• 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.

Grabbler

Members
  • Content count

    2,437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Grabbler

  • Rank
    Grabbler

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Drinking beer.
    Mowing.
    Drinking beer while mowing.
  1. I don't drink coffee, so I avoided the nose burn and the messy keypad...
  2. One word...creeper...
  3. You ain't from 'round here are ya?...
  4. Get a scooter...you've already done the homework...
  5. Idjit!...it's a fuckin' "treadly"...
  6. So err how do you get to the next new post on a thread when you return to the thread so you don't have to scroll down through the entire thread, or scroll up from last post?
  7. "That creep can roll man!"...
  8. ^^^ What he said...out-fuckin'-standing PB...understand your pride...
  9. Trust me, you won't be looking forward to hearing them. They did a noise study, and there were some disagreements about the results. I think they might have said they wouldn't be louder than the F-16s by much, but differently loud. I think the airport or the ANG did offer more buyouts for certain nearby homes. It was one of our Green Mountain Boys in that iconic F-16 over Manhattan photo from after 9/11. They are significantly louder than F-16's, 15's or 18's. Yes...yes they are...and they quickly put an end to cocktail hour conversation when you're swinging on the pick in Boggy Bayou...NTTAWWT...
  10. One in each category...(Unobtanium) George Carlin...(Possible) El Mariachi, again...those of you who peruse the "Fishing/Shooting" threads know that I have the joy of spending a lot of one on one time with Grabs Jr either on offshore trips, piddling around inshore, evenings at the hunting camp, and on those 5 hour road trips to get there...finest times of my life...
  11. Thread took an early swerve...probably the OP's fault for lack of clarification...I wasn't really looking for deep, interesting conversation, perhaps a better description would have been a public figure who'd fit in with the construction boys downing a few cold ones on Friday down at the local watering hole...had a quick tale at hand, and wouldn't be hesitate to spring for a round of shots..I can see Bill Clinton having the stories, but not sure any politician is ready to go to his own pocket...Jack Nicholson?
  12. Interesting barstool conversation this afternoon...of course "nobody" here is that smitten with the whole "celebrity" culture, but who would you like to have a quiet little drinking session with?...feel free to factor in if you think they'd pick up the tab...I kinda thought that Bill Murray would make for an interesting evening on the piss...
  13. Hahaha!...you're all fuckin' amateurs... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Lyndon_Johnson Outstanding reads...and he still ain't done...
  14. Doesn't surprise me...what rational fucking person would wanna live Up Nawth???
  15. Sure, in WW2 they weren't very accurate at hitting a target The US were good at area bombing of precision targets. The RAF were good at precision bombing of area targets. That is pretty much a myth that is repeated over and over. The US had the Norden bomb sight which was hailed as being very accurate. Many factors made it less so. The Brits bombed at night mostly from lower altitudes, the US during the day, from high altitude, because of the alleged accuracy of the Norden sight and to avoid the heavy flak. There was little difference in the end as far as accuracy between the Brits and the US. On the British side, indiscriminate bombing of any part of Germany, not just industrial and military targets was advocated at the highest levels as a strategic policy. The highest accuracy accuracy rate was about 30% at best, and often lower, hardly stellar accuracy. Navigation was one problem, groups of bombers often couldn't find their target due to cloud cover and radio navigation beams were often jammed. Around the big cities and industrial sites, the flak was very heavy and often bomber crews dumped their bombs before reaching the target and turned around and went home to fight another day. In short, the bombing campaign was not nearly effective as claimed by the Allies. It didn't significantly demoralize the enemy as was predicted. The Brits just took it as a fact that obviously the Brits had the stamina to endure the Blitz but the Germans were morally inferior in that regard. The Brits were were wrong. Until 1944 German production of war materials was steadily increasing. The British Bombing Command chief, Sir Richard "Bomber" Harris was a staunch advocate of carpet bombing and terror bombing, and overcame Churchill's moral objections to that. Had Harris been a Nazi, he would probably would have been hanged in Nurnberg as a war criminal for his campaign of terror bombing, purposely targeting civilians. If you want to read one book about the bombing campaign in Europe during WWII, Richard Overy's book, The Bombing War: Europe 1939‑1945, is by far the definitive work on the subject. Recently published, the book is thoroughly researched, meticulously documented, full of valuable information, and without the annoying British attitude that they won WWII single handedly and did no wrong, that you particularly find in older books on the war by many well known British authors. Now that a new generation that didn't live through the war, has taken over writing the history, some welcome objectivity has arrived from British authors such as Overy, Norman Davies and others. If you think I have an anti British bias, you are right. I have studied WWII in Europe for 45 years and read hundreds of books on the subject. I believe my opinion of them on this subject is justified. Because of course, of the combined efforts of the U.S. French and Polish et al for the first 3 years of the war...no your opinion whilst stated is really not "justified",it's just an opinion...