• 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.

A guy in the Chesapeake

Members
  • Content count

    12,538
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About A guy in the Chesapeake

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  • Birthday 12/04/2006

Profile Information

  • Location
    Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

10,183 profile views
  1. No worries - Phil. Show up next time I visit the outlaws, and I may even buy you a beer at Dirty Franks.
  2. I think we could probably fit 3 in there - and Yes, I have indeed enjoyed that book - it's on my iPad. To handle a few more than that - this may be fun: https://easternshore.craigslist.org/boa/6089833310.html
  3. BBC's take: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40049842
  4. Manchester cops keeping their cards close to the vest != "the US being cut out of intel share" - but, your description certainly gets more attention. That said - this is what ya get when party domination trumps everything else. I hope everyone is paying attention, especially the Snowden acolytes.
  5. I wouldn't claim that much - my entire awareness is coming from a quick perusal of a couple competing perspective articles. The pro Debbie pieces say that the Cops are acting beyond their authority to keep the laptop, Dog's article just says that it was found, unattended, and that the Chief of the Capital Police says that they need it as evidence - hence my question about the rules surrounding such things.
  6. I think you'd find a lot of company on that wagon - among those being "They voted for the ACA - where's my premium savings?"
  7. I see.
  8. Why won't the Capital cops let her have it back, then? Are they in collusion with the outrage machine?
  9. They care as much as the Dems who gave the biggest insurance mandate handout in our history to industry with no clear way to pay for it. It's the typical drug-pusher approach. Give 'em a little taste, get 'em hooked, then reel 'em in and squeeze 'em for everything you can get out of 'em before they leave a shriveled carcass in some back alley.
  10. That's exactly what would happen - it would be released to you when it was no longer of evidenciary import. This computer wasn't "siezed" according to the article, it was found in a hallway. Read the article for yourself - I am just curious and asking the question - I'm not a lawyer, and as a general rule, try to avoid legal interactions with cops and courts
  11. Many of us on the other side of the fence feel exactly the same way about many social programs, and the outreach associated with them. I'll share a case in which I have personal knowledge: Way back when, in 1990, I was working to help build a system to do Medicaid claims processing for a state. During the development of that system, the state was sued (and lost) because they had denied services to a 20 month old child, because that child, while born to a Medicaid eligible and enrolled mother, had never been enrolled themselves. (cutoff for services rendered under the parents recipient_id was 12 months). As part of the "punishment" for the state, they were compelled to accept legal responsibility for identifying and enrolling all newborns that could be eligible for medicaid benefits. My part of this was that I got to work developing the "Newborn Eligibility Identification System" - which basically caught post-natal procedure codes, bounced the mom's recipient id against any claims for a "child record", and generated and sent "reminder notices", not to the mom, but to the County Assistance Office so that THEY could go out and try to get Mom to enroll the kid. If, at 8 months, the kid wasn't enrolled, we had to ID that, and generate a reminder report that went to the Area manager, and 3 months later, to the State coordinator. Nothing in the law changed to permit an automatic enrollment, nor to permit the CAO workers to enroll the kid - they were still reliant upon parental action, and held legally liable with no authority to compel the parent to act. That kind of thing is as equally maddening to the "personal responsibility" crowd as is the situation you mentioned above. The point? Absurdities often write the rule, and common sense doesn't get a seat at the table.
  12. But - her laptop was "found" and the object itself deemed to be of import to an ongoing investigation. Paging Sol - what rules of evidence apply here?
  13. Flash - that's the point in a nutshell. If someone makes a conscious decision to behave in a certain manner, or to make certain choices, how much responsibility does everyone else have to insulate them from the outcome of those decisions? IMHO, there's no one right answer, every situation needs to be considered in its own context, and for the binary right/wrong crowd, that's a difficult thing to fathom. After all - how can it be "fair" to decide to help in one situation, and not in another?
  14. Unfortunately, I think that your outcome predictions are quite likely.
  15. She only did it because Trump did it first.