• 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.

Happy Jack

Members
  • Content count

    22,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Happy Jack

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

17,289 profile views
  1. Get back here and defend your man Trump. Where did you go coward?

  2. Does the Porter lie?
  3. You heard it here first. After Neil Gorsuch is seated there is a strong possibility that the case will be made to expand the Supreme Court. This is done by simple majority vote in the house.
  4. 8-25-18-113+1 Only 8 Rep senate seats in play (all safe) with 25 Dem seats in play (6-7 lean Rep plus 2-3 tossups) in 2018 113 Federal judgeship are currently unfilled and more will come open during the next 4 years 1 Supreme court seat open and at least 1 more is likely in the 4-8 years. A generational Last(ing) Laugh. Update: as of Feb 14th 2017 the number has increased to 118 federal judgeship's www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies Total judgeship's authorized 9 Supreme 12 Fed court of appeals 167 Fed Regional courts of appeal 663 District courts (+10Temp) 4 Territorial courts 9 International trade court 16 Court of Federal claims 890 Judges 118/663 * 100 = 18% of all the District courts. The 2015 Judicial Conference Judgeship recommended an increase of 5 Court of Appeals Judges and 77 District court judges. If Liberals decide to litigate every deportation as the Mexican Government and Soros have indicated, they will open the door for Republicans to legislate a much larger increase in federal judgeship's. Soros might want to look up the law of unintended consequences.
  5. You may think it's silly & wrong to mock silly & wrong beliefs. I don't. You're in PA, it's going to happen. And I mock far more than Mormon beliefs. You just picked up on one occasion and ignored the fact I have mocked Christianity & Scientology. Oh look, Jack's recovered from his butt-hurt and wants to play. Let me summarise for you: PM's are considered "Private Messages" in the vast majority of cases and definitely here. I don't change my principles just because you give me "permission" to do so - private messages remain private. You've already proven incapable of honesty regarding private messages, Happy. We all know your prior socks. Pretending your Mormon faith was a secret is not convincing anyone. However, I am 100% willing to accept your word should you wish to deny said beliefs. Do you reject both the scriptural basis in the Book of Mormon, not to mention the declarations of multiple latter day prophets & apostles, regarding the Lamanites being the early Native Americans? In other words you know you lied about me sharing my religious affiliation with you. While I don't need your permission, especially since you lied. The question is still on the table. Will you permit me to post our conversation? Or you can simply admit you lied and apologize.
  6. Since you acknowledge that anyone that uses a preface like that IS indeed looking for private conversation, therefore anyone responding to it should also be able to assume privacy, no? So how do you justify using excerpts from THIS conversation, which YOU started with the subject "I decided this should be private". I would like to understand how you rationalize sharing parts of that conversation which you explicitly requested be private and I participated in under that assumption. thought-it-was-private.jpg Would have stayed that way if you had not lied.
  7. I could care less about his "true beliefs." I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others. But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it. Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM. PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger. If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored. I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private" PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere. Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM? That block of ice you were sitting on finally melt? As usual, you are picking nits to try and justify your egregious behavior. That you view any and all communication as public is sad, but as I expressed in our communications years ago I had reasons to suspect your integrity in this matter. PM = "Private Message" in almost every context I've seen it. The whole point is that a "Public" message here, or on any other forum, or on Facebook, is a regular message. A PM here at SA is culturally considered private. You can certainly flaunt that convention, but we will think less of you for it. If that is actually possible, I mean, to think less of you. http://www.internetslang.com/PM-meaning-definition.asp http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/pm How about this context asswipe. But your complaint is Bullshit anyway. Any pretense to private was lost when you lied about me in public and the PM proved it.
  8. I could care less about his "true beliefs." I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others. But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it. Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM. PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger. If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored. I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private" PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere. Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM?
  9. A Seat on the Supreme court that comes open during a presidential campaign is a worthy issue for the campaign, It is a perfect expression of Democratic freedom to place the issue in the electorate' s hands.
  10. There is a person behind Bus Driver. There is a person behind Happy Jack, Yeah, but I'm not continually trying to prove myself on an anonymous Internet forum. That is your choice.
  11. There is a person behind Bus Driver. There is a person behind Happy Jack,
  12. Good advice you should have taken it. Note: When reading the following the MEMBER permissions group mentioned below differs from the MEMBERS group in that the MEMBER group lacks editing privileges. Yesterday you posted the following Post 78 As the guy that handled that report and set up the special "Member" permissions group for you Jack, I can safely tell the community this is an unmitigated lie. Post 89 I've been moderating this place for fifteen years. I know exactly where the bodies are buried, and what put them there. And I know why certain policies came to be put in place, because I was involved in the discussions that led to their implementation. Personally, I have identified and permanently banned at least three (3) prior accounts of yours for egregious violations of the Terms of Service of this site You told a different story(lie) in PMs to me back in 2011 PM from BJ May 27 / 2011 6:25 AM Your not being able to edit "when you created him" doesn't pass the smell test, it's not logical. .... A more likely scenario? You create Happy Jack, all is normal. Someone makes you as returned banned poster and management figures it's easier to just try and keep you a little reined in than begin the whole ban & dodge routine all over again. That seems way more logical. PM from BJ May 27 2011 1:46 PM Whether posters sent you harassing PM's is immaterial. Abhorrent and inappropriate, true, but immaterial to you returning to SA repeated pretending to be somebody else (though it probably should have been reported to SA because they do tend to respond to real world crossovers when they are aware of them). That Dawg suffers you at all is a wonder given how much hassle you've given them by returning repeatedly after being banned - in explicit violation of the terms of service of the web site. That the management might wish to curb your capacity for mayhem rather than trying to keep tracking down and stamping out user ID's and sock puppets is understandable. BTW your lack of Edit story doesn't pass the sniff test because you claim you couldn't edit from the creation of the Happy Jack username which makes no sense unless SA somehow detected who you were the moment you hit "Submit" to create the new account. The version of events that DOES pass the sniff test is that you join as Happy Jack with a perfectly normal account, then someone in management figures out (or more likely is tipped off) some short while later that you probably are Nailing Malarkey returned once again from Banland and decides to box you in rather than have to deal with another sock puppet/zombie user out break. That seems more...plausible...than what you present. ... I wouldn't want the job of trying to sort out the sock puppets and spammers in this place. So yesterday you claim clear and unambiguous first hand and knowledge of when and how I lost my editing privileges even claiming you set up the group I was put in just for me. But, in 2011 when I approached you for clarification the best you came up with are "Plausible" and "Logical" guesses who did it, when they did it, why they did it and how. You even said back them "I wouldn't want the job of trying to sort out the sock puppets and spammers in this place." only to change your story yesterday that you were personally responsible for identifying supposed NM aliases and banning them.. From twice guessing and speculating it was "someone" to claiming you did it From not wanting the job of policing socks to claiming you personally tracked and banned NM and who you claim were his socks. Don't worry Porter your sycophants will cover for you, toss out a few bigoted religious attacks and insult my wife as you recently did. You'll continue here but now everyone has poof what a loser and liar you really are. Unlike you and the others I include the evidence when I make a charge. You should try this. Oh, boy. Jack is not posting messages in public, is he? If I am not mistaken, that function is labeled "Personal Messenger". Do the gloves come off, now? Don't care. You already know how I feel about someone lying about me. For a guy who doesn't care, you sure do spend a lot of time and energy arguing and defending some sort of "honor" on an anonymous internet forum. I always defend my honor.
  13. Good advice you should have taken it. Note: When reading the following the MEMBER permissions group mentioned below differs from the MEMBERS group in that the MEMBER group lacks editing privileges. Yesterday you posted the following Post 78 As the guy that handled that report and set up the special "Member" permissions group for you Jack, I can safely tell the community this is an unmitigated lie. Post 89 I've been moderating this place for fifteen years. I know exactly where the bodies are buried, and what put them there. And I know why certain policies came to be put in place, because I was involved in the discussions that led to their implementation. Personally, I have identified and permanently banned at least three (3) prior accounts of yours for egregious violations of the Terms of Service of this site You told a different story(lie) in PMs to me back in 2011 PM from BJ May 27 / 2011 6:25 AM Your not being able to edit "when you created him" doesn't pass the smell test, it's not logical. .... A more likely scenario? You create Happy Jack, all is normal. Someone makes you as returned banned poster and management figures it's easier to just try and keep you a little reined in than begin the whole ban & dodge routine all over again. That seems way more logical. PM from BJ May 27 2011 1:46 PM Whether posters sent you harassing PM's is immaterial. Abhorrent and inappropriate, true, but immaterial to you returning to SA repeated pretending to be somebody else (though it probably should have been reported to SA because they do tend to respond to real world crossovers when they are aware of them). That Dawg suffers you at all is a wonder given how much hassle you've given them by returning repeatedly after being banned - in explicit violation of the terms of service of the web site. That the management might wish to curb your capacity for mayhem rather than trying to keep tracking down and stamping out user ID's and sock puppets is understandable. BTW your lack of Edit story doesn't pass the sniff test because you claim you couldn't edit from the creation of the Happy Jack username which makes no sense unless SA somehow detected who you were the moment you hit "Submit" to create the new account. The version of events that DOES pass the sniff test is that you join as Happy Jack with a perfectly normal account, then someone in management figures out (or more likely is tipped off) some short while later that you probably are Nailing Malarkey returned once again from Banland and decides to box you in rather than have to deal with another sock puppet/zombie user out break. That seems more...plausible...than what you present. ... I wouldn't want the job of trying to sort out the sock puppets and spammers in this place. So yesterday you claim clear and unambiguous first hand and knowledge of when and how I lost my editing privileges even claiming you set up the group I was put in just for me. But, in 2011 when I approached you for clarification the best you came up with are "Plausible" and "Logical" guesses who did it, when they did it, why they did it and how. You even said back them "I wouldn't want the job of trying to sort out the sock puppets and spammers in this place." only to change your story yesterday that you were personally responsible for identifying supposed NM aliases and banning them.. From twice guessing and speculating it was "someone" to claiming you did it From not wanting the job of policing socks to claiming you personally tracked and banned NM and who you claim were his socks. Don't worry Porter your sycophants will cover for you, toss out a few bigoted religious attacks and insult my wife as you recently did. You'll continue here but now everyone has poof what a loser and liar you really are. Unlike you and the others I include the evidence when I make a charge. You should try this. Oh, boy. Jack is not posting messages in public, is he? If I am not mistaken, that function is labeled "Personal Messenger". Do the gloves come off, now? Don't care. You already know how I feel about someone lying about me.
  14. Good advice you should have taken it. Note: When reading the following the MEMBER permissions group mentioned below differs from the MEMBERS group in that the MEMBER group lacks editing privileges. Yesterday you posted the following Post 78 As the guy that handled that report and set up the special "Member" permissions group for you Jack, I can safely tell the community this is an unmitigated lie. Post 89 I've been moderating this place for fifteen years. I know exactly where the bodies are buried, and what put them there. And I know why certain policies came to be put in place, because I was involved in the discussions that led to their implementation. Personally, I have identified and permanently banned at least three (3) prior accounts of yours for egregious violations of the Terms of Service of this site You told a different story(lie) in PMs to me back in 2011 PM from BJ May 27 / 2011 6:25 AM Your not being able to edit "when you created him" doesn't pass the smell test, it's not logical. .... A more likely scenario? You create Happy Jack, all is normal. Someone makes you as returned banned poster and management figures it's easier to just try and keep you a little reined in than begin the whole ban & dodge routine all over again. That seems way more logical. PM from BJ May 27 2011 1:46 PM Whether posters sent you harassing PM's is immaterial. Abhorrent and inappropriate, true, but immaterial to you returning to SA repeated pretending to be somebody else (though it probably should have been reported to SA because they do tend to respond to real world crossovers when they are aware of them). That Dawg suffers you at all is a wonder given how much hassle you've given them by returning repeatedly after being banned - in explicit violation of the terms of service of the web site. That the management might wish to curb your capacity for mayhem rather than trying to keep tracking down and stamping out user ID's and sock puppets is understandable. BTW your lack of Edit story doesn't pass the sniff test because you claim you couldn't edit from the creation of the Happy Jack username which makes no sense unless SA somehow detected who you were the moment you hit "Submit" to create the new account. The version of events that DOES pass the sniff test is that you join as Happy Jack with a perfectly normal account, then someone in management figures out (or more likely is tipped off) some short while later that you probably are Nailing Malarkey returned once again from Banland and decides to box you in rather than have to deal with another sock puppet/zombie user out break. That seems more...plausible...than what you present. ... I wouldn't want the job of trying to sort out the sock puppets and spammers in this place. So yesterday you claim clear and unambiguous first hand and knowledge of when and how I lost my editing privileges even claiming you set up the group I was put in just for me. But, in 2011 when I approached you for clarification the best you came up with are "Plausible" and "Logical" guesses who did it, when they did it, why they did it and how. You even said back them "I wouldn't want the job of trying to sort out the sock puppets and spammers in this place." only to change your story yesterday that you were personally responsible for identifying supposed NM aliases and banning them.. From twice guessing and speculating it was "someone" to claiming you did it From not wanting the job of policing socks to claiming you personally tracked and banned NM and who you claim were his socks. Don't worry Porter your sycophants will cover for you, toss out a few bigoted religious attacks and insult my wife as you recently did. You'll continue here but now everyone has poof what a loser and liar you really are. Unlike you and the others I include the evidence when I make a charge. You should try this.
  15. Can you quit with the MASH? My box set hasn't shown up yet. Happy, be careful in your assertions. There are ways to go back in the internet and find content. The stuff doesn't really ever go away. It lives forever on a server, somewhere on the webz. We have tools that we use somewhat often for work. By all means go for it. I've waited all these years for someone to add proof to their accusations. If you think you have it post it. If not have the courtesy to say you have nothing. If even half of the lies BJ told are true then the archive here should be filled with proof. Why can't anyone find one and post it. If I edited posts after being proven wrong the there should be posts that quote me that conflict with my "long after edited post" So please dig into it and report back.