• 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 Patriot

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/11/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago suburbs
  1. They offered $800 incentive and no takers....I believe airline protocol has the next step being the random selection of 4 candidates in this case among the lowest paying passengers for booting. Contract of carriage backs the airline's right to remove a person from the plane in a situation like this....that doesn't mean it was the smartest thing to do from a PR perspective.....video is all over the news. I believe they let the guy back on the plane later and the flight took off......
  2. What longer video are you referring to? The 8+ minute video I saw (I thought that was the long video) starts with the Martin on stbd gybe, heading south, away from the harbor entrance - they gybed only once, heading back towards the harbor on port, without their situation properly sorted, and the rest is history. The longer video is the 8-minute video (i think anyway.) Look at the beginning again. First he's on starboard like you say, then he gybes onto port at which time the jib appears to be wrapped around the forestay. Then at the 1:02-minute mark they start to gybe back to port, presumably to clear the jib off the forestay, but there's a break in the video so you don't actually see them complete that gybe. Next you see them back on starboard with a clear, but luffing, jib. Ah yes you're right - looks like they did 3 gybes and not just 1 in the long video - 1st gybe onto port, then onto stbd but video cuts out and we don't see them complete the gybe.....and the last gybe is back onto port, with the video skipping again, and we only see them completing the gybe......we don't know what happened prior to the video, but from what we can see it looks like best course of action was to stay on stbd to begin with and either sort the problem with the sails if possible or call for a tow.
  3. What longer video are you referring to? The 8+ minute video I saw (I thought that was the long video) starts with the Martin on stbd gybe, heading south, away from the harbor entrance - they gybed only once, heading back towards the harbor on port, without their situation properly sorted, and the rest is history.
  4. They hit the pier to the left of the "F" in "Fisherman's"......
  5. I found this article helpful: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/01/trumps-immigration-order-myths-and-realities.php
  6. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html From the article: FBI director James Comey's announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious. This can't be about pervert Anthony Weiner and his reported desire for a teenage girl. But it can be about the laptop of Weiner's wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and emails between her and Hillary. It comes after the FBI investigation in which Comey concluded Clinton had lied and been "reckless" with national secrets, but said he could not recommend prosecution. So what should the Democrats do now? If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process: They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place. Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea. Since Oct. 7, WikiLeaks has released 35,000 emails hacked from Clinton campaign boss John Podesta. Now WikiLeaks, no longer a neutral player but an active anti-Clinton agency, plans to release another 15,000 emails. What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands. The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media — fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton's political action committee — should begin demanding it.
  7. It's time for HRC to step aside - she owes it to the American people.
  8. They are mirror images. Bizarre. Yep - mirror images....video flipping......never mind.
  9. It seems there are two different videos of this event - both shot from the same side of the street, yet the SUV approaches from the left in one video and from the right in the other video. How is this possible? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-11/hillary-clinton-reportedly-suffers-medial-episode-rushed-away-ground-zero-fox-news
  10. This is spot-on: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/ferguson-freddie-gray-policing-118348.html#ixzz3bWnZI0dd From the article: It is wrong for the police to shrink from doing their job, but the last month in Baltimore shows how important that job is. This is especially true in dangerous, overwhelmingly black neighborhoods. They need disproportionate police attention, even if that attention is easily mischaracterized as racism. The alternative is a deadly chaos that destroys and blights the lives of poor blacks. It is a paradox that a figure who is anathema to the BlackLivesMatter movement, Rudy Giuliani, saved more black lives than any of his critics ever will. He did it by getting the police to establish and maintain basic order in New York’s neighborhoods and defending the cops when the likes of Al Sharpton maligned them. Now that Mayor Bill de Blasio has pulled back, shootings are trending up in New York City. But it’s OK, as long as nameless young black men are the ones being shot at. For progressives only some black lives matter.
  11. Bullshit - Reagan and Bush acted in furtherance of what Congress had done. Obama is acting against the will of Congress. We can always count on the AP to trot out the same old tired, refuted argument.
  12. A good decision - but the fight is not over http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/fifth-circuit-denies-stay-of-the-injunction-against-obamas-executive-amnesty.php From the article: The majority’s discussion of “prosecutorial discretion” — the basis upon which Team Obama purports to justify granting amnesty and eligibility for benefits to millions of illegal immigrants — is illuminating, though. Here is what Judge Smith had to say about this issue: Some features of DAPA are similar to prosecutorial discretion: DAPA amounts to the Secretary’s decision—at least temporarily— not to enforce the immigration laws as to a class of what he deems to be low-priority aliens. If that were all DAPA involved, we would have a different case. DAPA’s version of deferred action, however, is more than nonenforcement: It is the affirmative act of conferring “lawful presence” on a class of unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that new designation triggers eligibility for federal and state benefits that would not otherwise be available. “[A]lthough prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.’” Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification. Regardless of whether the Secretary has the authority to offer those incentives for participation in DAPA, his doing so is not shielded from judicial review as an act of prosecutorial discretion. And as shown above, neither the preliminary injunction nor compliance with the APA requires the Secretary to prosecute deportable aliens or change his enforcement priorities. This logic seems unassailable. Unless you’re a partisan, I don’t see how you escape it.
  13. Can't make this shit up........here's the response from her handlers on this gaffe: “Her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants,” a spokesperson says. Are you shitting me? Think it, and it shall be so.......wtf.
  14. "All the attention it has gotten"? Methinks the polls would look a bit different if the media covered this story as much as, say Bridgegate - and covered it in as detailed a manner as Shannen Coffin does. But that's clearly not going to happen.....not yet anyway.
  15. A good write-up that addresses the latest developments on Hillary's e-mail issue, and reinforces, with good clarity, what's already been said on this with respect to how Hillary has already broken the law. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416184/latest-bombshell-mrs-clintons-lawyer-shannen-w-coffin But whether or not she destroyed records, there is certainly evidence that she willfully concealed the existence of these e-mails during her tenure as secretary of state, because they were never searched in response to either congressional-committee requests or citizen FOIA requests while she was in office. We now know, by virtue of the State Department’s recent release to the Benghazi Select Committee of 850 pages e-mails from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, that she did, in fact, withhold records responsive to a federal inquiry for more than two years from their first request in 2012. Were it not for the State Department’s request that she return any official records on her private e-mails, would she ever have disclosed these records? Putting aside the question of concealment, however, if what David Kendall says is true, we’re left mostly with a debate about Mrs. Clinton’s compliance with federal civil-records laws and regulations designed to protect and preserve a record of the business of the State Department. With regard to this, for reasons I have discussed at some length, there is every reason to conclude that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct was not only bad form but also a pretty blatant violation of the law. Mr. Kendall goes to some length to argue that Mrs. Clinton complied with the State Department’s governing regulations, but he elides the obvious fact that she took everything with her when she left the Department — without giving State Department records officials the opportunity to review and retain official records. This is a privilege otherwise unknown to the rank-and-file employee at the State Department and in obvious conflict with governing rules. All of this raises the ultimate question: Given her wholesale failure to comply with her obligations as the highest ranking official of the State Department, why on earth would anyone be ready to accept Mrs. Clinton’s representations — carefully made through her private legal counsel — that she has fully complied with the law? The admission that Mrs. Clinton has deleted documents while she is subject of several congressional document demands (both by subpoena and less formal letter requests) at least gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that something is amiss. Normally, in those circumstances, a prosecutor would not simply rely on the deleter’s representations that she has acted in good faith. Instead, a reasonable prosecutor would want to verify that she complied with her obligations to turn all of her responsive records to the State Department — which it might be able to do through forensic analysis of her server. So rather than laying to rest the controversy of Mrs. Clinton’s server, Mr. Kendall has only amplified it.