule #11 is still in effect. This definition of words has not changed the rule.

Rule #11(amended 7 May, 2015)
- This Forum limits any discussion, photos or links to weapons to our "Weapons as Kilt Accessories" section. Specific definitions of what may and may not be posted will be found as a notice in that section. To go directly to the Weapons section, please click here

If I may respectfully submit - Would it be that hard to take a couple of photos that focus on the topic you wish to illustrate, how you put your kilt on?

[Father Bill]

Okay. Look: I'm going to be a lot more direct than I usually am, but folks, these are the rules of the forum and that's just the way it is.

There are lots of places that have other rules, but these are ours. Steve owns the forum outright and personally, and the moderators have each been selected for the task after a great deal of soul-searching and consideration by their peers and personal soul-searching about whether we even wanted the job. I for one have done this for 3 1/2 years and some for much longer than I. We're volunteers. We don't get paid for it. I usually enjoy it. We've worked together for years to keep this a pleasant place, and for weeks to develop these particular definitions to clarify the rules and hopefully make and keep this as pleasant a place as possible for those who want to talk about kilts. If you don't appreciate that, then stick it in your ear.

We've tried to explain what we mean by the words in question. These are our definitions. We've hammered them out and in some cases, annoyed one-another in the process, but we're sticking together as a team. They may be defined differently in various nations, in various dialects of English, in various cultures, and in various dictionaries, but for the purposes of this forum, these are the definitions that will be used for the forseeable future, and I for one don't really care in the least if you don't agree with what the words mean here. You can stick that in your other ear.

We've worked very hard to make the rules as kind as possible, as flexible as possible and as inclusive as possible without opening the floodgates to the problems that plagued and cursed the forum in the past. If it happens again, there may soon be no pleasant place left to discuss kilts, so bluntly, I have no sympathy for those who like to whine, grepse, grumble and complain.

On the other hand, if you want to talk about kilts with others who like them, good. That's what this forum is for, and nothing else. If you don't really want to discuss kilts, then don't. If you like the way the rest of the Internet attacks and trolls people who try to say something thoughtful and nice, then you're welcome to go there. You don't need an exit visa. Go discuss your various weaponry, politics, religion, or other topics someplace where that's the welcome topic and come back when you want to talk about kilts without looking for a way to weasel past the rules of this forum. Slinking about and nit-picking eventually gets disgusting and contemptible.

For those who find my statement harsh, too bad. I've already edited it before I clicked the button and you'll get no sympathetic ear from me. It's not aimed at any one person or any one post in particular, just at the various and frequent attempts to bend our home to the personal and conflicting pleasures of various members.

Yours in absolute sincerity and fairly high dudgeon,

Bill+

Here endeth the sermon.

[Jock Scot]

Straight talking is fine by me, Bill.

[jhughes]

I've been following this discussion with interest, and would like to share some thoughts in the hopes that they might be useful. First, I think the moderators deserve thanks for being willing to consider this matter among themselves, and also for allowing this discussion to take place instead of just posting the result of their work in a locked thread. Since I first joined this forum I have been impressed by the helpful and friendly discussions, and I really do think the way controversial topics are limited helps keep people from getting frustrated with each other and becoming negative in their posts.

That said, I agree with others who think that sometimes a picture containing (not emphasizing) a weapon in a historical context of kiltwear, such as a historic picture of a highland soldier or a modern attempt at an accurate portrayal of such, is appropriate to a discussion of historical kilt wear. Perhaps a distinction could be made wherein discussions of the kilt-related weapon would belong in the weapons section, but images described above could be allowed in the historical kilt wear board so long as the weapons were not part of the discussion? Or perhaps allow discussion of "unit x was supplied with this equipment at the time of this historical event" but still prohibit discussion of the use of the weapons outside of "unit x found that carrying bladed item z in the standard way frequently got caught in the pleats and they had to make such and such adjustment." Such discussion seems relevant to historical kilt wear, unlike traditional or modern wear. Yes we could seek and share such information elsewhere, but there are very knowledgeable people here and it seems a shame not to be able to use that resource in this very positive and welcoming environment.

Of course, this topic was probably discussed to death before I joined the site, so thanks once again to the moderators for patiently allowing this discussion. And particular thanks to Mr. Ashton for putting so much work into this site we all enjoy, and which helped equip me to wear the kilt comfortably in public.

[Steve Ashton]

jhughes,

Perhaps you have not found our "Military History and Heritage" forum section yet. If not, may I quote from the notice posted within that section.

"(This forum section is exempt from the restriction to the weapons section as laid out in Rule #11 but must conform to the guidelines set out in the weapons section.)"

A discussion as you describe - "unit x was supplied with this equipment at the time of this historical event" would fit perfectly within that section and a photo that contains the weapons issued to that unit would be allowed.

This is all acceptable under our current system and rules. But is a totally different discussion than this announcement about defining the two words "Hunting" and "Trophy Photo".