• 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.

jocal505

Members
  • Content count

    6,531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jocal505

  • Rank
    moderate, informed gunowner
  • Birthday 08/14/1950

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    joecalhoun@hotmail.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Seattle, Wa
  • Interests
    performance sailing, alpine skiing, music

Recent Profile Visitors

8,435 profile views
  1. Um, does that apply to you, Jeffie? You've been denying multiple sources on gang violence since 2013 or so. LMFAO.
  2. Well Sportbloat Jeff has determined that I'm a coward. Therefore I need a name change.
  3. Nice entourage. The kitty is in charge, and will remain so.
  4. Historical cherry picking. You pick one (gun-suicide-prone) U.S. state for 200 years. We want to examine the civilized international thought spanning seven hundred years. What's up with sneaky weapons, the historically recent, hard-to-swallow idea of Larry Pratt? Did Bubba read the colorful U.S. state histories wrt CC? Pages 34-36, IIRC. Did Bubba even read Heller? You're up to speed and you've read the words, below, if (as you say) you read my posts, thank you. From the June 2016 Peruta decision, which emphatically denied a constitutional right to concealed carry, based on the traditions of both English and U.S. laws:
  5. Will they do Mar a Lago?
  6. Have any salacious details?
  7. If you don't get a clue, the Peruta decision contains two pages on how CC was trashed in the USA over and over and over. Do I need to post this U.S. history? Will a link suffice, will you and Jeff open one? Jeffie hates full text but your ignorance suggests full text is needed. Please discuss Larry Pratt's new idea (hidden, sneaky guns) in international historical context, Pooplius.
  8. Pooplius, this is fun. You don't get the idea that CC is verboten? I thought you were a good reader, that you read my posts well etc. FFS this is my third posting of this content. The content was reported the day after the court ruling. For you, the full text, my ignorant friend:
  9. You are not discussing the issue. We have huge moral slippage in play. My own state has been OC friendly, in theory, forever. I've never seen any OC stupid shit myself, because they would would look like fools in Western WA culture but not Eastern WA culture. That works for me. Eastern WA is mostly rural and redneck. But Pooplius, your elk have introduced sneaky guns. A hidden weapon is an oxy moron, a dishonest presentation, driven by perceived tactical weakness. It rubs me the wrong way. It rubbed the English Courts the wrong way for centuries. Please discuss the proposed change of behavior in historical context. Quoting Heller is trending. How about you comment on the validity of Old English Law, per se.
  10. Okay, a few are kicking and screaming, but okay. And read their lips, Tom, neither dissenter (Williams being your other quote) accepted guns outside the home.
  11. I didn't ask the source (Scotusblog.com) a direct question. And I didn't ask the SC, though they will soon answer my question, which will trigger great dissatisfaction and extended silence from you. I asked Tom Ray, the lightweight dissembler, a question a few times. He dodged the great question (dissemblers do that with regularity). CONCEALED CARRY HAS BEEN VERBOTEN SINCE THE 1300's. WHY CHANGE THAT NOW? Why do we discover that Larry Pratt is degenerating civilized behavior patterns? Does Pooplius have no comment on such a fundamental change in behavior?
  12. He was a class guy IMO. May he find an eternity of fair winds and fine diplomacy. Will Mika wear phony eyelashes at the funeral?
  13. Jeff feels the gays "indoctrinated us into" accepting them, and therefore their fundamental sexual expression is valid? To rise above indoctrination, poor Jeffie should review what medical experts have concluded (they find a fundamental predisposition of sexual orientation) and factor that into his opinion. This would add validation to Jeff's opinion if Jeff agrees with the careful scientists, but this would challenge Jeff's opinion if he disagrees with them. If Jeff is in disagreement with the experts about the basis of sexual identity, Jeff should feel a bit of alarm, and consider his POV challenged by scientists. He could do some reading, even from Abu Dubai. See how that works? If the subject is gun suicide, or women's protection, or the ratio of gang homicides in the USA, the same process of the sorting of information applies. Opinions can be (and should be) sorted by the challenge of detached, impersonal information. Our buddy Jeffie (selectively) misses out on fact-checking, then claims some Jeffie opinions to be based on facts. Anybody want cites?
  14. You obfuscated the question, by flicking to open carry. Setting your distraction aside, concealed carry is degenerate behavior if we use the same Old English Law which you promoted in rationalizing Heller. Concealed carry has been adamantly, consistently opposed by English legal tradition. You can't argue otherwise, and haven't when prodded. My question needs repeating. What's with the degenerate CC values as proposed by your leader, Larry Pratt? Please give us a TR comment on the consistent laws which have made CC illegal since the 1300's. The practice was adopted in all the U.S. states. Why, and on what new moral grounds, should our legal tradition accept CC now?
  15. Thanks for the shallow summary. Care to develop it any further? Why is Larry Pratt claiming rights to concealed carry, when Old English Law opposed it unequivocally?