• 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.
    • B.J. Porter

      Moderation Team Change   06/16/2017

      After fifteen years of volunteer moderation at SA, I will no longer be part of the moderation team. The decision to step aside is mine, and has been some time in the works but we did not wish to announce it in advance for a number of reasons. It's been fun, but I need my time back for other purposes now. The Underdawg admin account will not be monitored until further notice, as I will be relinquishing control of it along with my administrative privileges. Zapata will continue on as a moderator, and any concerns or issues can be directed to that account or to the Editor until further notice. Anyone interested in helping moderate the forums should reach out to Scot by sending a PM to the Editor account. Please note that I am not leaving the community, I am merely stepping aside from Admin responsibilities and privileges on the site.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jocal505

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

Contact Methods

  • MSN

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

8,472 profile views
  1. First and foremost, Mr. Dylann Roof was about poorly developed racial insight. He reinforced his shaky, but willful misunderstanding quite willfully, using a Glock tool. You tricky bastard, you offer double cherry picking here. You present the wonderfulI pro-KKK and pro-MacDonald stances of ALEC, and incidentally of the ACLU, to suggest Dylann would reject you. You present my statement summarizing the actual black gun bloodbath to suggest that Dylann would love my bit. Neither position is very honest. Neither considers the whole cloth of Tom, Dylann, or Joe. Let's continue, let's track us a rat bastard through the Florida swamp gas... The whole cloth of Tom Ray is about Don't Tread on Me, and Dylann flew that very flag. Picking up a gun to enforce one's personal values and politics is your bit, Tom, not mine, and Dylann emulated that. Intentionally not understanding the black situation is your bit and Dylann's bit, not mine. Yo, I went to the inner cities (unarmed) to see for myself what was up, and I found fine folks there, all over the place. Some carried several bullet holes and were truckin' on with obvious internal fortitude. Sorry. Your forum activity makes you a worm compared to them. Your move, mate. Will you offer us poorly developed racial insight?
  2. These homicide activity totals need an intelligent look. You have quoted me quoting them, below. Let's discuss this. If you post another flip denunciation of white gun ownership conclusions, that becomes more flat, rubber-stamp race-baiting, not intelligent TR discourse. Some combination of factors has amplified the negative outcomes of gun activity among blacks, eh? Gunplay is not mature, whether the shooters are green or purple. I don't have the answer here, of course. (I just resent any flat baseline of race-baiting directed at myself or others in our cool community. Can you do better, Tom?) Your intentions may be noble in a naughty, uninformed, unicornish way...but adding guns to the mix shown above (^^^) is a poor idea in the real world. I look forward to the response of a fine family patriarch. Your grand-kids and Dylann Roof will examine, and may follow, your thought process.
  3. You've toned it down somewhat, thanks. We both support an entire country which sports "racist effects." The idea is to reach equality somehow, regardless. I spoke against Bloomberg's stop and frisk, but your broad brush painted me whatever way you chose anyway. Ergo, you generate race-baiting in our community and can't discuss a solution here. You quoted my specific criticism of Bloomie's frisking in this quote, below, then you bashed me for not speaking out. You have no honor, you just bash about, like a wounded noisy predator...
  4. Our Peruta case was last "re-scheduled" on April 20. Every week it gets re-distributed. If the justices are concocting some absolutist interpretation, it will be out of character with the pattern of the higher and lower courts. The issue is to balance outdoor gun "rights" with the right of the public to be safe from open carry and concealed carry outdoors. Concealed carry has been forbidden by the same Old English laws which were touted by Scalia in Heller. Tom and Jeff haven't addressed this new CC legal territory so far.
  5. Jeffie you have been much-pulverized by claiming that criminals are the problem. Stranger Danger accounts for 20% or less of the mayhem. This was exactly three years ago. At that time you bailed on intelligent discussion, you flicked to wanting my rifle taken away.
  6. The straw man here is that I oppose "government racial discrimination," or that it even exists. Am I within the bounds of honesty to pick a six-day race-baiter hiatus for Tom Ray after the Charleston shootings? Can I honestly suggest that Dylann would have liked your blogging? Your Libertarian bit is perfect for his elk, innit? After two months of unprompted race-baiting on two threads, why did you give it up for the six days after Dylann? Then, why did you continue this offensive bit? Do you presently feel that Bloomberg supporters are racists?
  7. Statistics matter, Buster. Since one set of citizens, those ravaged by gun mayhem, dominates the self defense uses of citizens. Not even close. I can debate and source that within the USA. I welcome all challengers. This source is the GVA, a daily, cited tally of 200 media sources. The reported damage is shooting up. Tom Diaz determind incidents are only reported 1:5 and 1:8 in different two-week, intensified reviews of media reports.
  8. Tom, we had to take it here from elsewhere. From Sol's Charleston thread. Something made that place special and unforgettable. We're not gonna get a room, mate? Geez, you called me a liar and I corrected my position to my best understanding, right away as usual. Let's not get locked in bitter disagreement here, I am flexible and moderate in nature. To review, your position while seeking correction (my cite ever-available of course), you say you didn't let up on race-baiting after Dylan, that I lied saying around ten or eleven days were free of race-baiting. We took a look your clever clue was to look-see at TR posts after Post 631. Brilliant. We corrected the facts to six days free of race-baiting, but we need your response and confirmation of this figure. I'm not much of a liar; so I grovel now for your opinion on this. Which is race-baiting? Which isn"t? You transfered my request for Mosteller conversation from Sol's thread, out of respect for the Charleston victims. Nice touch, but that transfer is not race-baiting, unless you recognize that Mosteller was radioactive because of Dylann. If TR even touches Mosteller to transfer it, is that race-baiting? Introducing Mosteller was cheeky, PROBABLY would qualify as race-baiting,. Combining it with the Black Panthers? Deep doo doo, grounds for shame. Adding Judge Taney in the same post? This is mindless or worse, it's race-baiting on PA. Dylann Roof, Rush Limbaugh, and NGS would be validated by these antics. Please get back to us on your definition of race-baiting, and on when it's appropriate, and when it's not. Your definition will drive whether I'm a liar or not, so let's proceed.
  9. After years of tawdry race-baiting, visible to your progeny, you frame this question dishonestly for the second time. YOU ARE NOT OPPOSING "GOVERNMENT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION" as you propose "shall issue" by using MLK. Actually, you are promoting personal discrimination when you fail to discuss Rev. Mosteller and MLK's Church after maligning them. You are promoting personal discrimination when you make cheap, shameful claims using MLK as a code word. This condition must be swamp gas residue built up in your cellular makeup or something. You are thick, mate. No personal growth here, on PA, which is a sea of fine minds and rare life experiences. Two years ago on this very thread you got called out for a flat racial dimension in Posts 45, 78, and here... If I don't support shall issue, I am supporting racist policy. If I admire Bloomberg, I am admiring a racist. If I don't want Ms. Mason to pack two guns while being romanced, by proclamation of innuendo, I support a "rapist ", who didn't rape her. Yer a piece of work, Pooplius.
  10. Hello, Tom? Are you out there? Or out with a whimper? Your grandchildren will find a few years of race-baiting on the Tom Ray thread. A quant feature of your presence on Political Anarchy.
  11. Hurt feelings or somesuch? You are not repeat not seeking that ( better racial understanding) very hard. The question of degree applies. You lay out logical reasons to act out with guns, you diss badges right and left, and you show void ho for a viable racial grasp. Others like Dylann amplify this combo, it becomes action. You played TR semantic games about Dylann's action. You sucked the oxygen from the thread. This is uncalled for you cheap little man, but whatever.
  12. You posted the same thing yesterday. ZZzzzz. Well, what I saw from the soup kitchens was a courageous and valuable view of society,. You demean yourself, buddy.
  13. I certainly don't want any hurt feelings or needless shame here. So here's the way I see it. Post 632 was not race-baiting, IMO. It was an avoidance of Mosteller on two threads. Post 638, on June 23, repeats the tired, childish MLK and Bloomberg bits, here we employ race-baiting IMO. IMO to say the race-baiting had a six-day reprieve is not a lie. I can live with that statement at this point. Let me know your insights, Tom.
  14. No bite-ee on your talking point. The discussion is years in the making: the trashing of Mosteller and the definition of race-baiting mate. Not guns. This is the lead-up to Dylann Roof, eh? The profound Judge Taney content was repeated in Post 602, June 11, days before the shooting.
  15. Okay, I stand corrected. Thanks for showing us childish race-baiting, using Bloomberg and MLK, right after the stupidity of Dylann and his Glock. You had used the same content on your Bloomberg thread AND your racebaiter thread in May, the month before Dylann and his Glock. So...your links show pages of extended race-baiting. You were being a dick. Man-to-man, I had to ask you to knock it off 28 days before Dylann. You were being cheeky and shallow with Judge Taney June 11, the week before Dylann. You need to advance your dialogue about race relations around here mate. I am here to dissect any "lies." And you have been lured into a discussion of the nature of race-baiting. You have a track record mate. The point is that you wouldn't discuss Mosteller the day after Dylann. And that you won't now. You name-dropped Mosteller for your own purposes, not his. You made noises that MLK's church had gone to guns. You besmirched MLK's noble mission for purposes of lowbrow entertainment. After Charleston, you had to contain your race-baiting, eh?