• 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

    6,808
  • 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

8,477 profile views
  1. Been typing all day, have we?
  2. Tell us about your racebaiter parameters, if any.
  3. Too flat here, too monotone, at lease for a person of your keenly developed interests. The founding fathers did not consult the Dred Scott decision. (Their operational framework was even cruder than such unacceptable pre-civil war thought.) No, the founders consulted Old English law, which made it very clear that concealed carry was anathema. Racial issues again Tom? Clean it up. A non-black and a non-pot smoker will also have trouble with CC in society. CC has never worked out, and race isn't the culprit..Try to keep your poorly developed racial understanding where it belongs. Contain it to your lofty introspection. Let's discuss the "Standard Model," Tom. The legal tradition opposing CC in Old English law is consistent and formidable. You haven't discussed this key legal component, which you proclaimed to support Heller.
  4. I don't care for Scalise, and Louisiana sports the worst gun laws in the nation. (Mr. Scalise will have some interesting reflections about the latter.) There's an irony here, a poetic justice that happens to be in play. But using violence , and using it on a political level, is double stoopid. It's what it is. Even a dummy can see the dangers of insurrectionist thought patterns.
  5. I agree, carefully. Is Tom Ray the gold standard of our values?
  6. This needs sourcing.
  7. The forum screen shows fifteen consecutice.Wanker Dud posts. The forums are being sodomized.
  8. The CC bit didn't work out for Castile. It hasn't worked out for, oh, eight centuries. One epic law from the days of Henry VIII changed only in minor nuances before affecting U.S. law. The idea of a right to armed self defense, and a right to CC, is modern hooey. The bullshit "standard model" came from Larry Pratt et al. The way the courts invite and dissect scholarship, I don't think this cheap deception will pass muster in the SC. I readily grant that the poorly supported urban myth has been accepted in the USA. Anarchist PBO school us, he once hinted about American perceptions of violent self defense for several days. Featured below is a scholar named Patrick Charles. He traced the subtle nuances of Northampton directly, for hundreds of years. It just didn't change. Time for Tom Ray to just slink away...or to get silly with something inconsequential.
  9. You and Jeffie are getting ahead of yourselves, by believing your own hyperbole. Here is the Peruta court speaking, from p10 of the reply brief.
  10. 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? You made a series of blatantly wrong statements about Peruta. You said the ninth circuit avoided "the question", and you couldn't source that the question was ever asked. (Your cite, diddums, was post facto from the dissent, not even phrased by the petitioners.) Next, in Post 547 on this page you claimed that courts had decided that the second amendment didn't apply outside the home. You Cited the Peruta Reply brief Petition 16, with your Libertarian nose in the air. Post 551 shows how your non-argument had been quoted amateurishly, deceptively, and incompletely by the petitioners now before the SC. Neither case concluded what you and the appellants claimed. The Peruta reply brief debunked your cases on p 10. You went out with a whimper, to Crusing Anarchy, where I hope you spoke more truthfully. The subject of corrected inaccuracy has come up. But hold on, to identify someone "full of shit' we need to see a pattern.
  11. Have you read this, Tom? There's not much there but I'd like to discuss it with you.
  12. Your regular cites come from Reason.com. Tibor Machi, a founder if the mag, is a CATO functionary. Just sayin'. Are you a racial champion, or a race-baiter? I see a few years of sustained race-baiting on our forums, a whole TR routine, but no grasp of any path towards racial understanding. You can't discuss this issue without racial zingers, and without involving further gun mayhem. Correct?
  13. Inform yourself about such dangerous issues before sounding like an uninformed dumbass. Loudmouth Jeff made a similar statement. FACT CHECKING behind "Gun Club Jeff" and AGIC: An honest, thorough look at the CC situation can be found at this link. (Note: unequivocal laws have consistently forbidden CC since the 1300's.) http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/firearms-in-public-places/concealed-weapons-permitting/>
  14. That's your claim. You need a cite for it. I offer you nothing, it will fit well within the vacuum of your existence.
  15. So you support the GVP cause, but can't demonstrate that. Interesting.