• 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


  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    33.98.n 118.45. w
  1. CONGRATS TO ETNZ great racing I hope they win it all and GD will make the AC more balanced with D.O. G. cheers mates
  2. wonder if COR has a liability now on this London agreement bs- Challenger of Record: The Challenger of Record (COR) is the first challenger accepted by the Defender of the America's Cup. The Notice of Challenge from Hamilton Island YC (HIYC) as COR was accepted on September 25, 2013, literally as the winning yacht crossed the finish line in the most recent America's Cup Match, as has become traditional. The COR has the lead position in negotiating the mutual consent terms of the next Defense with the Defender/Trustee such as time, location, type of yachts, Match format, and details of the rules, though in the past additional prospective challengers have sometimes also participated in the shaping of the conditions for the next match. After the Defender and COR set the initial terms, then Notices of Challenge from additional yacht clubs are submitted. In an unexpected development, on July 18, 2014, HIYC gave notice to resign as COR for the 2017 America's Cup and to withdraw from the event. The notice became effective after 90 days, and the single COR was replaced by a Challenger of Record Committee (CORC) to represent the challengers interests under the Protocol.
  3. port hull inside looks like a piece of plywood -with knots ?
  4. port hull inside looks like a piece of plywood -with knots ?
  5. SPIN -PATSY - thats your delusion - there is no OWNER of the current alleged defender - ggyc is the defender and they arent rich - you are stupidly asserting I guess that evilsin owns the defender and he is rich on paper but he doesnt own the defender - either way - thats just your bs spin as usual - I agree with SR, Larry is the defender and owns GGYC, yes,........... BOFD good point TC - actually its oracle who funds the ortusa - and yes in some scam ''directs '' ggyc so yes BOFD has /is being committed by them
  6. SPIN -PATSY - thats your delusion - there is no OWNER of the current alleged defender - ggyc is the defender and they arent rich - you are stupidly asserting I guess that evilsin owns the defender and he is rich on paper but he doesnt own the defender - either way - thats just your bs spin as usual -
  7. scassani here are my answers to your good questions -thanks Do you agree that the meeting of Challengers to AC35 in London and the signed document it produced are extrinsic to AC 35?/// no see my post above If so, should we say the document and its signing are extrinsic to America's Cup competitions numbers 36 and 37?/// no its an overreach impairing the challengers /benefiaries - Suppose the answers to both questions are 'Yes.' In the case of AC35 the parties signing the document do not do so in their capacities as Challengers to AC35.//// yes agreed and thats where the london doc is illegal-its not allowed under any trust laws as they are all un qualified signatories - Were we to say the authorities to sign stem from the signatories status as Challengers the resulting London agreement would stand in need of explanation as to how it relates to the Protocol already in place for AC35.///// the challengers arent even that yet - they are the possible potential challengers in which there can be only one challege and challenger team - again a violation of the DOG has occurred - Is the London agreement redundant on the existing Protocol? ///I think the doc interferes with the DOG so it is a redundant violation at the most - Does it supersede the Protocol that governs matches the Challengers to AC35 agree, in the Protocol, will decide the club to next hold the Cup?///it interefers only with DOG the proto is actually illegal as well - This is silly. The Challengers to AC35 did not meet in London for the purpose of pulling the rug from under themselves. So we have to say the London agreement has no bearing on AC35. To cite the London agreement as a basis for complaint as to how the Cup is being administered in its 35th iteration would invoke a document that is extrinsic and irrelevant to AC35./// they must have all consulted with evilsin /ggyc etc and its not clear who's evil plan this doc is attempting to achieve - This leaves to AC36 and AC 37 all possibility of taking a consequential effect from the terms consented to in London several week ago. The agreement, in as much as none of the signatories is a challenger///agreed to AC 36 and AC 37, cannot be read as stating the terms to the matches to come in either or both of these future Cup competitions.///agreed Because the agreement does not give the needed terms, the information the agreement conveys and the teams and clubs signatures thereto leave undecided what Schuyler explicitly leaves to the Defender and a qualifying Challenger to decide. In short, the London agreement works in a vacuum. ///yes agreed Or it has no work to do, save the clear intent of the signatories to assure potential team sponsors that the teams and their sailors mean to be on the water during the period beginning with a resolution of AC35 and continuing through the deciding match of AC 37. Sponsor logos will be visible during the same period. Logos will be marketed in contexts where race fans watch for their teams, sailors and boats. This situation is preferable to leaving unstated the terms of a Cup competition to come. The London agreement draws the terms of matches in AC 36 and AC 37 in outline; mutual consent of a Defender and Challenger fills in what the author of the agreement is careful to avoid saying. /// yes agreed they have overreached their assumed authority to impose conditions on future AC and its a violation to the DOG and trust laws - The gist of my query of you is: Does drawing an outline of a cloud show us where only a cloud might be?/// its a cloud of smoke and mirrors That is, does the London agreement leave enough work left to do through mutual consent that the agreement is extrinsic to AC36 and AC37?///no its a defective agreement under those terms - also I havent seen or read the london agreement so I am sure it would be full of defective angles - Or does the agreement, as I mean my allusion to a cloud drawn in outline to suggest, give enough information that we know the sort of competition AC 36 and AC 37 will be, thereby rendering the decision Schuyler leaves to the Defender and Challenger so well circumscribed as to make this step perfunctory of what the signatories to the agreement did, thinking they work in a vacuum? /// its illegal going into a lot of speculation just shows how bad their doc/proposal appears to be - Such a consequence shows the London agreement to be intrinsic to AC 36 and AC 37. // it cant be''intrinsic ''
  8. Part III presents novel theories to be applied to interpretive problems of charitable trusts. An analysis of the relationships among settlor, beneficiary, and trustee reveals that courts should treat these specialized, potentially infinite arrangements as a species of relational contracts. As such, the parties should be subject to certain "good faith and fair dealing" requirements. Moreover, the examination of these arrangements as relational contracts yields insight into techniques taken to resolve interpretive problems. The lack of a principled basis for the application of cy pres that correctly balances the disparate interests of the settlor, the intended beneficiaries, and the community's interest in the efficacious utilization of charitable trust assets precipitates the cy pres and charitable trust interpretive dilemma.
  9. here is another good explanation on the AC and how its supposed to be - Revolutionizing Judicial Interpretation of Charitable Trusts: Applying Relational Contracts and Dynamic Interpretation to Cy Pres and America's Cup Litigation http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/hein/johnson/74iowa_l_rev545_1989.pdf
  10. your welcome scassani - great write up thanks -I will try and answer your good questions soon- my first answer is that framework doc and any other agreements or documents have to be executed under the trust laws of U S /NY , CA -UN they werent/arent - so on that legal compliance violation grounds, none are legal -by them ggyc or evilsin et al -including their latest doc- even a draft has to be processed legally regardless of the ''vacuum'' or de facto /de jure - so their process is illegally flawed and defective - so it cant be ''intrinsic '' as it isnt permissible or allowed -
  11. this doc explains the AMERICA'S CUP - especially after the new illegal framework doc - The Litigation of the America 's Cup Runneth over with Inconsistencies: A New Approach to Interpreting Charitable Trusts by George Schuyler http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=elr
  12. Isn't it just the inverse of 2013? If OR could go in on minus 2 points I'm not sure how this would be interpreted differently even if you factor in their cheating 4 years ago. Not the same, as you know. OR's was a penalty for blatant cheating in AC34: taking a point into the AC Match itself from the Challenger series is just straight-out rorting, and should be challenged under GGYC's obligations as trustee of the Deed. true nice post cheers
  13. nice post cheers Total travesty and placing the Cup into disrepute by allowing the Defender to race with the challengers. Not only does it take away much of the mystery and excitement of the reveal on that first AC beat (higher and faster), it also means that the Defender has a better chance of success. nice post cheers nice post cheers
  14. Lol, you of all posters making that charge. The litany of dumbassed conspiracy theories that you have espoused is solid proof of just how crazy you are. All I'm suggesting is that you will have plenty more opportunity to kiss the ass of your altar before all is said and done this time too, almost assuredly including by attacking your (and their) favorite enemy: Murray. It's so predictable. SHUT UP SPIN-PATSY