Selective Censorship?

The Confederate Battle flag, and related symbols are the reminders of an important part of History: American, Military, the honouring of ancestors who served. To ban them on the grounds that doing so will erase, deny or prevent the truth (what ever one's stance) is asinine, yes asinine.

The same can be said for the Swastika, The Communist Sickle, the Japanese Rising Sun. Unless used maliciously out of context by current racists, antagonistic groups that have no actual connection with the historical events, attempting to erase a part of world history from the minds of future generations (which this action certainly implies. Remember the book burnings? This is more of the same) is a scary, dangerous thing.

We are depicting historical events through scale models on this forum and magazine, not misrepresenting or misusing these extant vestiges of the past.

I'm not naive enough to believe that a few well reasoned posts defending the right is going to persuade the publishers from proceeding with the insanity. But we can vote with our feet, which I have already done.

I'll have no part of this ridiculous action. Off to the more reasoned, historically serious forums and publications.

While Kalmbach has several reader forums, each one sets its own guidelines. I believe the Scale Auto moderators don't allow the Confederate flag on their forum. I'd suggest you contact the moderators directly if you have questions.

FSM covers all eras of history, and we generally don't censor anything unless it's required by law -- for example, we can't print a swastika on the cover of the magazine, as that is illegal in some parts of Europe.

Hope this helps clarify things.

Matt Usher @ FSM

sensorship always was and always will be selective.

the editors of this magazine or any for that matter will have their views as to what is right/wrong   a year or two from now when there is a different group in place they will have different views

Greatest Modeler, Hmmm...profound...

So it would be acceptable of me to say... show a North Carolina Infantryman with the stars n' bars?

SST

Precisely, what GM said.

Go to Germany and try to display a swastika. Just see what happens. Everyone censors something; even the "Stars and Bars" crowd does their fair share of it, by shoving it in our faces all the time. Me, I could care less what trips your trigger as long as we don't have to listen to evengelising over it.

But, why bother with this whole "history" bit, anyway? I don't see anyone rushing to display a Pheonician battle banner or Ghengis Khan's colors, nor should they. There is only one country here, The United States of America. The CSA had it's shot, we learned the price of unity at great cost and now it's gone, as it should be.

What self-serving gambit is furthered by rubbing people's noses in such things? Yeah, these things happened and we must remember them, lest we forget their lessons. But must we yet again trundle out the frivolous "history" bit in defense of some banner?  

Nazism was wrong, States' Rights only goes so far and no one is getting slavery back. Get beyond it. 

dahut wrote:

Nazism was wrong, States' Rights only goes so far and no one is getting slavery back. Get beyond it.

 Yes, let's erase all forms of history from the minds of everyone since we all need to "get beyond it" 

 Or better yet, we could use those banners to teach and educate people as to why the beliefs held weren't exactly correct.  Perhaps we could even try to make people understand that the "Stars and Bars" was not the flag of the Confederacy, but rather the second Naval flag (rectangular) and the Confederate Battle Flag (Square).  Just because some morons with a racially charged agenda tried to identify themselves with it does not make it evil.  And please let's teach everyone that the flag your all talking about is always referred to incorrectly as the "Stars and Bars". 

Ok I'm off my soapbox...sorry.

Yes, let's erase all forms of history from the minds of everyone since we all need to "get beyond it"

Never my contention, as you are fully aware. What I suggest is that we dump our personal agenda's and pet causes... we're all in this together.

History teaches us vital lessons, ones that musn't be forgotten. For examle, Unity Often Comes At Great Cost. We are one nation today, under one flag, because of that cost. The flags that flew over our hard won battles were, and are, part of our past. That is very true.

But they hold no weight today. They were - that's all. They had their time. To focus on them as icons today must be guarded against. This nation faces many enemies in this time and our only strength is in our holding fast together. Let's face forward and put our former, divisive banners back up in their places of honor - on the museum wall where they belong.

At first I thought you condoned putting everything in the closet and forgetting about it so I apologize.  

I just wish they'd teach the history of the confederate flag and teach children in school that the North really didn't want to free the slaves until they were well into the war (The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution).  It's the equivilent to saying the United States went to war with Germany to free the Jews.  Due to the actions of some morons, the entire nation is up in arms over some flag that was never used in anything more than a way to recognize your side in battle.  If I were to parade down my street with the real "stars and bars", the average american would have no clue what it was and wouldn't have the slightest cause to accuse me of being a racist.  But I guess I'm just cynical and believe it has to do with the dumbing down of America  

Again, sorry if I seemed to be attacking you over what you said, I mis-interpreted you at first.

No problem. There is much that is unknown, even to those who should know better.

I understand where you are coming from, as well. I knew the real deal behind the CS battle flag - many others do, as well. But history teaches too many great lessons, to be bogged down in the little ones. You have to pick your battles, as it were. It isn't possible for everyone to know everything and that which former generations knew doesn't stay important to later ones.

What IS important is that we as a nation move ahead and stay together. That was Lincoln's greatest fight, one we must finish, it seems.

oleander13 wrote:

I just wish they'd teach the history of the confederate flag and teach children in school that the North really didn't want to free the slaves until they were well into the war (The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution).  It's the equivilent to saying the United States went to war with Germany to free the Jews.  Due to the actions of some morons, the entire nation is up in arms over some flag that was never used in anything more than a way to recognize your side in battle.

Will all due respect, you are missing two critical points: (1) The OP has a portrait of the assassin of a US President, as well as the quote he spoke upon the event. Many of us find that VERY offensive. (2) Any time I read or get into a conversation about the use of the Confederate flag and what it represents, I hear arguments along the lines of "history representation", the "PC" quantitation of the arguments, or selective quotation of historical events. Yet never, I mean NEVER I hear any mention of SLAVERY. If you want to "teach students about what the North really wanted", you should at least be historical honest and also explain that one part of the country wanted to maintain one of the most brutal, amoral, abhorrent "institutions" of modern civilization, that of SLAVERY.

Before you paint us all with the brush of a "moron" (as you did in your post), I suggest you look at the HISTORICAL reasons many of us feel offended by such visual icons. It is NOT political correctness, but historical perspective. If you paint a Swastika on the tail of a german WW2 a/c or across the deck of the Bismark, you are being historically accurate. If you choose NOT to include such iconography, you are also within your modelling rights, and most people will understand your decision. Ditto for the use of the Confederate flag in historical accurate context (such as the  General Lee kit quoted above, or portrayal of CS soldiers). Or the use of the "Battle Flag" in a military context.

I find it quite curious all the posts asking for "understanding" of historical perspective, how "Northeners" do not understand the south or the CS, etc etc. Yet, there is no apparent "understanding" of the facts of history regarding the main driving force for the ACW, that of Slavery. And please, there is such a plethora of academic literature and historical records proving this historical fact, there is no point on the tired old a-historical excuses of "South did not really went to war to keep slavery, was a matter of individual state rights". The only state "right" that mattered was slavery, and the historical record is littered with hundreds of quotes, papers, manifestos from all the leaders of the Confederacy proving this point. The separation of "slavery" from the "South's role" in the ACW was a post-war phenomena, which morphed into "The Lost Cause" myth.

Why did I go into such a soap box? I am a college professor and see the dumbing down of America each day, up close. I have also spent enough years in the military to have seen (and argued ad nauseum) the "Lost Cause" myth several dozen times. That, and I have a bad head cold and Im cranky and should have gone to bed 2 hours ago.

In summary - Sic Semper Tyrannis! profile is indeed offensive for many reasons. No reason why any citizen should gloat over the killing of a US President. Should he take it down? No, to each its own, individuals can choose how important the issue is and vote with their "keyboards". You have the right to whatever belief system you wish, just do NOT paint "us" as morons, uneducated or PC. We have historical facts on our side.

Oh, and one last thing:

We won the war, the GOOD side won the war, and kept this great country together and UNITED and able to then beat back the forces of totalitarian and fascists governments in the 20th century. Not to mention the final obliteration of the most abhorrent, un-Christian, amoral "institute" of Slavery. No rational analysis of the historical timeline would suggest that our Country or World would have been better off with a CS "victory". Southern US has PLENTY of rich culture and history, of music, literature, positive contributions to the UNITED states. Why do some people (like the OP and his Sig) continue to focus on the one negative and abhorrent event in their history is beyond me.

JMart wrote:

oleander13 wrote: I just wish they'd teach the history of the confederate flag and teach children in school that the North really didn't want to free the slaves until they were well into the war (The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution).  It's the equivilent to saying the United States went to war with Germany to free the Jews.  Due to the actions of some morons, the entire nation is up in arms over some flag that was never used in anything more than a way to recognize your side in battle.  Will all due respect, you are missing two critical points: (1) The OP has a portrait of the assassin of a US President, as well as the quote he spoke upon the event. Many of us find that VERY offensive. (2) Any time I read or get into a conversation about the use of the Confederate flag and what it represents, I hear arguments along the lines of "history representation", the "PC" quantitation of the arguments, or selective quotation of historical events. Yet never, I mean NEVER I hear any mention of SLAVERY. If you want to "teach students about what the North really wanted", you should at least be historical honest and also explain that one part of the country wanted to maintain one of the most brutal, amoral, abhorrent "institutions" of modern civilization, that of SLAVERY. Before you paint us all with the brush of a "moron" (as you did in your post), I suggest you look at the HISTORICAL reasons many of us feel offended by such visual icons. It is NOT political correctness, but historical perspective. If you paint a Swastika on the tail of a german WW2 a/c or across the deck of the Bismark, you are being historically accurate. If you choose NOT to include such iconography, you are also within your modelling rights, and most people will understand your decision. Ditto for the use of the Confederate flag in historical accurate context (such as the  General Lee kit quoted above, or portrayal of CS soldiers). Or the use of the "Battle Flag" in a military context.

Firstly,  I never called you or anyone who says the south supported slavery a moron.  I called the Klu Klux Klan who first used the Confederate Jack in a purely racial way a group of morons.  Read the thread further up and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Secondly,  I have never said what the South's stance on slavery was correct.  I also never said the war was not about slavery, merely that the North's intent was not to free the slaves at the beginning of the war per the Crittenden-Johnson resolution which stated the war was being fought to re-unite the United States, not abolish slavery.  The average K-8 classroom teachers tell their students that the North went to war in order to abolish slavery and free all the slaves.  Again, this is the equivalent of teaching students that the United States went to war with Germany in order to free the Jews.  

JMart wrote:

If you want to "teach students about what the North really wanted", you should at least be historical honest and also explain that one part of the country wanted to maintain one of the most brutal, amoral, abhorrent "institutions" of modern civilization, that of SLAVERY.

The war was not about good vs. evil either as you have tried to spin it.  Let's go ahead and be historically honest as you have accused me of not being.  Without industrialization, the North would have still been using slaves in the same manner as the South.  The fact that many farms were being replaced with factories meant the slave was useless to the North.  And while we're on the subject of being historically honest, let's tell all the boys and girls in our school systems how after the North began accepting African American's into their ranks, they feared commissioning black officers.  Let's also fill them in on the pay rates of white soldiers vs. black soldiers ($13 a month , 3.50 for clothes for white soldiers: $7.50 a month, $3 clothing allowance for black soldiers) until 1864, when the War Department sanctioned equal pay for white and black soldiers. 

Once again, the war was not as cut and dry as you'd like to paint it.  I would think that as a professor of history you would also like to show the inhumane treatment of African-American's by both sides and not paint a picture of one good side vs. one evil side.  That is why American's are dumbed down as you so eloquently put it, because we paint the picture's in such broad strokes and fail to point out that the entire nation treated all blacks unfairly in one manner or another.  To quote Abraham Lincoln:  "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Thirdly, my points regarding the Confederate Jack lie in the fact that it was not the true flag that the South flew during the war.  If I were to parade down my street with the actual confederate flag, most people wouldn't have the slightest clue.  I think those who fly the Confederate Jack are morons for the simple fact that if they love the south so much, they should be flying this flag:

not the Confederate Jack.  Again, the only reason the Confederate Jack, as so many people incorrectly call the "Stars and Bars here in the south, is popular is due to it's use as a sign of hatred by the KKK. 

And lastly, tied into my third point, I have never said I agree with the flying of the confederate flag in any manner other than displaying a historical event.  In my opinion, those who fly the flag and use the "history" and "pride" defense, have absolutely no grasp of what the meaning of that actual flag is.  Their entire argument is flawed from the beginning. 

Next time don't lump me in with group's of people who say slavery was the way to go and the south should have won when I don't ever mention anything in line with that in any posts.

While were at it, lets recall that some of the most bitter and bloody labor riots in our history sprang up at the notion of slaves being freed. When THAT was learned in the North, all heck broke loose. Few of the recent immigrant populations wanted an itinerant population of freed men  - no matter their color - coming northward without jobs.

A great book for all you CW historians is called "Slavery in the Cities." In it, you'll read about the collapse of slavery in Southern cities. Slavery could only be mainteined in the remote plantation enclaves and elsewhere, it was falling apart. People were exceedingly religious back then and there were movements in the cities to abolish slavery. In most, the former slaves were coming up freeman-ship. The very economies of these cities depended on their skills and what were once slaves had become skilled tradesmen.

Again, recall that A. Lincoln wasn't as concerned about slavery as he was about our fledgling nation staying together. We were only a century old then and VERY much divided. In his own letters he comments that slavery was a dying thing and that soon enough, mechanisation would eliminate the need for human lavor on the farms. That is, if the Union held together long enough

People really should read ALL the documents and reports from those times - and not those which only suit them or their pet causes. The facts might surprise you.

Exactly dahut, good points!!

I wish college professors and high school teachers would teach these types of lessons to their students so that everyone know's the real story. 

As the saying goes..."Time flows like a river, and history repeats itself."

How are we to know when history is "repeating itself" if we don't teach proper history!!

Flags are flags and should be displayed in the appropriate historical context within scale modeling. Yadda yadda yadda, that dead horse has been beat, and I fail to see why it comes up as a topic now and then except to stir up trouble.

Here's the real interesting part:

JMart wrote:

(1) The OP has a portrait of the assassin of a US President, as well as the quote he spoke upon the event.

It's also the quote that Timothy McVeigh had printed on his shirt the day he was arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Pretty sick.

I must disagree that anyone won the "War". There is nothing but foolishness when brothers and countrymen tear each others throats out over anything. What can fools ever hope to win? What we did was enter a dark age, where flawed ideology and prideful agenda clouded our collective sight. There is no glory, there is no victory, then. No "teaching" of events can whitewash that.

We should be ashamed, not proud, of that time in our past. How we rise above that, together, is all that matters.

There was a presidential candidate a some years back, named Alan Keyes. Does anyone remember him? One of his comments from the campaign trail was:

(sic) "...we ALL got here on different ships - but we're rowing the same boat, now."

He had my vote. Why? Because he gets it. 

Mr. Keyes is black, BTW.

 "Firstly,  I never called you or anyone who says the south supported slavery a moron.  I called the Klu Klux Klan who first used the Confederate Jack in a purely racial way a group of morons.  Read the thread further up and you'll see what I'm talking about."

If that was your meaning, then I retract my comment. To me it reads like the "morons" are the ones who take offense at CERTAIN uses of icons, as well as a-historical comments.

"Secondly,  I have never said what the South's stance on slavery was correct.  I also never said the war was not about slavery, merely that the North's intent was not to free the slaves at the beginning of the war per the Crittenden-Johnson resolution which stated the war was being fought to re-unite the United States, not abolish slavery.  The average K-8 classroom teachers tell their students that the North went to war in order to abolish slavery and free all the slaves.  Again, this is the equivalent of teaching students that the United States went to war with Germany in order to free the Jews."

This comment (as well as others in this thread) try to bypass the central argument of the relationship between slavery and the South. Much is made of Lincoln's intent, the North's racist behaviors,economic trends etc, all of which is true. And all of which does not even start to approach the abhorrent, amoral, unChristian "institution" of slavery, in which a human being is made to be property of another. You speak of historical honesty, again, teach and preach about slavery, about the attitudes of the Southern leadership against blacks. To "bundle" up both North and South in their behavior towards Blacks is ahistorical and just not correct. To compare the reluctance of the North in commissioning Negroes to their treatment as OBJECTS by slavery is night and day. And we do not even have to mention post ACW issues, like Jim Crow laws that NEVER appeared in the North. Read the original documents, here is a quick example of the Texas Ordinance of Secession:

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquillity and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. "

There are hundreds of documents and facts like the above... Again, it is very clear what the main driving force for secession was, as well as the main "right" the Southern states wanted to maintain: Slavery. As Dahut stated "The facts might surprise you". Another myth perpetuated in this thead is the economic "benefit" of slavery; several academic analysis on the last dozens of years have clearly shown that slavery was not economically more beneficial when taking a macroanalysis view of the area.

"The war was not about good vs. evil either as you have tried to spin it. "

The "peculiar institute" of Slavery was evil,abhorrent, amoral, and was seen as such by several abolitionists, religious leaders and citizens. The treatment of the Blacks post ACW was also abhorrent and amoral.

 The flag issue I agreed upon, as I stated, as long as it in historical context... most people have no clue about displaying flags of ANY type, as seen in every parade when citizens have flag "bandanas" around their head or shorts made out of the flag (all improper uses of the flag).

I will finish with your quote:

"I wish college professors and high school teachers would teach these types of lessons to their students so that everyone know's the real story.  As the saying goes..."Time flows like a river, and history repeats itself."How are we to know when history is "repeating itself" if we don't teach proper history!! "

I could not agree more. But do not forget to put slavery at the forefront, where it belongs.

AND, final final point... whatever your "feelings" towards Lincoln are, it is abhorrent and disgusting as a Citizen to have as your Sig the picture of his assasin (and someone pointed out McVeigh's connection).

To Dahut - I agree with your last post, except "I must disagree that anyone won the "War". " The war was "won" on the field, and in ideology. Again, just think the consequences of secession... no large united industrial US to help defend Europe in WW1/WW2 among many many others. Yes, we are all rowing the same ship, which brings me back to my last comment on the last post:

"Why do some people (like the OP and his Sig) continue to focus on the one negative and abhorrent event in their history is beyond me. "

I wish everyone a good modelling week and month, this is my last post in this thread, time to go back to the "hobby" part of this place!  

JMart wrote:

"Secondly,  I have never said what the South's stance on slavery was correct.  I also never said the war was not about slavery, merely that the North's intent was not to free the slaves at the beginning of the war per the Crittenden-Johnson resolution which stated the war was being fought to re-unite the United States, not abolish slavery.  The average K-8 classroom teachers tell their students that the North went to war in order to abolish slavery and free all the slaves.  Again, this is the equivalent of teaching students that the United States went to war with Germany in order to free the Jews." This comment (as well as others in this thread) try to bypass the central argument of the relationship between slavery and the South. Much is made of Lincoln's intent, the North's racist behaviors,economic trends etc, all of which is true. And all of which does not even start to approach the abhorrent, amoral, unChristian "institution" of slavery, in which a human being is made to be property of another. You speak of historical honesty, again, teach and preach about slavery, about the attitudes of the Southern leadership against blacks. To "bundle" up both North and South in their behavior towards Blacks is ahistorical and just not correct. To compare the reluctance of the North in commissioning Negroes to their treatment as OBJECTS by slavery is night and day. And we do not even have to mention post ACW issues, like Jim Crow laws that NEVER appeared in the North. Read the original documents, here is a quick example of the Texas Ordinance of Secession:

This comment does nothing of the sort!!!  Please stop putting words in my mouth!  At no point in my statement to I 'try to bypass the central argument of the relationship between slavery and the South', as you claim I do.  No where in any of my statements have I claimed that slavery in the south was not the reason for secession.  One thing we can agree on however, is that we are both done posting in this thread. 

No offense Jmart, but I don't particulary care for the way you continually act like I support racism and the way you accuse me of "wishing the south had won".  Twice you have lumped me into the group of people who claim the south was correct.  Twice you have accused me of calling those who oppose the Confederate Jack "morons".  Twice you have accused me of falling in line with the TC and by the words of your "final final" point, accuse me of having Lincoln's assassin as my sig.  ME AND THE TC ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON!!!! Please stop directing all of your anger towards him onto me with your posts.  I have done nothing but make the statements that we need to teach slavery as being wrong, but also make it a point to show children that the North and Lincoln for that matter didn't give a rat's behind about slavery until well into the war.  Again, read Lincoln's statement: 

 "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Those are the words of a man who wanted to save a fledgling nation at any cost, not the words of a man hell-bent on freeing slaves.  That is the ONLY point I have tried to make in these threads, that the North wasn't some knight in shining armor who was fighting for the black man as you like to make them appear.  Apparently I have not been clear enough in this, as you continue to accuse me of claiming that slavery had no part in the war.  Your contingence that the North was squeaky clean in this whole matter is the true abhorrence.  Blacks were treated unfairly by everyone, not just by citizens in the south.  It is unfair to African-American's when you only paint the South as being evil.  The whole nation was evil, used African-American's as either slaves in a field or as underpaid "slaves" in a an army.  Teach children that EVERYONE's mindset towards African-American's was wrong, not just the mindset of the south.  That's all I'm asking.

Again, I'm done with this thread as it's getting a little heated and I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth or being accused of supporting the idea that slavery had nothing to do with the war. 

Gentlemen,

I think this thread is pretty well done. And it's a long way from where it started. The central issue as far as the forums go is that FSM does not have, nor has it ever had, any ban on the Confederate flag. Let's move on, and may the better angels of our nature prevail.

Happy modeling! 

AH1Wsnake wrote:

Here's the real interesting part:  JMart wrote: (1) The OP has a portrait of the assassin of a US President, as well as the quote he spoke upon the event. It's also the quote that Timothy McVeigh had printed on his shirt the day he was arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing. Pretty sick.

And the fact that John Wilkes Booth and the quote are flaunted as an avatar and a screen name here is pretty shameful.  I equate that to having Hitler as my avatar and my screen name being something to the effect of Deutschland Uber Alles...  disgusting in my opinion.

oleander13 - I think you have misundestood my tone and attitude? In no way I ever suggested you harbored any "negative" or racists feelings or support of slavery etc etc. Also, no way I was attacking YOU personally.  I was commenting on the ARGUMENTS and the inaccuracy of the comments made by the original poster.  I was NOT repeat NOT making my comments PERSONALLY to you.  I was not directing my responses to YOU (maybe because I hit "reply" after your post?) but to the group discussion in general. I even acknowledged in my second reply that I misunderstood the group labelled "morons".  I was arguing the "arguments", and we actually had a lot of ideas in common! I guess I was posting as we were in a group talking about ideas or arguments. It is obvious to me now that you were taking my responses personally (ie directed against you as a person) instead of me responding TO you about arguments and ideas (not AGAINST you).

Let me say here and now, that if I mis-typed or did not express myself in a way that clearly indicated I was not directing my comments to YOU as a person (instead of argumentatoin or debate), I sincerely apologize to you. If you took it to mean that *I* thought *you* were the target of my comments, I also apologize. I was talking TO you, but not ABOUT you.... makes sense now?

dahut wrote:

It was bound to end up there, sadly. Yet, it remained pretty civil overall. I say good job to all parties.

I thought so too, specially given into consideration the flammability of the topic. I thought you and oleander13 had some great points. Alas, the same nature of the Net that allows strangers to partake in conversations also prevents the nuances of speech to come thru in their intended milieu. It is clear (?) to me know thet he thought I was attacking him personally, to which I apologized.

Anyways, happy modelling to all, hope I see you and oleander under better and plastic circumstances...cheers to all! James

voice inflections and facial expressions get lost in translation on the internet, so let's chalk all this up to that.  I felt like some of your statements were directed at me personally, but if you say they weren't then they weren't.  No hard feelings on my end James, hope you feel the same.  Look forward to seeing you guys around!

Hey, guys. Yoohooooo! This has degraded into a sob-fest now.

Let's go back to the beginning and restart. It was said that Kalmbach Pub, et al, disallows the confed B.F. from being displayed in their bylaws. Yet, it was pointed out that one of their advertisers displays the same flag in a product listing for the General Lee? The originator asked if that seemed hypocritical?

Well, no. Kalmbach is not in the business of policing every bit of their advertisers content. Something slipped by, it seems.  The post was just sour grapes, if you ask me. To hear Matthew tell it, it isn't outside the realm of historical relevance in the first place:

"If it's an accurate representation of a historical event, it'd be within our guidelines. Bear in mind, however, with any controversial subject, you'll still have to answer to your fellow forum members, who might not be so forgiving." That's editorspeak for: "Don't you have a model to build?"

(can you get more historically significant than the General Lee... Daisy Dukes - oh, yeah!)

dahut wrote:

Well, no. Kalmbach is not in the business of policing every bit of their advertisers content. Something slipped by, it seems, and to hear Matthew tell it, it isn't outside the realm of historical relevance in the first place. That's editorspeak for: "Why are we being arsed with this? Don't you have a model to build?"

Not exactly how I would have put it, but accurate regardless.

Two points I will reiterate: Every Kalmbach magazine website has its own set of guidelines, set by its individual editor and (sometimes) publisher.  There is no "blanket" Kalmbach policy.

The editorial content of FSM is never, ever influenced by the magazine's advertisers. My editorial staff is "untouchable" in that concern. You have my word.

Questions? editor@finescale.com

Matthew Usher @ FSM