Perhaps. However, it worked in getting people talking. First, my opinion isn't absolutely settled on the subject. Second: In general, I don't like to ask questions especially from anonymous persons. However, I do prefer to answer my own questions through research before asking other people. Given how forums where people are behind anonymity, I have learned is not a safe place to ask people questions until after performing due diligence research on the matter. Why? They are assholes and unprofessional in how they treat others. They berate them and give people grief rather than being helpful. This forum is a prime example of that. I've seen how this forum has treated people who ask questions.

Jovan, good moral character is already part of the licensing laws since they began. It comes from how lawyers and doctors were licensed and the code of conduct they enforce. That's where it began for us. Good moral character is enforced through a mandated code of conduct. Licensing boards tend to have such for the architecture profession. 

Chapter 61G1-12 of your board's administrative rules is basically a large part of your board's Code of Conduct. However, other states have a variety of code of conduct regulations. Some include specifics. In some respect, compliance with labor laws and antidiscrimination laws are aspects of "good moral character" that should be enforced. Perhaps, we may prefer to use other wordage than the "good moral character" which is a word of art of sorts in the legal world. If anything, it should be defined for the purpose of the licensing law and not too open-ended, either. I don't think we need a "religion" test. 

We do need to be sure people who aspire to be licensed have a demonstrated pattern of conduct prior to licensure. When I say, scrutinize, I don't mean we absolutely bar a person who may have had a stint with racism. We have to evaluate them more closely to see if they have departed. Sometimes, people may have been dragged into a racist group and then got away from it but time and demonstration that they don't support such thing. 

Racism is itself, would put them in conflict with the lawful responsibilities as an architect-employer. This is relevant to the duties of the profession. There are anti-discrimination laws relating to employment. This is relevant to the practice of the profession. 

This must not stop solely at the process of becoming licensed but maintained throughout the profession. Part of being a profession is being professional and adherence to professional code of conduct.

Rick I don't care about all of your "legal" bs. Morals =/= ethics. 50 years ago, I would not have been allowed a license under moral grounds for being trans. 80 years ago, I would not have been allowed under moral grounds because I'm specifically not religious. Morality is the nebulous code of "right and wrong" which is prescribed by society upon the individual. Consequently, someone holding racist views does not mean that they will be discriminatory in practice. You have no idea what you're trying to argue and you should really shut up about "codes of conduct" and other legal bullshit.

exactly. who defines morality? thats the issue with this whole argument. It wo uld sadly be used in nefarious ways.

Answer: the state. And as long as the state gets to make laws that restrict my rights to exist in public (along with many other groups of people who historically do not fit the mould), my licensure shouldn't (and isn't) based on morals. It's based on ethics, and even then it's got quirks that make it super messed up.

All laws are codification of morals, obligations, and ethics. It is all prescribed by society. They are also mutable. At one time, you be executed from being other than heterosexual or seen as an abomination. Humans are weird that way over history. That's the nature of human race and the morphology of values. There are different types of morals but basically that the value system is and ALL laws are fundamentally based on morals and ethics. They become law when a bunch of political buttheads gather in a room (or two actually in a bicameral legislative body) and actually decide to do something other than picking fights and elbowing each other, and decide to take the law proposal (a BILL) and approve it as law. Then the governor (or President in the federal level) signs it into law. 

Ethics are derived from morals. Morals are the core and basis of any and all values. I agree with you that the licensing board and licensing requirements should not be based on issues like personal and religious-based morals. It should be scoped and limited. 

Isn't anti-racism a moral value? Isn't anti-discrimination a moral value? At one time, killing other humans was not seen in negative light. 

When we became a civilization and adopted laws, there was a shift in values. Remember, you live in a country. By that definition, society is always going to impose its collective prevailing values on the individual. There is no exception to that because the will of the many outweighs the will of the one. The concerns of the many are more than the concerns of the one. That has never changed and never will so if you don't want societal rules imposed on you, there is plenty of liquid real estate out there in this world not under the governance of any country. That, or go find another planet. 

Alternatively, you accept that reality of countries and be a voice in changing the moral values of the society to one more favorable to you. I think we have already done some change since 50 years ago. You are a licensed. We just hone the scope of morals we regulate. Are you arguing in support of racism?

I'm not going to debate you on something you don't understand. Have fun thinking that anyone who opposes "good moral character" as a basis for licensure must therefore support racism.

You support racism because you do nothing to evict the racists from the profession. There is no place for racism in any profession. An actual racist person is not capable of not discriminating on basis of race or espousing their racism as it is fundamental to their core belief as a religion is to a person. If they could in fact not discriminate on basis of racism in professional aspects of the profession which includes hiring employees, as well as professional relationship, then it wouldn't be an issue but those who can't help but discriminate on basis of race, will make decisions and architectural proposals on basis of race. They propose ideas that are racist in nature. They were in part responsible for displacement of ethnic minorities. They harmed the public which includes ethnic minorities. If you wish to call it "character demonstrating compliance with the ethics and conduct standards of the profession" instead of "good moral character" then for fuck sake, go for it if the word "moral" is the issue. It is still the same essential point of the legislative intent of "good moral character" for the most part and the spirit of what it is about.

Ah! But consider: One can be anti-racism and also anti-fascism at the same time. Then again, you don't understand the difference between morals and ethics (which, given that you're not a licensed professional, I guess one can't be too demanding about that). If you think that I'm going to justify moralism by using race as a shield for your white guilt, then I'm flabbergasted at what else to say to you.

Ethics don't exist without moral as its underpinning. Moral value is the underpinning and foundation of ALL ethics or laws. Everything in societal order.... fuck... the very element of CIVILIZATION is about people imposing establishing rules and an societal order... all are based on morals. 

Morals are the "right or wrong" paradigm underpinning of which all laws are established as well as the raking of values. In a moral value system of a society, a society can have values (morals) that says compassion and care may be higher in cases than punishment. Morals, laws, and ethics are mutable like clay. They change with society... the people. Always has. 

There are only two types of government paradigms of civilizations.... a government where the people (directly in direct democracy, or through representatives elected by the people as in representational democracies aka republics) impose the moral values in the form of laws or ethics. The other is a government where the ruler (examples: dictator, absolute monarchy, authoritarian emperor, etc.) imposes his or her or whatever preferred pronoun, moral value on the people as laws (or in some historic form... edicts). That's the two basic paradigms of civilization. There is no third paradigm. What is neither is no civilization... a pure or just about pure anarchy. 

White isn't the only people to have imposed some form of racism in history. Yes, there were white people guilty of racism. Let's stop blaming the whole race for the acts of individuals. I am not the person who enslaved anyone or discriminated against them from employment. I recognize the guilt of individuals and that it was pervasive when there was societal institution of slavery. I recognize that but I also believe there is a moral value of punishing people for their own committed crimes they made not the crimes that others have made. 

Certain acts of racism should be a crime and charged criminally in criminal court. Absolutely. It is in effect, law in the U.S., today. However, I am talking about the laws and rules of the profession and the gatekeeping role of licensing boards. Yes, that is the purpose of licensing boards, to a certain degree.

Here are some questions: 

Should a licensure candidate that is a KKK member who burns black people on a stick, be permitted to be licensed? 

Should a licensed architect that is a KKK member who burns or beats up black people or otherwise terrorizes black people be allowed to remain having a license as an architect? 

Should an architect the espouses in the office or otherwise publicly about the idea of murdering black people because he's anti-black, be allowed to continue to have a license? 

Should a candidate who does the same above be allowed to become licensed?

If we do nothing, are we not giving aid to the racist to be racist in our profession and harm our communities especially those underrepresented in our communities?

Well considering that your above examples are all patently illegal and bodily dangerous to others, my answer to all of them would be no, that person shouldn't continue having a license, in the same way that someone who has a license and commits armed robbery or murder would have their license revoked. If I wanted to be charitable to you I'd say that you are mistakenly confusing these things with moral questions. But fuck that, Rick you're a piece of shit who wants to disguise authoritarian moralism as some sort of sympathy for minority communities.

Actually, only the first two questions would be illegal. The second is a gray area like freedom of speech issue. How about something more clear and less bodily dangerous. 

[Couple more questions]

Say, an architect or licensure candidate creates a hostile work environment against blacks through demeaning statements about the black persons race or forcing them to work 12-16 hours a day with no pay increase because they salaried them to just the minimum needed to no be required to pay overtime rate and at a flat salary rate yet white employees works only a regular 8 hour work day... all while deriding black people... should they be licensed as architects? 

What if the licensed architect or licensure candidate promotes using eminent domain to displace ethnic minorities because they feel these ethnic minorities are just trash and relocate them through force and promote that?

Maybe you'll say "no". Perhaps we agree there. Okay. So how do you propose they aren't going to be architects? If you do nothing, they will be architects and will be able to harm people in ways not just bodily harm. You can't do nothing but adminition is still doing nothing. It is just lip service. If they are in positions of power, lip service does nothing. That has been proven time and time again.

This is stupid. I'm not engaging in what-ifs. I won't subscribe to the idea that we need to bar licensure behind some morality purity test, and I'm not going to keep feeding however many fantasies you have about being racist toward minorities. Yes, we all agree, racism is bad. I'm glad you've existed in the modern world for five minutes so you could come to this conclusion.

Lets look at your thesis point of not imposing morals. Not imposing morals is not having laws because laws do not exist without a moral value as its underpinning. We wouldn't have architectural licensing laws at all. In any civilization, there always imposing moral values in the form of laws. This is how civilizations can exist and human race doesn't go extinct. The human race very existence today depends on there be rules or laws and the enforcement of it. Otherwise, we'll just end up killing each other until there is none of us left in the world. We can do it so quickly now that it can be done in less than a week with certain weapons and means of doing it.

It is part of the reason licensing boards exists and a core aspect of a licensed profession. A licensed profession isn't just paying dues. You have to have these professional code of ethical & moral obligations and conduct. It's one of those things you have especially at the stage of the profession becoming a LICENSED profession. Professions will generally already start adopting these codes within their professional associations and even in one's individual selves before the profession becomes licensed. It is a way of life as a professional. Professional morals, conduct, and ethics are part of professionalism. A profession isn't a profession if there isn't professionalism. A professional isn't a professional if he or she doesn't apply professionalism. Having a certificate with a number on it doesn't make you a professional. Professionalism is what marks you with the qualities of being a professional.

In my opinion, racism is against the moral and ethical obligations of a professional. It rubs against professionalism. There are plenty of issues of unprofessionalism that occurs in the profession. The very licensing board is the only actual institution in the licensed profession of architecture with the legal authority to discipline. Professional associations in the U.S. fining members is dubious at best under the legal atmosphere. They can cancel memberships. If they are a certifying body (like the NCBDC component of the AIBD) they can terminate certification but they can't really effectively enforce the same as a government entity. Case laws throughout the 60s-2000s basically limit the extent of what professional associations can do regarding disciplining for violating their professional codes. However, licensing boards have more powers and beyond licensing boards are the courts. As far as I am concerned, we need to uphold our professions highly.

It’s a code of ethics, not a law of ethics. Organizations like licensing boards and the AIA don’t have resources or reason to proactively seek out people with general moral failings among their paying ranks and just kick them out. If things get reported to them that break the rules (which are mostly oriented to wards actual professional practice, and concerning racism would often be breaking actual laws for discrimination) then they can and will discipline people.

Yes but ethics are regulated and they may label it "code of conduct" and administrative rules are part of what is called ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. They are mandatory. Yes, AIA and AIBD are just professional associations but licensing boards are government agencies/departments. They have a legal mandate to ensure those who are licensed does A) competent, B) of good moral character [as it may be used in the actual STATUTES and ADMINISTRATIVE RULES/LAWS of the particular state. If the board fails to actually do its duties the statutes requires, it is breaking the law. They actually have to do something called due diligence effort when it comes to actually enforcing EVERY ONE of the laws they are tasked to enforce. Yes, EVERY damn one of them. It is not permitted for the Board to cherry-pick the laws. Just like you are required by law as a driver to follow and comply with every single traffic law not just cherry-pick the ones you want to follow. The same applies to the licensing laws. In fact, in states like West Virginia has the definition for Good Moral Character - 

West Virginia

which is the statutory law of West Virginia. 

"(4) "Good moral character" means such character as will enable a person to discharge the fiduciary duties of an architect to his client and to the public for the protection of health, safety and welfare. Evidence of inability to discharge such duties include the commission of an offense justifying discipline under section eight of this article" 

Every state law has some sort of fashion a requirement that those licensed are of character to discharge the fiduciary duties of the profession and duties to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare. Here's Iowa's definition: "6. “Good moral character” means a reputation for trustworthiness, honesty, and adherence to professional standards of conduct." and North Carolina: " Good moral character. - 

Character as tends to assure the faithful discharge of the fiduciary duties of an architect or registered interior designer to his or her client. Evidence of lack of such character shall include the willful commission of an offense justifying discipline under this Chapter, the practice of architecture in violation of this Chapter, the practice of interior design in violation of this Chapter, or of the laws of another jurisdiction, or the conviction of a felony." 

Ohio - "(C) "Good moral character" - not having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, as that term is defined in section 4776.10 of the Revised Code, not having been convicted of a crime that bears a direct nexus to the ability to practice architecture, not having made misstatements or misrepresentation in connection with an application for registration, renewal of the registration or certificate of authorization, not having willfully violated any of the sections of the code of conduct required of certificate holders and set forth in the statutes or rules, and not having practiced architecture without registration in violation of the registration laws of the jurisdiction in which the practice took place." 

Then there is Virginia: ( Virginia). Now, I think good moral character has some definition to its scope as it relates to a professional setting and strongly correlates to that of code of conduct the board adopts by rule and otherwise indicated through the statutes. Don't you think regulating even blocking licensing to someone who is racist and actively so with racist groups are well within the intent of good moral character since such racism would cause architects to violate laws like employment laws where they would discriminate on basis of race? I am not suggesting an unlimited scope and frankly, enough with excuses, too. Stop giving excuses for something they could be doing and just not doing.

TLDR: We have plenty of states where "Good Moral Character" is defined. Some that are statutorily defined and is the requirement of the board to enforce. The boards are to adopt rules that may further define what is covered by that definition. Sometimes, it isn't meant by the statutes to rigidly define everything that is considered under the definition but to establish legislative intent. The board is often provided with some leeway in how to enforce and define through code of conduct and such that licensees must follow as well as conditions a person may be denied licensure or renewal. There is some basis for that from a PROFESSIONAL perspective not whether or not gay couples are moral or immoral. It is about morals in the context of the profession and professionalism not religious morals. In fact, all laws are based on morals. Laws are morals that are mandatory not suggestions.

To be clear, civil, criminal, and administrative law are all different things. Architecture licensing boards use a code of regulations which have so-called “force of law” but are not actually laws. This is a minor point, because I don’t think it’s actually important to the discussion. The real point is that they operate fundamentally differently than criminal or civil laws, as they are just about regulation. Regulation of the profession, not general morality. Your examples and comments reflect my previous summation that the actual definitions around morality in these regulations are focused on criminal behavior and things that prevent you from being able to function as an architect.

I’d boil your entire argument down to this bit:
"Don't you think regulating even blocking licensing to someone who is racist and actively so with racist groups are well within the intent of good moral character since such racism would cause architects to violate laws like employment laws where they would discriminate on basis of race?"

While I entirely agree with you that racism is bad. I would answer that question as a “no”. You can’t assume just because someone is racist that they will automatically commit professional misconduct or crimes.

I support the idea of adjusting the regulations. This isn’t as broadly an interpretation of morality as Jovan is brining up above. Race is already a protected class, so I don’t feel like it’s a stretch to take some quantifiable step in protecting it further. However, I think it’s really hard to go much further up the pipeline. For example, it might make sense to prevent anyone who participates in a hate group from becoming an architect…but I don’t think any US governing body actually defines specific groups as hate groups officially, so I don’t even know how you could make that work.

natematt, yes. I am not nor have I disputed criminal, civil, or administrative law. Licensing boards can fine and revoke licenses. They can refer cases to courts where necessary. That may lead to to a civil or criminal case in those courts. Professional associations, these days, can pretty much only admonish or cancel membership or if they are a operating a certification program, suspend/terminate certification. The fine part is something that they are not so much able to do anymore due to those actions challenged in courts in the past 50 years have lead to rulings where professional organizations may not fine people for they are not government entities. Courts can have higher limits on fines they can issue but they can also incarcerate a person. I am not suggesting licensing boards incarcerate. The disciplinary actions I suggest are within the established types of disciplines they are allowed under current law. Licensing boards are tasked with the responsibility that candidates for licensure are of character that can demonstrate they can execute the professional duties and obligations of the profession which include abiding the laws not just the board's laws and rules but all laws and applicable rules in the course of their profession. 

We don't want serial murderers become licensed architects. We don't want them to remain architects. We don't want convicted rapists become architects or remain as architects. Right? We don't want racists being licensed. I pointed to racism as a danger to the public's health, safety, and/or welfare. I pointed to racist's general inability to not discriminate on basis of race whether that be hiring, firing, or any employment situation. They create a hostile work environment to other employees and they would be unprofessional. Isn't that something within the spirit of the laws? 

By the way, criminal and civil law are generally sub-categories of statutory laws legislated by the state or federal or in limited levels, the city council or county commissioners. The local government's equivalent to administrative law are those codes adopted by a department such as zoning. Sometimes we label that under a separate term (regulatory law) which is possibly described as a sub-category of administrative law. Criminal and Civil laws are generally sub-categories of statutory laws delineated by the type of discipline. I think you are comingling two different category systems of categorizing laws. I was referring to the categorization of law as: Constitutional (Federal or State), Statutory (Federal or State), and Administrative (Federal or State). Administrative laws may sometimes fall into civil court cases because it might not involve incarceration but it usually serves with distinction from criminal cases (as in no incarceration penalty) or civil cases (like lawsuits over negligence, tort, or contractual... determining is a person is liable for monetary damages). 

I think what I am proposing is certainly within the domain of administrative law and is arguably within purpose of licensing boards. They are suppose to be gatekeepers and policing within its legal scope of responsibilities. They aren't suppose to go out and arrest people. They can refer cases to the state AG office and/or local DA. They then can decide the next move. A few cases can and have arised to arrests but that's extremely rare. 

I'm not proposing the licensing board arresting a licensure candidate or licensees who are racist. In the rare case, a licensure candidate or licensee commits a crime, they can refer that to the state AG or local DA and if appropriate the appropriate law enforcement agency. If there is a federal crime, then perhaps it goes up to the U.S. DOJ and FBI. Who knows. It's not different than the licensing board being an informant of what came to their attention. It would be extremely rare but not absolutely impossible.

If it is the word "moral" that is at issue. The point is to define it in statutes or perhaps use a different set of words with the same intent it was always been about. It never ever was about some unlimited scope of moral because absolutely all values is a moral system. The point was to define the values that are being mandated. All laws and ethics are fundamentally based on morals. Since day 1, over 10,000 years ago. Morals is the value system or systems everything in society is based on. It is what defines the social orders and rules and the social institutions. The very institutions of government is based on morals. They don't exist without. It is like the laws of physics on this one. Your argument is basically comes to having no law because enforcing any law is enforcing morality. Laws are based on some moral value. You can't enforce laws against murder and rape based on your argument because laws are just society mandating moral values. Think about it.

At some point in time, someone decided murder was wrong. At some point in time, someone decided rape was wrong. The idea that murder and rape are wrong was shared and over time the people collectively decided it was wrong and eventually people decided we had to make laws. It's a moral value at heart that decided, we had to have occupational licensing. The moral idea is that a person must be regulated because they can not individually self-regulate and that it is wrong to allow the individual to self-regulate. It led to the idea of the 10th Amendment that gave states "police power" to establish laws for the protection of the public. It was a moral value system and belief that the individual is an inherently corrupt and self-centered creature that will do what he or she desires regardless of how it harms others if left to do as he or she pleases. It is why we have laws and why we regulate. It takes a society to impose and enforce rules from which members of a society shall obey and follow or face consequences. It is consequences that deter us from acting on our worst impulses. Think about it. Think about how some of you act while anonymous without consequences or accountability.

No thanks on the theoracy.

lol... then I am your GOD! You don't obey me, I shall at my will smite you. Do what I say or risk being smited. Now, the satire aside, I'm not talking about theocracy.

How could a person with no education or experience become an architect?

There were plenty of points in the posts that were highly misinterpreted. To make it clear, under no circumstances then or now would I actually support or promote violence against people on basis of their sexual orientation or race. Merely pointing to the fact there is such that occurs or stated as sarcasm against stupidity of some people's points in a subject is not actually promoting such.

None of you take your logic to the extreme and assess it because humans history shows a piss poor job of actually not taking things to the extreme. Human history shows a penchant for taking things to the philosophical extremes and not exercise self-control. We have a bunch of so-called adult which are really a bunch of adolescent assholes who by the way are no different than the fucktards in Congress, right now. Embarrassing disgrace for human beings that they just can't be mature and responsible for all Americans. Wow, all I suggest is professionalism in this profession and some fucking standards that would actually justify this profession even being a licensed profession for God sake. Governmental entities can not discipline a person unless it is law (statutory and administrative).

You can make arguments but Due Process would require that I know the substance and evidence of the claim for my legal right to counter the arguments. A lot of users on this forum, anonymous shitheads without the balls to stand their case in a court of law, deliberately misquote or misinterpreted on purpose just to annoy me. For all we know, your screenshots had been tampered with. Who is to say it isn't tampered. You can tamper the saved cached copy of this site on your computer and then take a screenshot. At this much time, we can safely say, they been tampered with. The originals deleted. I actually show how simple it is to tamper and then make a screenshot of it, which wouldn't show pixelated artifacts of just manipulating pixels of a screenshot image. It is easy to do. You don't even need to be machine language level programmer with 30+ years to do it. If your evidence is accurate, it needs to be validated with original copy from the original recording of my post and validated on an non-tampered original backup, as an an untampered with original backup. Providing the forum isn't in a conspiracy in tampering with what would be evidence. Any backdoor tampering by Archinect invalidates the credibility of its data.

The original isn’t deleted - it’s still on Reddit, in its original unedited homophobic, violence-encouraging form, from whence you copy-pasted it to Archinect and were consequently banned because of it. You can keep ranting on tampering conspiracies all you like: there’s an iron-clad evidence trove to support that you, by your own logic, should be the first one barred from anything requiring
good moral character.

Another relevant gem from Rick in this thread almost a decade ago:

Racism doesn't exist because if I was racist then I would be racist to everyone because there is only ONE human race. It is called HUMAN. HOMO SAPIAN.

Above quote in context of one of the most racist rants I've read on this site.

I think is a partial quote of the larger context of the message. Quote in its entirety or don't quote at all, would be appropriate. What my point, is we are one race so there really isn't multiple races. The label "racism" which is what I was referring to is itself a misnomer. The problem is people discriminate against other people because of skin color and other bullshit. The whole theory of "races" in every respect since the ice age and pretty much the past 10,000 years is entirely stupid and non-sense. Yes, the prejudice harmed to others on bullshit race labels is real. That is real. Okay. The racial labels exist but the races do not exist. There is no separate race of negros from white or asian. It's the same human species. It was a flawed taxonomy system established before modern science proved its all flawed non-sense. To be different race, you are talking a different species. There are other races on this planet like Alligators, Kangaroos, Elephants, etc. When it comes to humans, there isn't. Historically, there may have been when there were multiple hominids. Those distinct species don't exist. Those species as stand-alone species are no longer existent for the most part. The species homo sapien coexisted with, for the most part, interbred or otherwise, causes by nature led to other species dying out. I believe its a bit of both involved in some fashion. That genomes of the species are in the common gene pool in every human with possibility of slight variation in concentration of genes derived from the other hominids. I was speaking from a scientific point about the who idealology of races and the grounds for discrimination is stupid and the races don't really exist in the present.

Okay, what was it specifically again, Brightbury? Was it a meme that been somehow used. I rather see the reference, then what did I actually say about it in the context of the thread.

Back to Jovan, I was speaking about the middle eastern conflict. It's not about race at all. It is the culture of a very bad family feud of sorts going back to Abraham era (not Lincoln). Everything is intertwined religiously to their heritage and the fight over claim, the deep seeded multi-generational hatred. There's nothing that can be done diplomatically to put an end to that. They are too caught up in the feud to do other than buring the hatchet in each others heads. Individuals are one thing but the people by large is too caught up on their version of the "Hatfields and McCoys" fued but this is a lot longer and lot deeper seeded hatred that is in the heart of far too many. If I was God or Allah, I would kick them all out of the land as underserving because they can't even bother to love and care for one another. They just rather kill each other. In my opinion, they don't deserve the "holy land". They deserve to be outcasted from that land and evicted. They deserve to be punished in the ways needed for them to learn to love, care, and put away the ancient hostilities. This tough love is what they need. All we can do as humans is make the place undesirable and effectively unlivable for a long enough time that they can learn but I don't really like that option as it would be uninhabitable until Earth becomes uninhabitable. So yeah, there's a point that isn't about my personal hatred of their race. It's is a disdain for their stupid ass feud spanning the past thousands of years over a fucking desert for crying out loud. There is land on Earth, today, that would make Eden paradise look like a pale dried desert. Eden is the region of land tha is partly under the Persian Gulf and part of it is the land area between the gulf and some point about half way to Baghdad along the path of those rivers. That was the land of Eden in scriptures referenced by Christian Bible, the jewish Torah, and the Islam religious text. I don't know if it is explicitly referenced in the Quran because I haven't studied the text well enough to speak directly to its writings. You take a look at the area, it is a desert climate. Even in the more fertile areas near the rivers. So they are fighting over a place full of sand and rocks. So, yeah, lets think about the sanity of this feud. In what rational mind is it worth it to fight over to death when it can be shared.

Have any of you directly asked, "Do I personally believe that we as Americans should evict them from the land?" No. Never bothered, any of you to ask that. The answer to that is No. It should be God, Allah, or whatever the name to deal with it. Of course, that is if God, Allah, or whatever is real at all. At least, the "person" or "character" they call "God" or "Allah". On the other hand, if their feud is such that it endangers the world than unfortunately, the world must respond with what needs to be done even if it is clearly unfortunate that it has to go to those measures. Ideally, they should knock off the petty bullshit of the past once and for all eternity.

Who is Brightbury that showed up this month & has saved screenshots of old threads?

Could be a user with a prior account on the forum and created a new account. Maybe they forgot their old account information. Who knows. 

Additionally, there has been plenty of time for any such screenshots to be tampered with or even a copy of the browser cached copy of the forum threads visited for it to be copies to a more long term storing and then doctoring it and reloading then take a screenshot. Of course, that is a more technical and tedious way to make a screenshot with the text altered and be visibily indetectable of the altering. 

Altering an image like photoshop editing a photo can be detected with careful analysis of the image at the pixel level where you see an area (say 64 x 64 pixel enlargened and study over the image for signs of editing. Anyone who done photoshop or any photo editing work knows what I am talking about. 

A lot of time has passed so it is very possible for someone to have made such edit. There are people here who would do that because they literally hate me that much. I know how to detect photoshop edit job and most if not all are detectable. 

A lot of people are sloppy especially if they don't put in a good 3-6 months of 15-30 hours a week in photo editing on a pixel by pixel level. Their process with crude edits will show. I know. If they slap it together over a weekend, I'm going to tell.

Yes, there were other issues aside from being a building designer (some of it I deserved the response) but it's one of those vicious circles but it basically began with discrimination against me for not getting licensed and engaging in building design as a practice.

Not every architect was a prick but there were some serious pricks in the profession. Not just in this forum but beyond just here. There is a point of truth to that.

Is this indeed a bot? As it seems to me a reasonable person would have figured that out and inferred the answer to the question. 

To give you the benefit of the doubt of not being a bot:

As a matter of candor, I am not a licensed architect so I do not offer services that requires on in places where licensing law regulates such. I do offer services in countries that don't regulate the title architect like they do in the U.S. where the term 'architectural services' would be used for any project as it makes much more sense in the language. 

The terms 'building designer' or 'building design services' in countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, would be seen as an awkward way of saying architect and and architectural services. They don't have architectural licensing boards in those countries. They often have a professional association which would be loosely compared to AIBD in some respect. However, there isn't government licensing of the profession like U.S. 

As for my education (between official academic studies and self-study/autodidactic study), my education includes architecture, interior design, landscape design, some construction & historic preservation crafts & trade and research, civil engineering, structural engineering, computer-aided design, etc. 7+ years equivalent of full-time official academic studies at a community college AND university, and additional autodidactic studies. Combined would be probably equivalent to more than a decade's worth. 

I have been in the business of building design intermittently from 2002 to 2005 and then more or less actively in business since 2005 onward initially as a sole proprietorship and eventually as an LLC. It makes more sense to be an LLC in the litigious world of the profession. Where I am, there just aren't many if any licensed architects that hire. They usually just work for themselves even if they are operating as an LLC or Corporation.