• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sean

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sag Harbor, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

10,060 profile views
  1. https://mobile.twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/878587872156286976
  2. This is the sort of thing the SCOTUS will be considering - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ap-analysis-shows-gerrymandering-benefited-gop-2016/#.WU-Xfbykw6c.facebook Excerpt - "A separate statistical analysis conducted for AP by the Princeton University Gerrymandering Project found that the extreme Republican advantages in some states were no fluke. The Republican edge in Michigan’s state House districts had only a 1-in-16,000 probability of occurring by chance; in Wisconsin’s Assembly districts, there was a mere 1-in-60,000 likelihood of it happening randomly, the analysis found. The AP’s findings are similar to recent ones from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, which used three statistical tests to analyze the 2012-2016 congressional elections. Its report found a persistent Republican advantage and “clear evidence that aggressive gerrymandering is distorting the nation’s congressional maps,” posing a “threat to democracy.” The Brennan Center did not analyze state legislative elections. The AP’s analysis was based on a formula developed by University of Chicago law professor Nick Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee, a researcher at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. Their mathematical model was cited last fall as “corroborative evidence” by a federal appeals court panel that struck down Wisconsin’s state Assembly districts as an intentional partisan gerrymander in violation of Democratic voters’ rights to representation."
  3. The OR tack in this clip seems to have a much quicker turn rate than we've seen from them before -
  4. No butt hurt here. If Jimmy takes two off PB tomorrow, then you'll see butt hurt. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Oracle fanboy. I'd like to see ETNZ win, but the ETNZ fanboys make it hard to root for the team. Just give me some close racing and I'll be happy, regardless of who wins in the end.
  5. Ruth Greenwood is one of the plaintiff's counsel in the case. She does a good job explaining what the issues are in this radio interview - http://media.kzyx.org/mp3/Politics a love story/Politics A Love Story with ruth greenwood 6-16-17.mp3 Starts at about 5:30, a bit long, but I thought it worth the time.
  6. It's illegal under federal law to draw district maps based on race or ethnicity since the 1960's. The question is, can state legislatures discriminate based on likely political outcomes? District maps need to be taken out of the hands of politicians.
  7. Do you deny that the last redistricting was intentionally drawn to produce partisan results? That is, after all, the basis of the SCOTUS case.
  8. In the Wisconsin case being appealed to the SCOTUS, a metric called the "voter efficiency gap" was presented as evidence of partisan gerrymandering. If the Supreme Court accepts this concept as a reliable test, that would be huge. It's a fairly simple concept, described here - https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/How_the_Efficiency_Gap_Standard_Works.pdf
  9. This would be delicious - Democrat and iron worker Randy Bryce challenges Paul Ryan for Congress http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/democrat-randy-bryce-challenges-paul-ryan-congress/408301001/ https://youtu.be/F6zAyPRbels
  10. When I said they haven't come down hard, I meant they haven't made a sweeping ruling that would curtail gerrymandering in any significant way nationally. This one could be very different, as it questions the constitutionality of the practice. Good article in WaPo- "The court accepted a case from Wisconsin, where a divided panel of three federal judges last year ruled last year that the state’s Republican leadership in 2011 pushed through a plan so partisan that it violated the Constitution’s First Amendment and equal rights protections." "In other words, the fact that the justices are even going to hear this case suggests that it could result in a ruling on the constitutionality question. And since the court has never struck down a map for partisan gerrymandering, that ruling could move the needle in a way we have never seen before." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/19/democrats-just-got-some-very-good-news-from-the-supreme-court-on-gerrymandering/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.729489a7205c
  11. I'm not so sure. This isn't the first gerrymandering case before the SCOTUS, and they've never come down hard on the practice. Maybe times have changed, we'll see.
  12. SCOTUS to hear gerrymander case http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-consider-case-partisan-gerrymandering-n774061 The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether drawing political boundaries in a state can be so hard on a minority political party that the resulting gerrymander violates the U.S. Constitution. “Partisan gerrymandering of this kind is worse now than at any time in recent memory," said Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C., who will argue the case on behalf of a group of challengers in Wisconsin.
  13. I don't see the two scenarios (AC34&AC35) as being directly comparable. In 34 we had breakthrough technology that one team figured out early, the other late. In 35 we have refinements of an existing technology that, at this point, are more or less set in stone. ETNZ is simply faster, primarily I would guess because they got the foils right. OR doesn't have 3 months to produce knock-offs of ETNZ foils. Put a fork in it.