• 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

    6,893
  • 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

8,493 profile views
  1. Read SAILING ANARCHY. My candid, non-gamey posts have dwelt upon your question on PA for six years.
  2. One anecdotal example is not empirical evidence. How about some quality research to support your imagining. This one they call Briggs and Tabarrak. This is a psychiatrist speaking on the subject.
  3. I read everything Gandhi wrote at age 13. I had a bicycle and a library card, didn't I?
  4. Not much. It means that sailing sheep on Political Anarchy will follow Tom Ray's misrepresentations. It's a useless fabrication, and tellingly, no effort to improve it was undertaken. Tom Ray is another intellectual heavyweight around here Your turn. What does this chart mean to you?
  5. An ad hominem. Hmmm. No example of semantics. hmmm. If you have better research, you sure haven't presented any. You are not prepared for this discussion. I have presented a variety of unimopeachable sources, in a body of work with a consistent conclusion. You are made of air and bondo, Guy Where is any source supporting your claim that the U.S. has an abnormal violence index? We don't. We have guns everywhere, and logic which justifies their use when disagreements occur. We have a lethally violent outcome, but our kids don't scuffle 19.5 times more than other leading nations.
  6. What the hell is this bit, Tom? Tom Ray: No it did not. I've seen the video. You can only fool people who have not. I'm not one of them. Without bandying around, state whom you think started the Waco fire six hours after the gassing befan.. Again, I want to answer your question, if your Waco position is made clear. Hell bells, about Q #1, why are you now openly supporting David Hardy's tale of FBI mass murder? Here it is, from him.
  7. Number two. You are caught in a lie.
  8. Weak, and like a chickenshit from a duck blind. I never use semantics. WTF> I use peer-reviewed research, vetted scholarship, and tenacity.
  9. Sounds like Nanny of the NE Scalise thread too.
  10. Politics are not empirical evidence. Welcome to Political Anarchy. Your imagination does not trump my sourced information here. Go do some homework sockboi.
  11. Cite it, I accuse you of imagining. You are new at this. Isralie suicides dropped 40% as soon as guns were left on base. Then it improved further.
  12. You are imagining unless you can post empirical evidence of the substitution effect. You have hit on Jeffie Cliche #9
  13. LOL. No, the one who understands what a colostomy bag means to a vibrant American guy.
  14. This quote is from the last page of the Stoopid law thread. After Tom set up and encouraged lawbreaking in CT and NY for three years, the SAFE Act was finally upheld. See the jibberish, examine a sham. After Tom had howled that a panicky, secret midnight special session had jammed this legislation in CT, the upper courts upheld the AW ban. Check out how Tom presented the major development to our community, after three years of Tom's polemic. (His disinformation evolved into the idea that this court decision was a victory against seven round limits. Such is whimpering.) Tom got pounded off Billy's Stoopid Law thread not long ago, in Dec, 2016. Kolbe vs Kogan removed constitutional protection from AW's three months later. Let's discuss weapons "in lawful use at the time", shall we?
  15. If seven round limits are "unconstitutional", as we've heard, then these LCMs and AWs will soon be "unconstitutional" too. Laws signal the intention of the courts, and the acceptability or non-acceptability of behavior. Laws are a signal of the direction of the social contract which binds society. The respect for our system is what maintains social order, not weaponry. Tom's link goes to the Stoopid Law thread, where his ass was handed to him.