• 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.

Elegua

Members
  • Content count

    974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Elegua

  • Rank
    Generalissimo
  • Birthday 01/01/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Portlandia
  1. Listen to Far Beyond the Wheel to get an idea of his vocal range was really like.
  2. Take this crap back to Sailnet or Cruisers Forum. AC works just fine in Maine, if you use it for what it is: a supplement, not replacement for good seamanship. Now FRO.
  3. US Milk crates work well too.
  4. Now that sounds like fun....
  5. I'm freshly relocated to PNW. I've been debating when and if the get the boat over here from New England. Where does one in Oregon keep one's boat?
  6. I'm not seeing the dated part. Is everything supposed to look like a Pogo these days?
  7. Nice. I first thought, Ken Burns blah blah blah until I sat and watched one of his specials. Will definitely check it out - the first piece I watched on Vietnam that blew me away was "The Ten Thousand Day War", it's Canadian IIRC. Showing both sides/viewpoints makes a big difference in understanding history. And knowing that war sucks under the best of circumstances.I'm not sure about that one yet. We'll see. I got through "The Fog of War" and glad I did. Fog of War is one of my favorites. It's shockingly transparent, even when he is trying to salvage his legacy. When he talks about LeMay and what was done during WWII it's quite chilling.
  8. No, I've not seen it. It's got great rating. I love road trips. I will pm you.
  9. Seems sufficient demand for some. Now about that sushi?
  10. Not much beats that. Active Captain makes a supplement to that if taken with a grain of salt. Make sure you read the profile before believing what's written. A pound of salt is better when it comes to AC. From what I've seen, there's way too much poor and/or outdated information in AC to really trust it. Here's what happens to people who do (from AC's Facebook page)... AC_Rudderbust.jpg At least they got the hat. As for the integrations with chartplotters - C-MAP is the problem. It kind of sucks when compared to Navionics and other leading charts (even with free NOAA raster charts as far as I'm concerned). So - meh. It's crowd sourced, so all the normal caveats apply. The data I see in Maine is pretty good, especially when used as supplement, not a replacement, for normal, sound, rout planning. You just need to keep in mind if the info is left by a 23' power yacht that draws 2'. Why would you want it integrated? N any case, I dislike vector charts due to the false sense of accuracy they give and don't use them. I do use NOAA raster charts.
  11. Not really parallel to Stalingrad but both were sort of the high-water mark. The Confederacy had little to no chance to win militarily; but they all they had to do was credible defense. Lee knew quite well the relative strengths of the North and South; the march to Gettysburg was his strategic move to threaten Washington DC and make "Lincoln's War" even more unpalatable to Northern voters. Retreating in good order but obvious defeat made it impossible for Lee to threaten any such move in the future; Gettysburg was definitely a door slamming shut for Lee and the Confederacy. Why did he order Pickett's Charge? Because if he'd had Stonewall, it would have worked. Lincoln also had a political strategy of bringing his rivals close to him and getting them working on a common goal. It is not difficult to find adoring newspaper editorials written about Lincoln, but it's also easy to find the kind of hateful rhetoric we think of as 'modern.' Come to terms? Hell, a lot of Southerners are convinced they won! While culturally the South "won the peace" and you see Confederate flags flying in front of mobile homes in rural Vermont, economically the South was very much a defeated and occupied country. Northern-owned factories paid shit wages, dumped poison into the air & rivers, and ignored safety standards well into my own working life. This goes hand in hand with the poisonous racist attitudes. But racism certainly exists other places than the South, while many (many, many) Southerners are very much not racists. Unfortunately racism is one of the elements of Southern culture but it's far from universal; and there is a lot good & admirable parts too. A Southerner will stop and help you fix a flat tire, or hold the door for your mother. A strong fondness for the region and it's food and it's peoples' lack of hurry is why I live here, after seeing & sampling pretty much most of the rest of the world. It's getting more and more rare for Southerners to be able to tell you what their ancestors did in the Civil War. I am a Southerner (1st generation) because my father was sent here by the Marine Corps, and liked living here for much the same reasons I do and I can tell you; my ancestors (and collateral relatives) fought for the Union. To me, the Confederacy was a very misguided attempt to assert the rights of the individual; Southerners made (and still make) very tough fighters. Is that something to be proud of? But it was a bad cause, why did poor white men fight for rich whites' right to own slaves, thus keeping themselves poor? I dunno; but it has a close parallel in why many working-class Americans vote against their own economic interests today. -DSK Those are all very good points. I too, think Gettysburg more symbolic of a high water mark than anything. Like a lot of insurgencies - the strategy is to not lose before the stronger party tires. The South could exist as long as the Army of Virginia existed. When Grant went after the Shenandoah valley in 1864, it was as good as over. The South was deluded about its ability to tire out the Union.
  12. Dide they halve a 'notte my pressedant' moovemente then to? Yes. I believe it was called secession at the time.
  13. I don't agree that slavery would have continued. With a free nation to the north the underground railroad would have turned into a 10 lane highway. The impetus for uprisings against the cracker-ass slave owners would have also increased. Anyway, African-Americans continued to languish in the South after the war. Freedom was just another word for nothing left to lose. The North "won" the Civil War yet there was still normalized segregation into the 1960s. That hardly seems like a convincing win. The condition you describe is exactly the condition that existed prior to the war. Free states in the north and slave states in the south. Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act passed by the US Congress in 1850. I see no reason to believe that suddenly the south would be amenable to slaves heading north and being protected nor do I see any indication that absent the emancipation that the abolitionists in the north would have prevailed in any law protecting fugitive slaves from being returned to the south. Further you have avoided the issue of new states and the conflicts sure to arise out of those issues. Proxy wars in the West would have been worth the cost of letting the South go when we had the chance. As Elegua pointed out, they won the peace. The souths surrender began at Appomattox in April with Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia after being thoroughly beaten by Grant in the Appomattox Campaign in which his retreating army was repeatedly beaten and finally cutoff from further retreat by Custer. The surrenders of the various states confederate armies continued through June (really till November) throughout the south. They surrendered virtually unconditionally in as was Lincoln's requirement. The only terms in each surrender were those granted by the union and they were minimal involving mostly generous treatment of confederate soldiers. I'm not sure what "won the peace" means. See Grants letter to Lee outlining the terms below. Where is the "win the peace"? Win the peace in my mind is the fact the South pushed back reconstruction reforms by 1872. Confederate nationalism definitely was not dead. Really, we as a country have paid a huge price for this failure. The fact that racism exists in the North does not exonerate the South in any way. In a lot of ways, the South has still not come to terms with its defeat. Understood. After some quick reading I saw the term in limited use to mean just that. I suppose the term is intended to mean the south got their way and therefore "won" during peace in spite of losing the war and surrendering by passing certain laws that still were discriminatory in intent. Confederate nationalism is a great term to describe that. I do agree that in many ways the south has yet to come to terms with the defeat......but frankly I think that takes two forms: 1) Those who still hold racial enmity generation after generation and are angry at laws/efforts that seek to level the playing field...........bigots and 2) Southerners generations later who are not bigoted but have a strong fondness for their home states and culture. In their mind they can separate their fondness and "Southern Nationalism" AND respect for their ancestors who fought bravely in the war from the racism and bigotry that still exists. A LOT of people have trouble understanding that 2nd one. I probably would if I didn't know some southerners over the years who exactly fit that description. One of the great joys of Civil War history is to read Grant's war dispatches and letters. Even those written on the battlefield under pressure, have a great way of capturing both the big idea and the key details simultaneously with clarity and brevity so that even a lieutenant can quickly understand. I can only aspire to write the same way.
  14. No, if the south became a separate nation the fight over whether new states would be slave or not would continue and in fact would get worse as the two "countries" vied for which country a state might choose. Free state or slave state. All the way across the continent. Remember that was one of the issues that primarily drove the war in the first place. It wasn't going to go away because of new "borders" and state lines. As it was in the border states, both abolitionists and southern pro-slavery people rushed to those border states to "ensure" it went one way or the other. In those border states there was plenty of local violence perpetrated by adherents to either position. Remember Harpers Ferry? (Put down by RE Lee by the way as a Colonel in the Union Army) Your view that if the south became a separate country in which slavery happily continued that things would just "settle down" and there would be no violence or bloodshed is...........uninformed. Further.......by suggesting things would be better if the south succeeded has at its core the notion that slavery would not just continue but flourish in those 7 southern states and several of the border states....at least until cotton wasn't "king" anymore. Past that if another cash crop were to take its place. You good with that? I don't agree that slavery would have continued. With a free nation to the north the underground railroad would have turned into a 10 lane highway. The impetus for uprisings against the cracker-ass slave owners would have also increased. Anyway, African-Americans continued to languish in the South after the war. Freedom was just another word for nothing left to lose. The North "won" the Civil War yet there was still normalized segregation into the 1960s. That hardly seems like a convincing win. The condition you describe is exactly the condition that existed prior to the war. Free states in the north and slave states in the south. Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act passed by the US Congress in 1850. I see no reason to believe that suddenly the south would be amenable to slaves heading north and being protected nor do I see any indication that absent the emancipation that the abolitionists in the north would have prevailed in any law protecting fugitive slaves from being returned to the south. Further you have avoided the issue of new states and the conflicts sure to arise out of those issues. Proxy wars in the West would have been worth the cost of letting the South go when we had the chance. As Elegua pointed out, they won the peace. The souths surrender began at Appomattox in April with Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia after being thoroughly beaten by Grant in the Appomattox Campaign in which his retreating army was repeatedly beaten and finally cutoff from further retreat by Custer. The surrenders of the various states confederate armies continued through June (really till November) throughout the south. They surrendered virtually unconditionally in as was Lincoln's requirement. The only terms in each surrender were those granted by the union and they were minimal involving mostly generous treatment of confederate soldiers. I'm not sure what "won the peace" means. See Grants letter to Lee outlining the terms below. Where is the "win the peace"? Win the peace in my mind is the fact the South pushed back reconstruction reforms by 1872. Confederate nationalism definitely was not dead. Really, we as a country have paid a huge price for this failure. The fact that racism exists in the North does not exonerate the South in any way. In a lot of ways, the South has still not come to terms with its defeat.