Rules and definitions

[bronko220002]

After reading the "Terms and Rules" at the bottom of this page I thought I had an understanding of this forum. Because of this there was a discussion in the Unmentionables post where there was a difference of opinion between myself and a couple other members.
Apparently there was a thread by Zonie back in 2018 in the "Forum Announcements and Help" section with an entire different set of rules! That was a section that I have never looked at because I didn't need any help and frankly that thread I don't think would have ever popped up had I because it was way back in 2018.
After repeated request I finally got an answer from a moderator that clarified the discussion so I'm satisfied with his clarification. I'm sorry but after spending my entire career reading and explaining US Government specifications to different contractors I take the words to mean exactly what they read and the way it is written the "General Muzzleloading" section appears to mean you can discuss other types of muzzleloaders that don't fall into the category of preflintlock, flintlock or percussion. I was told that this is not the case.
I hope I didn't leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth but in reality I try to be a good guy. I'm a God fearing Christian, husband, father, grandfather and loyal friend. God bless and I will succumb to the rules of this forum in the future.

 

[Col. Batguano]

There are several types of guns that people generally think of ML'ers, but were banned from discussion under the old rules. Those would be guns like the Hall, the Scandinavian Kammerladers, and drop-block guns like the 1863 Sharps. Also, very early cartridge guns like wheel lock cartridges (the case was steel with a touch hole in it to gain access from the pan fire in to the case) and the Burnside, which had the narrow taper at the rear of the case rather than the front as in modern gun cartridges. Basically, anything that isn't "modern" is ok now. Basically, if it has an exposed ignition system, it's probably ok now.

If you have a question, and it's in something of a gray area, then ask a moderator. A case in point are those percussion systems that replace the traditional nipple & cap system and load a 209 primer in a cavity, and then use a firing pin that's struck by the percussion hammer to ignite it.

 

[64Springer]

Do we really need another Rules thread to address the other Rules thread.

Smacks of Ballistol, GOEX and How to remove a stuck ball.

 

[azmntman]

Guy has a question, gets it answered apoligizes for screwing up (to those that gave a fart). I see no issue here. Lotta the rules here are kinda lax, LIKE THEY SHOULD BE in my opinion. Lets just continue on and not police the forum, thats what the over paid moderators are for. When we try to "help them" we kinda look like were wantin to be in charge. Power trips are for baptist business meetings not this forum.

CERTAINLY NOT 64Springer (and sorry I jumper i here my friend) but I have seen several folks lately start trying to get things "the way they should be". NEWS FLASH: They are as they should be and this is evident that we all gather here together to discuss, buy, trade, argue (dare I say) about our hobby. Please though take stuff to a moderator and get it enforced or changed or whetever, not here. That happened awhile back, remember? We were forboden to even read aloud a want add. Kinda back to where it started all those years ago where we could offer our opinion on "ours" if it is not detreminetal to the poor souls thread. We were not able to say "I have that and it shoots great"

Thanks you overpaid moderators.

 

[HSmithTX]

There is an ignore feature you can use to ignore specific members, should you care to use it. I do, I don't even have to skip over the pontifications, they don't even show up.

 

[azmntman]

Per the OP, I also note they frowned on some old style "in-line type pistols. I think one was a CVA frontier? or whatever. Framed up like a revolver but is a single shot IN-LINE pistol and we were advised it failed to meet the requirements. Few others too. I guess you can go to the sister fourum and discuss em but these few guns really kinda fit here more than there, they dont take scopes, shoot sabots (sorry, fat thumbs) and though not really a replica of anything they certianly wany get much discussion where 1" groups at 200 yds are the norm either.

There is an ignore feature you can use to ignore specific members, should you care to use it. I do, I don't even have to skip over the pontifications, they don't even show up.

Yes Sirrie! Got a few tenents there right now. Yer right it is GREAT. I will admit that when I see the note though and the topic REALLY intersted me I have been known to undo the block just to see how pitifully ignorant the individual is (and remind me how cool I am?? no....) Genius that was. Thanks Claude!

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

Too many rules

 

[azmntman]

Everywhere. Like the unknown undocumented and often enforced rule of habitually bringing home another BP gun. Puppys are ok though?? Yep ditch most rules, keep the Golden rule.

 

[sussexmuzllodr]

Im partial to the fact filled Civil War disscussions...but hey its just me....

 

[sussexmuzllodr]

Think its tough here? Try the NJ Bow Hunting Forum....

 

[hanshi]

Too many rules

And not enough exceptions, if I may be so bold.

 

[longcruise]

I've never used the ignore switch. Considered it a few times but even they occasionally had something to say. One of them even grew up!

 

[TDM]

I've never used the ignore switch. Considered it a few times but even they occasionally had something to say. One of them even grew up!

I use it. There are a few posters that make my eyes bleed. But that’s just me.

 

[bronko220002]

Too many rules

You're correct and after the discussion in question I received a PM from moderator with the clarification and I responded with my definition of the terms and rules and an apology. He then responded stating that the both sets of rules were too cumbersome and he was going to address this with admin. So hopefully there won't be this type of disagreement in the future.
Its funny though how the ones that were disagreeing with me never responded to this thread! They were quick enough to jump on me for violating a rule I didn't even know about but you think they would have at least acknowledged my apology to the forum.

 

[springfield art]

Guy has a question, gets it answered apoligizes for screwing up (to those that gave a fart). I see no issue here. Lotta the rules here are kinda lax, LIKE THEY SHOULD BE in my opinion. Lets just continue on and not police the forum, thats what the over paid moderators are for. When we try to "help them" we kinda look like were wantin to be in charge. Power trips are for baptist business meetings not this forum.

CERTAINLY NOT 64Springer (and sorry I jumper i here my friend) but I have seen several folks lately start trying to get things "the way they should be". NEWS FLASH: They are as they should be and this is evident that we all gather here together to discuss, buy, trade, argue (dare I say) about our hobby. Please though take stuff to a moderator and get it enforced or changed or whetever, not here. That happened awhile back, remember? We were forboden to even read aloud a want add. Kinda back to where it started all those years ago where we could offer our opinion on "ours" if it is not detreminetal to the poor souls thread. We were not able to say "I have that and it shoots great"

Thanks you overpaid moderators.

What year did this Forum start?

 

[smo]

What year did this Forum start?

I’m not sure, but this could be the date…

 

[Coot]

You're correct and after the discussion in question I received a PM from moderator with the clarification and I responded with my definition of the terms and rules and an apology. He then responded stating that the both sets of rules were too cumbersome and he was going to address this with admin. So hopefully there won't be this type of disagreement in the future.
Its funny though how the ones that were disagreeing with me never responded to this thread! They were quick enough to jump on me for violating a rule I didn't even know about but you think they would have at least acknowledged my apology to the forum.

 

[Coot]

Your apology would have been more likely to be acknowledged if you had posted it in the original thread that created the fuss rather than opening a completely new thread that may or may not have been read by those responding to the original thread.
Anyway, you were good enough to apologize & I thank you for that.

 

[longcruise]

Not an unusual error. The "legal terms of use" are often confused for the rules in these discussion forums.

 

[bronko220002]

Your apology would have been more likely to be acknowledged if you had posted it in the original thread that created the fuss rather than opening a completely new thread that may or may not have been read by those responding to the original thread.
Anyway, you were good enough to apologize & I thank you for that.

I would have but if you look at that thread it was not open for further replies. That's why I posted a new thread. I felt an apology was necessary even though I felt I did nothing against the rules at the time.