Some Obvious Questions...

[Real Pink in the Inside]

What exactly makes a debate a "Gilmour Vs Waters debate"? For example, if I were to point out the fact Gilmour once said "I played bass on over half the early records" when he actually did not play bass on over half the early records, exactly what am I doing besides pointing out the fact Gilmour spread incorrect information in the said interview? Someone needs to define precisely what is a Gilmour Vs. Waters debate.

What exactly is a "personal attack" on a discussion board?

What exactly is "aggressive language"? It seems to me there are many overly-sensitive blokes on the internet who find un-aggressive language aggressive...The line is drawn somewhere, of course. What's the line, chief?

Is criticism of the Almighty Divine Gods Celebrated As Pink Floyd now prohibited? Or will ANY criticism be labeled a "personal attack" on the supposed Holy Gods?

The way I see it, the more rules there are the more complicated and ultimately unfair things get. This applies to nations, organizations, and even message boards. As we all know, it's your board and you are making the rules. Hopefully these new rules (It seems to me there is really only ONE new rule) will be better for your message board.

[Keith Jordan]

What I do not want to see is Gilmour bashing. You are an intelligent person. You know what I mean. Watch you language as well.

[martin musacchio]

Yeah, there's enough Gilmour bashing with Waters. He takes care of that, hehe

[David Smith]

So where should we draw the lines on world leader comments?

[Keith Jordan]

We will have a discussion on that as a community. Please feel free to state your opinions people. I think peopel should be able to say anything they like so long as it is not personal and it is backed up with reliable evidence. Sway me!

[SydsMadcapGirl]

Hahaha. David Smith, I see you went from being major Floyd fan to being very popular. One more post to go for me before I am regular!