• 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.

j_dirge

Members
  • Content count

    10,397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About j_dirge

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  • Birthday 06/08/1908

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    outer sunset
  • Interests
    long walks on the beach<br />and oil changes
  1. word.
  2. I sailed point to point against two SC 27s last spring... a 13 mile drag race reach in 15-20 with gusts higher.. slightly too high for a kite. Although another Moore managed to carry his and clobbered all three of us. My only real sail at that point of the year.. I was hardly "sharp". The two SC27s could not close the gap.. and our PHRF ratings vary by 18(!) seconds. 132 vs 150. And why were those 2 SC27s still behind me after 13 miles of upwind work? I'll grant you this, a well sailed SC27 *should* out pace a Moore 24 boat for boat.. but that rating hit is REAL painful for the SC27 matched against a Moore.
  3. No it won't. Still the SC27 is a great boat.. a classic. Light air, moderate, and in a breeze...
  4. Breighton Warriors. ..fighting the war on terrah.. one post at a time.
  5. ..with HWSNBNII leading the charge in his Montgomery-Wards Barcalounger-knockoff.
  6. Murtha suggested somthing similar last January. "over the horizon" Problem is no neighboring country will have us... There are no facilities within a couple 1000 miles that can house that many troops.
  7. And I asked once already.. how do you figure AQ is losing in Iraq?
  8. AND THIS JUST UP.. on the wires.. AQ at strength not seen since before 9/11 I'm feeling safer already. So... eh... Who's winning this "war", Dog?
  9. If you read up, the presence of AQ in Iraq prior to ShocknAwe, was limited to the no-man's land between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq. By most accounts they look to have been scoping out a place where they'd be under the radar. Hussein however, had no patience for these jihadist types. They were unpredictable and would only cause problems for a Hussein type governement. Use some logic here, Dog. The ties of any purported terror groups in Iraq (AQ or not) to OBL were very loose.. much as they are and were with other factions around the world. If we REALLY wanted AQ, we'd have followed them over the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan and squeezed them right up against our supposed "allies" in Pakistan. It is, no doubt, Pakistan that has harbored and protected AQ. Why are we not there? Why did Pakistan get a pass? Here is a country with tactical nukes, who has a histor of working with undesireables and allegations of sharing their nuke technology.. and we don't even go near their border? What's up with that and this supposed "War on Terror"?
  10. How do you figure?
  11. I don't beleive it is a moral decision. We crossed that line when we went in. I beleive that the only approach is to accept the reality that a solution, if one exists at all, is going to be far greater than the sum of the US military, our government (regardless who's in charge) and the will of the traditional western states (EU). We can do nothing but contain it within its borders, until THEY figure out what they want to do with thier future. So the question for me is "How do we contain it within the borders at the least cost in dollars and lives?"
  12. please explain the logic there. What does our soveriegnty have to do with our co-opting UN resolutions but not havng UN authorization to act on the resolution?
  13. If we were using UN resolutions to rationalize this war, why did we not allow the UN to vote on a resolution to support use of force? The UN was co-opted. Citing UN resolutins as basis for an invasion of Iraq was one of the more disingenous moves on the part of this administration.
  14. Correct me if I'm wrong, but.. in no 2 you said we "left" and the killing fields ensued.. then, in no 4 you say that "leaving is not the American way"... and "Not the America *you* know" So.. emm... which is it? And FWIW, the "brutality" of the alleged Al-Queda pales in comparison to many thoughout history. And "worse than Hitler"? ...Who was responsible for 7-20 million deaths? HUH!? I bet is was blowing "at leat 45" last time you went sailing, too.. eh? And the knotmeter was pegged at 35.