• 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.

TMSAIL

Members
  • Content count

    21,821
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TMSAIL

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Recent Profile Visitors

13,365 profile views
  1. In the post you asked about -where else
  2. Added to my post
  3. Chief Justice Roberts added a footnote that limited the sweep of his opinion. “This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing,” he wrote. “We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-playgrounds-church-and-state-missouri.html
  4. If they qualify for the Grant so be it. This was grant money specifically targeted to make play grounds safe. The only reason it was denied was because it was for a church playground.
  5. Are you saying CHRISTIAN kids don't deserve a safe playground like other kids?
  6. I would assume groups that have a shared agenda covered the costs of the SC case. It was a Lutheran church not some store front.
  7. Every decision used reading between the lines the justify placing a hold on the presidents authority. I expect jurists to rule on the actual wording not what they think the president was thinking That is clear in the fact that plenty of Muslim majority countries were NOT in the ban.
  8. That was the spin put forth, in reality nothing in the ban involved a religious test. Every ruling dealt with implications and mind reading NOT the actual wording. It's why I suspect it was unanimous by the adult judges to lift the stay, with a few narrow exceptions.
  9. This was not so much about the ban it was about getting SCOTUS to confirm that POTUS has the authority to control immigration. Something that was accepted practice until Trump.
  10. So they were all awake, had 10 minutes to react - flashed lights, but made no horn blasts? After the collision they sailed on for 30 minutes at full speed before turning back and they waited an hour to contact authorities? Sounds like CYA to me. The Computer track shows a 10 degree change to port about 15 minutes prior to collision.
  11. Agreed. The only way the destroyer has right of way would be the container ship overtaking and converging after making a slight turn to port. No excuse why the Fitzgerald didn't avoid the collision. It also looks like the crew of the container ship were all asleep - literally. The computer was driving the ship which explained why after the collision the ship resumed course and accelerated to make up the slight loss of momentum.
  12. Love to see where you got that because they clearly ruled the exception was a BLOOD relationship and the report went on to say that the AG's that filled needed new clients because the plantives are covered with the blood exception.
  13. Looks like they will hear travel ban and voided all holds on travel ban except someone with a blood relationship in the US. Major win for the president They also plan to rule on presidents AUTHORITY to control immigration
  14. Did you just do a correction? Just asking
  15. Here is the first one. The justices on Monday ruled 7-2 in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri. The church sought a grant to put a soft surface on its preschool playground, but was denied any money even though its application was ranked fifth out of 44 submissions. Chief Justice John Roberts said for the court that it “is odious to our Constitution” to exclude the church from the grant program. Roberts said that’s true even though the consequences are only “a few extra scraped knees.”