• 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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About laserichard

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/17/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  1. ANOTHER PERSON HAS BEEN KILLED... ITS HAPPENED AGAIN FOLKS!!!!!!!!! http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-26/news/29494468_1_pit-bulls-dog-bit-animal-shelter Pack of pit bulls kill woman, Margaret Salcedo, in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico: cops BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Tuesday, April 26, 2011 A woman was mauled to death by pit bulls in the New Mexico town of Truth or Consequences, authorities said Monday. The four dogs escaped from a fenced-in yard and set upon Margaret Salcedo as she walked alone Sunday afternoon. A man in a car stopped to help the 48-year-old, but was attacked by one of the dogs and remained in his vehicle, police said. A witness, Laura Russell, called 911, New Mexico's KOB 4 News reported. She said Salcedo attempted to use her phone to call for help, but dropped it when a dog bit her arm.
  2. ITS HAPPENED AGAIN (Vallejo) Times-Herald VALLEJO -- A 10-year-old boy was attacked by a pit bull Monday afternoon, leaving him with severe injuries, family members said. Ray Wilkie, of Vallejo, was walking to Burger King on Mariposa Street at about 4:30 p.m. Monday when he was attacked by the dog, his sister Anita Span said. Ray told Span he was walking in the 600 block of Springs Road when he saw a man walking a pit bull and a Chihuahua in his direction. He said the man made him uncomfortable, so he tried to avoid him by walking in the street. Ray said he saw the man let go of the pit bull, which then attacked him, taking "chunks off his right arm." Span said she called the police to report the incident but was referred to the local animal control. David Sidie, Benicia Vallejo Humane Society's animal services director, said animal control officers are investigating the attack. Sidie said they are trying to contact the brown pit bull's owner, who used to live around the area of the incident. The dog's name is believed to be Peanut, Sidie added. Span said Ray is scheduled to undergo skin graft surgery on his arm next week as a result of the attack.
  3. BM, how about mandatory neutering? i certainly oppose "genocide" on a breed. how about allowing individual towns the right to decide if these pets should be allowed? seems fair. you really dont help your cause by putting words in my mouth. your characterizations of my position are completely wrong. either youre quite slow, or quite an asshole, or both. im leaning towards the latter.
  4. i hadnt seen this before-- Pit bulls at top of fatal attacks / 20-year study finds kids under 14 suffer 42% of bite injuries -- 3 of 4 involve family pet June 23, 2005|By Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer Attacks by pit bulls accounted for about a third of the 238 fatal dog attacks in the United States during a 20-year study, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pit bulls were blamed for killing 76 people, or 32 percent, during a study of dog attacks from 1979-1998, the study showed. Rottweilers were the second most deadly animal, reportedly killing 44 people, or 18.5 percent, during the same period. About 4.7 million people are bitten every year by dogs, resulting in about 12 fatalities a year, according to the federal statistics. About 500,000 to 800,000 dog bites require medical treatment annually. Children, according to the 2000 federal study, are the most vulnerable victims in dog attacks. Those under the age of 14 account for 42 percent of dog bite injuries. The highest rate of injuries was to children between the ages of 5 and 9. Of the 27 people who died in from dog bites, 19 were children under the age of 15. The animal responsible for 3 out of 4 injuries involving youth under the age of 14 is the family dog. Janis Bradley, an instructor in the academy for dog trainers at San Francisco's Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said the number of dog bites pales in comparison to other health threats like car accidents, which claim about 38,000 lives a year. When attacks occur, she said, people rush to criticize some dogs as threats to family safety. "Prudent measures can be taken to decrease the levels of attacks we do have, but there are many other injuries that present a more important threat to public health," Bradley said. "Almost anything you can think of." Carl Friedman, director of San Francisco's Animal Care and Control, said that although he does not want to condemn an entire breed, local and national statistics support taking steps to regulate pit bulls, such as mandatory neutering. "When you have a mauling where a 12-year-old child is killed and when 50 to 60 percent of our hearings for vicious and dangerous animals are for pit bulls, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to see we have a problem with pit bulls," Friedman said.
  5. its happened again! what does clipped ears mean?
  6. yup they all give the same story about how the dog has never done anything like this before
  7. S.F. dog-mauling defendant loses in state court Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, December 1, 2010 (12-01) 17:08 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court rejected an appeal Wednesday from a San Francisco lawyer convicted of murder for her dog's fatal mauling of a neighbor in their Pacific Heights apartment building in 2001. The court's action confirmed the 15-years-to-life sentence of Marjorie Knoller. She had been released from prison in 2004 after her original trial judge reduced a jury's second-degree murder conviction to manslaughter. But another judge reinstated the conviction and sent Knoller back to prison in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ordered a new hearing. Her lawyer, Dennis Riordan, was unavailable for comment Wednesday, but has said he would go to federal court if the state courts upheld the murder conviction. Knoller and her husband, attorney Robert Noel, were charged in the death of Diane Whipple, who was mauled in an apartment hallway in January 2001. Whipple, 33, the women's lacrosse coach at St. Mary's College, bled to death from at least 77 wounds. Knoller had been walking her dog, Bane, a 140-pound Presa Canario, on the roof and had returned with him to the corridor when he bolted away and attacked Whipple. The dog's 100-pound mate, Hera, charged out of Knoller's apartment and may have joined the attack. A jury convicted Knoller of second-degree murder and found Noel guilty of involuntary manslaughter for leaving the dogs with her, knowing she could not restrain them. But Superior Court Judge James Warren threw out Knoller's murder conviction, saying he believed her when she testified that she had no idea Bane would kill anyone. After Knoller served her manslaughter sentence, the state's high court ordered her case reconsidered in 2007. The court said a fatal dog mauling is murder if the owner knew the animal posed a risk to human life and exposed others to the danger. Judge Charlotte Woolard reinstated the murder conviction in 2008, saying Knoller had known Bane was dangerous from past incidents, did not muzzle him before taking him into the hallway, and did not call 911 or take any other meaningful action to save Whipple during the 10-minute mauling. Knoller appealed, arguing that the rehearing should have been conducted by Warren, who had retired from the bench but was willing to return for the case. In a 3-0 ruling in August, a state appeals court said Knoller had "acted with a conscious disregard for human life." Warren's post-trial findings showed he would have upheld the murder conviction if he had used the right standard, the court said. The state's high court unanimously denied review Wednesday in People vs. Knoller, S186822. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/01/BAMH1GKHUV.DTL This article appeared on page C - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle © 2010 Hearst Communications Inc. | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RSS Feeds | FAQ | Site Index | Contact
  8. will the cowgirls cover? theyre 6pt favorites
  9. i had to have the game on mute the whole time. why does this guy have like 4 jobs in broadcasting?
  10. Its Happened Again! another person has lost their life, because others have chosen to feed and house this breed with the potential for extreme violence Calif woman killed by pit bulls in backyard (11-17) 09:31 PST Moreno Valley, Calif. (AP) -- Investigators have determined a Southern California woman found dead in her backyard was mauled by two neighborhood pit bull mixes. Moreno Valley police want the dog owner charged. The body of 53-year-old Christina Casey was found by a neighbor on Nov. 2 behind her Moreno Valley home, but authorities didn't immediately determined the cause of death. Sgt. Jaime Briones told the Riverside Press-Enterprise that investigators have now confirmed neighborhood pit bull-Weimaraner mixes mauled the woman. The sergeant says a forensic dentist determined the dogs were responsible. Police will ask Riverside County prosecutors to file involuntary manslaughter charges against the dog owner, whose name hasn't been disclosed. Briones says the dogs have been euthanized.
  11. Rum

    whats the deal w/ the cuban stuff, unavailable in the USA?
  12. My 13 y/o daughter has one (ok, it's mine too). So who should be shot? Her? Me? Both of us? People like you are far more dangerous to society than any dog. You must be dumb as dog shit, there are over 150 breeds registered with the American Kennel Club. Why would you pick the most dangerous, powerful and unpredictable breed to be a companion to your 13 year old daughter? Okay, please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a dog expert, however I do plan to shortly place a GA post on this excellent new shedding tool someone gave us .. Anyway ... my perception of Pit Bulls is that they have some physical "gifts" which make the insane/screwup/abused/rescued ones particularly dangerous, such as aggressive attack style, short jaw which gives them a more dangerous bite than a long jaw dog, etc.. BUT, I have always found properly raised, properly loved Pit Bulls to be some of the sweetest, most even-tempered dogs around. Even our own rescue dog -- a mix of a Coonhound and Heeler -- has snarled and even snapped at children when she feels her food is threatened, it's enough to concern me and discipline her for it. But I've never seen a well-raised Pit do anything like that, to the contrary, they seem to be tolerate an unimaginable amount of child-induced stress and stay level-headed. I would be more likely to trust our friend's Pit with a child than our own dog. To be fair, our friend's pit wasn't locked in a basement, beat with a vacuum hose and fed gunpowder to make him insane. If they had this kind of dog I obviously wouldn't want my kids anywhere near it. Again though, maybe I'm totally wrong, I'm new to the dog world. The emotional side of me -- given that I'm new to all of this -- considers the only truly safe dog to be the kind that is about the size of a house cat. Any big dog is essentially a wolf that deigns to put the wolfish side of his or her personality aside in order to live with humans and get Snausages. what does a well raised pit look like? what does a well raised pit owner look like? are you 100% certain that a well raised pit has never in the history of the world been provoked to viciously attack? when you encounter an anonymous pit, do you operate as if its a well raised pit until you see otherwise? why should the general public have to take precautions to protect their families, while trying to do normal everyday things such as take a walk around a neigborhood because others choose to raise these potentially vicious monsters? is it irrational to fear anonymous dogs of a breed that has over and over and over again injured and killed people? do people have the right to not live in fear? or does the right own any type of animal one wants trump the rights of people to not live in fear?
  13. unbelievably bad call.
  14. They sure as shit will not win 6 games. look at the schedule! pats, jets, dolphins... obviously our division is tough. and our horrendous secondary is a bad liability-- its a passing league. maybe 4. most likely 2-3 wins this year for det Luckily, Detroit gets two free wins from the Bears. Beyond that, it's going to be a rough year for those suckholes from across the pond. huh? cutler will probably throw 500+ yards on sunday
  15. They sure as shit will not win 6 games. look at the schedule! pats, jets, dolphins... obviously our division is tough. and our horrendous secondary is a bad liability-- its a passing league. maybe 4. most likely 2-3 wins this year for det