• 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.

frenchie

Members
  • Content count

    6,875
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About frenchie

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  • Birthday 03/14/1967

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brooklyn, NY
  1. https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/open-letter-to-irish-central-irish-examiner-and-scientific-american-about-their-irish-slaves-3f6cf23b8d7f#.y8vhhbflq
  2. heathen.
  3. I'm a little irritated at the way they keep using the UK as one extreme of "single payer"'s possible meanings. Conflating "payer" with "provider"... when your whole argument is that "payer" is not "administrator"...
  4. New Yorkers wouldn't know a decent bagel if... Actually, that's not fair. Some of them know better. There's a couple places doing quite well, importing from Montreal.
  5. And after all that trouble, the result is still barely distinguishable from bread! Now, a Montreal bagel, on the other hand...
  6. Africans didn't already know how to grow crops?
  7. They used to say that about Brooklyn, ten years ago;and look at it now... Wouldn't surprise me if Jersey City was the next area to gentrify. Not many other options left.
  8. Never mind, I'm a moron. 50k, household. 30k (mostly) individual.
  9. Re-read my post. Nobody said anything about average. "Split point" between "top 50%" and "bottom 50%" = median, not average.
  10. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/civil-war-revisionism-shames-america-article-1.3134681 Basically the same argument, but slightly different emphasis.
  11. What makes somebody like a NY-style bagel? It's not even a bagel. Just a vaguely bagel-shaped piece of white bread.
  12. I'm not one for pretending I understand shit I don't understand. Someone explain to me why the 50% cutoff is 33 048, when the median household income is 51 939? That latter number's from the census, so I expect a slight discrepancy, but nearly 20k difference... there's something here I'm missing. So, what you're saying, basically, is that the personal exemption, line 42, would be 350k.
  13. Speaking as a Montrealer... hate to break it to you, but you were never blessed with a decent bagel in the first place.
  14. Didn't Jackson say something like, "You (congress) may make the laws but, I enforce them?" In response to the Supreme Court, not Congress. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." After the court found that the Federal Government actually had obligations to protect the Cherokee Nation from the State of Georgia. Congress was as anti-Indian as Jackson and the State of Georgia: the Indian Removal Act passed, two years earlier. Andy doesn't get a completely fair shake in history on that IMO. Somewhere he mentions that the Georgians are sure to obliterate those tribes, just as sure as the New Englanders obliterated the tribes in their region. The federal government at that time was a tiny thing, and hadn't the means to protect the Cherokee and other tribes from Georgians, and Congress wasn't going to tax Real Americans to raise funds to do that, it's safe to say. "Let them enforce it" can also be applied sarcastically to the decision that the natives had a right to exist in the sovereign state of Georgia. He also lacked the means to transport them out of there properly, it could be argued, and before telegraphs news from that operation was slow to get to DC and an effective response would be even slower. There was nothing for it after it began but to keep on moving. They would starve if they sat still too. Please tell me you're joking. You don't need a telegraph to follow events that go on for years & years... and set off three fresh Indian Wars... I think he generally gets an easier time than he deserves. Wiki, for example, talks about his desire to avoid a Federal/State conflict for fear of setting off a Civil War. Sort of a Chamberlain figure...? Pretending he had a moment's doubt or hesitation, IMO, flies in the face of his previous actions. The guy who commanded his State's militia against the Creeks, and later the Seminole, is gonna suddenly side with Indians against a state militia? The guy who got the Indian Removal Act passed, is suddenly going to take a stand against it? Puh-leeze. As for the quote, he likely never said it. It first appeared in print, decades later. But I'm not sure the writer was alleging Jackson had actually said those words, or just summarizing Jackson's attitude, based on his behavior, after the decision.
  15. Didn't Jackson say something like, "You (congress) may make the laws but, I enforce them?" In response to the Supreme Court, not Congress. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." After the court found that the Federal Government actually had obligations to protect the Cherokee Nation from the State of Georgia. Congress was as anti-Indian as Jackson and the State of Georgia: the Indian Removal Act passed, two years earlier.