bob, I understand where you're coming from on the memorization part, but what I was getting at was in the drop down if it just said violation of rule 1, violation of rule 2 (etc) that would foorce the chairperson to go back and read the rules, and make sure it came under them. but then gabard posted (I think it was him) that on the threads, they have their own rules, so maybe another thing on the drop down could be violation of thread rules. I don't know I was just trying to make a suggestion about it all to maybe make things easier. As far as the libel part, it's true that in a lot of cases who knows if it's really libel or not? but then there's clear cut examples where IMO if there's an error to be made, then the error should be made on protecting the recipient of the post, not the poster. In other words, if I post "Bob is a murderer. and that's basically my post, don't you think that there's a good chance that that post is libelous? If not, then people can make all kinds of wild statements, and the people that recieve them have to spend a lot of time and posts disproving them, and then what happens, the guy just makes a different accusation. "bob is a theif". now it all starts over with the new claim. bob, you have to have some place that you draw the line, IMO. btw bob it's nothing personal, but I thought that by using your name in the examples, no one can make the claim that I am talking about them, and get all upset and start a flame war. I don't mean to imply that you are either one of those things.
AI
