• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
southerncross

Wanted Missing VOR Skipper

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

i think all 14 year old girls should be able take a celebratory dump

Me too.  Just pointing out that female crew and "professional" female crew can be just as crass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, southerncross said:

Me too.  Just pointing out that female crew and "professional" female crew can be just as crass.

Which is exactly what quite a few have been saying from day 1.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Rather than focusing on TTOP,  surprised the mates down under didn't bring up the injustice of the PC brigade or pearl-clutchers not condemning the VOR Live for the French and Spanish males joking about women.

Live bit at the end here

Xabi: say hello to Carolijn from Sophie as well  

Charles: She's sleeping. Actually, she's sleeping in my bunk, so, I'm going. I’m going. . . 
Xabi: Huh, I don't wanna know. See you later [Laughter]
Charles: [Laughter] I'm sure you won’t. Bye-bye

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stief said:

Phuket

I NEED to know how English speaking people pronounce this word, pleeeeeeease!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chuso007 said:

I NEED to know how English speaking people pronounce this word, pleeeeeeease!!

Pookette.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, stief said:

VOR Live for the French and Spanish males joking about women.

I do recall bringing that to everyone's attention and you were the only one to notice it stief...little did I know then but you not only noticed it but picked it up and stuffed it under your pillow all this time...mmmmm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, southerncross said:

Pookette.

 

Aawww... I was hoping for "fuckit" or something like that:

"Where are you from? -  Fuckit!" "I'm going to fuckit, Wanna come with?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, southerncross said:

The issue is what constitutes sexual harassment

Runkle going on watch with a condom hanging out of arse is one sign something is a bit amiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, southerncross said:

WTF! Even the intro paragraph is lifted directly, without credit or attribution, directly from Doerr's document. Sloppy journos putting our sport into disrepute as a bunch of cheatin' plagiarists! :) 

Roger did a much better job, even showing comments from National US Judge Graham Kelley about Doerr's document.

Quote

I just looked at this new document from WS. It seems a bit more theoretical than the excellent guidance documents on the ROY website, although some of the procedural advice may be dated.

The first is a two-page brief that lists types of misconduct and appropriate potential penalties:

RYA Offense & Penalty Guidance 

The second provides a broad range of guidance, and is similar to the WS Guidance, but may provide a bit more hands-on advice on how to proceed:

RYA Misconduct Guidance 2010

Neither defines the role of the person who reported the misconduct, who is now a party to the hearing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I do recall bringing that to everyone's attention and you were the only one to notice it stief...little did I know then but you not only noticed it but picked it up and stuffed it under your pillow all this time...mmmmm

My dear Jack. I thought you figured out  by now that I have read every post in Ocean Racing Anarchy since 2010  (I read for a couple years before finally signing up  so I could pay back what I could and not just leech off others' content. Can't recall them all in my dotage, but some stick. I'm still trying to get back to one of your best multi-paragraphers from earlier) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stief my interest is in the identity of the currently anonymous person(s) who furnished the RO with their 69er complaint and whether their identity will be made public or not? I can hear some axe grinding in the background though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Runkle going on watch with a condom hanging out of arse is one sign something is a bit amiss.

No one should be subjected to that, Jack.  You should file a complaint or hire the guy depending what you're in to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Stief my interest is in the identity of the currently anonymous person(s) who furnished the RO with their 69er complaint and whether their identity will be made public or not? 

I haven't found that answer from Roger's link yet . . .  still have about 8 -12 tabs to work through on my browser. Guidance seems to exempt some (like kids), and there's lots of when the findings MUST and SHOULD NOT be reported. In other words . . .  dunno yet :)  Not a lot of 69's to go by. Dry but interesting reading, since it is likely to affect our sport so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, southerncross said:

No one should be subjected to that, Jack.  You should file a complaint or hire the guy depending what you're in to.

I would but all I can remember is he had a chrome dome ...I'll keep looking though, he had good weed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, southerncross said:

Curious to know if this behavior by a female VOR crew member is becoming of a professional sailor and is a good role model for 14 year old girls?

http://vor.jbcsystems.com/video/20171109-213027Z.html

You may start at 0:15.

Yes on both questions. Liz is awesome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a tiny bit amusing that the rule is number 69. 

Yes I’m childish....sorry :) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the graying and grizzled rule makers puff cigars in a wood paneled yacht club inner sanctum one says between sips of brandy and tug of cigar, "If we must have a rule that calls into play misconduct, mistreatment and even sexual harassment of lady sailors then by Neptune's scrotum it shall be called Rule "69"..."

Muffled laughter all around.

"Good show, old boy."

"Yes rather. Imagine, why yes, honey you have a grievance, do you wish to invoke 69?"

"ha ha ha, ho, ho, terrible, yes very terrible..."

"No not at all, nothing wrong with obeying the rules, particularly rule 69."

Open laughter.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncanny.  I was thinking the same thing just now.  

"Uh, maybe we should make it rule 68 or 70.  Switch one you know.  Just sayin."  

"And fuck up a good thing?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

So to the anonymous instigators of this 69er I would ask this question; "You obviously believe what you have done will advance gender equity and mutual respect. However what thought did you give by choosing this event, the prospects of that failing; and instead promoting polarisation and paranoia in offshore sailing"?? 

Too, how much will this hurt TTOP? As if they and Magenta  don't have enough to deal with navigating the PC shoals while they strive to exceed the leader's wealth of experience. (cred Potter's  point way upthread, not sure if he'd want the link here).

 Sorry to have snipped so much good stuff and not to have been able to add much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, EvaOdland said:

As the graying and grizzled rule makers puff cigars in a wood paneled yacht club inner sanctum one says between sips of brandy and tug of cigar, "If we must have a rule that calls into play misconduct, mistreatment and even sexual harassment of lady sailors then by Neptune's scrotum it shall be called Rule "69"..."

Muffled laughter all around.

"Good show, old boy."

"Yes rather. Imagine, why yes, honey you have a grievance, do you wish to invoke 69?"

"ha ha ha, ho, ho, terrible, yes very terrible..."

"No not at all, nothing wrong with obeying the rules, particularly rule 69."

Open laughter.

Thanks for that . .  well done. In return for the laugh, you might enjoy this https://tracker.ee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

I do recall bringing that to everyone's attention and you were the only one to notice it stief...little did I know then but you not only noticed it but picked it up and stuffed it under your pillow all this time...mmmmm

Believe it or not, the protest was threatened. Turns out that Charles made that joke because Carolijn was actually behind the camera man squirting Charles with water. That and the fact they thought the conversation was private, post interview, left no room for a stupid protest. 

Dee's reaction to the joke was to point out that Martin hot bunks with her, so is she not able to say that he is in her bunk despite it being a fact. 

Dawn Riley was one of a group that instigated the protest, and has been very clear that she did it, not to protest, but to do it publically thereby forcing World Sailing not to ignore it. 

Unfortunately I believe that the law of unintended consequences will be more polarisation not less. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still catching up (more than 200 posts still to read), but what I find interesting is that the two girls hereabouts (are there more?) are rather relaxed about the video, but a lot of men try to tell us that we need to feel harassed. Mansplaining anyone?
Maybe we should wait until AB tells us how she feels, or does she need male translators for this situation?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Potter said:

Believe it or not, the protest was threatened. Turns out that Charles made that joke because Carolijn was actually behind the camera man squirting Charles with water. That and the fact they thought the conversation was private, post interview, left no room for a stupid protest. 

Dee's reaction to the joke was to point out that Martin hot bunks with her, so is she not able to say that he is in her bunk despite it being a fact. 

Dawn Riley was one of a group that instigated the protest, and has been very clear that she did it, not to protest, but to do it publically thereby forcing World Sailing not to ignore it. 

Unfortunately I believe that the law of unintended consequences will be more polarisation not less. 

:( 

I’m afraid you’re right. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

Mansplaining anyone?

I am speaking on behalf of my niece, girlfriend, sister, crewmember, boss, etc etc and future generations of potential sailors - female AND male that have to deal with this BS on a regular basis.  I get it, you're the cool chicks on the boat...great, go sail with a bunch of pigs and keep them company.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2017 at 6:26 AM, Alcatraz5768 said:

Holy shit, if any of you heard what is said on our (mixed) crew racing nights you'd throw us all in jail. 

Harden the fuck up.  

 

John Newton sailed with a female race team more than 20 years ago.  Reckoned he spent the whole day blushing scarlet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, southerncross said:

Curious to know if this behavior by a female VOR crew member is becoming of a professional sailor and is a good role model for 14 year old girls?

http://vor.jbcsystems.com/video/20171109-213027Z.html

You may start at 0:15.

False equalvience IMO 

Liz was the butt of her own joke. Some sponsors might be upset, but outside of the English isles I suspect it is seen with a down to earth sense of self depreciation. 

Witty's little act is just particularly bad timing in light of all the stuff and heightened sensitivity in the English world. There's no amount of "but on our boat" or "my guys are like this" that's going to change how it is going to get viewed by a lot of the public. Some ppl see PC as just being decent, polite and not being an asshole. Others view it as some liberal conspiracy to ruin their freedoms. Neither has anything to do with Witty or AB. 

Surprised Hayles is parting ways. If only Witty isn't all wrapped up in this - would have been an opportunity to pick up a female nav and add another trimmer/stacker to the boat. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it disappointing that sportsmen and sportswomen of all disciplines aren't allowed to be themselves any more. They can't show any emotion or character as they might get burnt at the stake. 

I like to see guys and chicks whose personality shines so I can actually get attached to a crew or team so I will follow an event. Anyone who thinks sponsors don't want people following their team is insane. 

The volvo has followed sports like NASCAR where all the drivers and cars look the same and nobody says anything out of turn in case it may possibly offend someone or embarrass a potential sponsor. 

How much more enjoyable would sports be if the participants acted a bit more realistically so we could actually identify with them, after a bad run get out of a car and kick the door in, after a bad sked stomp around the boat swearing at seagulls, after scoring a point run around yelling "in your face motherfuckers".

if sponsors realised that people in internet and tv land would likely see this behaviour and remember it, then look out for that team to see if the dude with the Mohawk looses his shit again, or the winning girl runs up to the ref and kisses them again, or whatever these characters do, sports would be fun to watch again. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pudge said:

I am speaking on behalf of my niece, girlfriend, sister, crewmember, boss, etc etc and future generations of potential sailors - female AND male that have to deal with this BS on a regular basis.  I get it, you're the cool chicks on the boat...great, go sail with a bunch of pigs and keep them company.

I think your girls will meet all kinds of people and they will choose the company they like. Give them some credit. I wouldn’t sail with anybody who I felt had a dislike of female sailors. And be assured that if I felt even the slightest harassment, I wouldn’t hesitate on reacting on it.

Of course people have different kinds of humor and as we have seen stated from several here, they treat women as their moms. That’s their choice. 

I’m more relaxed when I’m with people who can make jokes about the body and how it works. That’s my choice. I wouldn’t say that’s anything about coolness, surely some people think I should be more lady-like. 

We are different. But now somebody wants to make my sense of humor illegal in sailing. And I resent that. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NORBowGirl said:

I think your girls will meet all kinds of people and they will choose the company they like. Give them some credit.

You think I haven't? Apologies if they don't represent and defend themselves on some internet forum full of vulgar opinions. I'll be sure to get everyone together on my side and collectively chime in next time for my posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to also remember this is a new era of OBRs that themselves aren't really press trained for the benefit of the team or syndicate. They're essentially free lancers employed by VOR and their particular photo video preferences and judgment will impact the team and OA. 

 

Things need to be learned. There's a difference between working at nat geo shooting artic silver foxes or combat photography and military public affairs officers. The VOR itself hasn't decided what it wants. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Miffy said:

The VOR itself hasn't decided what it wants.

This. Is it a documentary exposing all the ins and outs, the real deal, or is the function of the OBR an extension of the marketing team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Miffy said:

False equalvience IMO 

Not about the joke per se.  More about the conduct befitting a professional athlete and how female conduct on the boats hasn't been mentioned.  

Would you expect a professional cricketer or baseball player to pretend to take a celebratory dump behind the wicket or plate in front of thousands of fans including children?

If no, then what is the criteria for decent behavior on a boat?  Only men should be chastised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ppl routinely relive themselves off the back of the boat. 

Your analogy about taking a dump by the wickets is the nautical equivalent of leaving poop in someone's bunk. 

I don't see what gender has to do with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relieving oneself is an act of nature, coercing another member of the crew and opposite sex to apply (while on camera I might add) creme to another's genitals is not. Male or female. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, pudge said:

I am speaking on behalf of my niece, girlfriend, sister, crewmember, boss, etc etc and future generations of potential sailors - female AND male that have to deal with this BS on a regular basis.  I get it, you're the cool chicks on the boat...great, go sail with a bunch of pigs and keep them company.

I was going t say exactly the same thing, thanks.

But I will add that NorBow does not seem to be finished attempting to ingratiate herself with the locals here by dragging the rest of her gender into the land of the sick units who get off on references to 69'ers by a sycophantic female.  Sick units need no encouragement, see some of the postings and images posted here, but they are getting encouragement anyway.

This is about risk management.  The risk that on any given occasion all is not innocent and funny.  The idea behind people taking action on these issues is to reduce the risk and incident of misogynistic behaviour on boats and anywhere else. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad consequence (as has happened in business,) is that fewer women will be invited, as the possibility of somebody, somewhere (who may or may not have been aboard)  deciding that there was harassment, potentially (years) after the fact will preclude the risk.  The same will probably affect juniors as well, where they won't get offers to come along with the crew.  

Just as the college campuses are roiled up about "continuous consent" and the erosion of due process and immediate condemnation for simply being accused, at some point it just aint worth the risk. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SimonN said:

I suspect that some of the attitudes shown on both sides of this argument are cultural. What to some nationalities this seem wrong, to others it is harmless banter. I am sorry i am in the former camp, but it is probably a result of my background. I used to be business development director for a major computer manufacturer looking after the UK. One of my side roles was being a champion for women in the workplace and in that role, I used to speak at conferences and also was a spokesman for all press including TV. When we had problems of sexual harassment, I used to work with the director of HR to resolve the issues. 

In that situation, we often took legal advise and on a few occasions we needed to get advise from a specialist barrister. By coincidence, some years later, the one we used  joined the same golf club as me and we became friends. I decided last night to run this past him, to see if i was being a dickhead about this. His reply, besides claiming I am always a dickhead whether I am right or wrong, was very interesting. His view is that if this happened in a UK workplace, he would have recommended the termination of Witty and Hayles and formal written warnings for the others. If the sponsor had been one of his UK clients, he would have recommended the sacking of Witty.

What I didn't expect him to say was something I had completely missed but I totally agreed with. Anybody who thinks this was a one off is simply kidding themselves and that it is highly unlikely that this was the worst behaviour. He also pointed out that clearly Witty knew that what he was doing was offensive at the very lest. No excuses!

Your friend the Barrister is completely correct. You are a dickhead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Your friend the Barrister is completely correct. You are a dickhead. 

looking-in-the-mirror.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Miffy said:

Ppl routinely relive themselves off the back of the boat. 

Your analogy about taking a dump by the wickets is the nautical equivalent of leaving poop in someone's bunk. 

I don't see what gender has to do with this. 

Try to keep up Miffy.  People routinely shit off the back of a boat?  I thought there were buckets and heads for that.  The question is should a professional athlete pretend to do it on camera thinking it's funny?  If you're going to apply a standard then apply it to all.  That's where the gender issue comes in.

But's that the danger of all of this.  What's the standard.  Some are offended by Witt's comments while not being offended by other things that others find offensive.  Is there going to be a hearing on every little uproar?  It all becomes absurd at some point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, pudge said:

Relieving oneself is an act of nature, coercing another member of the crew and opposite sex to apply (while on camera I might add) creme to another's genitals is not. Male or female. 

Maybe you should watch the video first, because what you describe is your fantasy, and not the video content.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, southerncross said:

Try to keep up Miffy.  People routinely shit off the back of a boat?  I thought there were buckets and heads for that.  The question is should a professional athlete pretend to do it on camera thinking it's funny?  If you're going to apply a standard then apply it to all.  That's where the gender issue comes in.

But's that the danger of all of this.  What's the standard.  Some are offended by Witt's comments while not being offended by other things that others find offensive.  Is there going to be a hearing on every little uproar?  It all becomes absurd at some point.

Shrug. I'm old enough to know fringe cases don't make good policy and few ppl in positions of authority do the "what about" slippery slope stuff anyway.

I don't really care what happens in this instance but just find what about ism nauseating esp when Liz is used to illustrate a point. 

Deal with the fire as it comes in the hand you're dealt. Don't be an asshole and most likely will get a fair shake. No one going after Liz. Someone going after Witty. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, southerncross said:

Try to keep up Miffy.  People routinely shit off the back of a boat?  I thought there were buckets and heads for that.  The question is should a professional athlete pretend to do it on camera thinking it's funny?  If you're going to apply a standard then apply it to all.  That's where the gender issue comes in.

 

I think that among the many things that may give the sport a bad image, shitting  off the back is on that list. 

And in fact it’s a thing that might keep women away! Low standard bathroom facilities is a fear women have, including me. Not kidding. 

I don’t mind this particular video though. But if the issue is about how one should portray our sport in order to attract more people.....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So reading the posts - I'm getting the sense there are two distinct things. Some are more upset about the image of the sport. Some are more offended by the actual occurrence. If you're offended by the image of the sport being in disrepute - the OBR is where you want to make the "fix." If you're more upset about the actual occurrence - then you want the ppl to not defecate at sea and only use holding tanks, or make poor taste jokes by asking crewmates how to rub cream on testicles. I have to say tho, I struggle with the offended by defecate at sea but have higher threshold for crude jokes crowd. But anyway - I'm sure everyone is reacting to the things unique to their particular crew history and particular recent events in their respective countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pudge said:

Relieving oneself is an act of nature, coercing another member of the crew and opposite sex to apply (while on camera I might add) creme to another's genitals is not. Male or female. 

Clearly you did not watch the video or pay attention....

They only asked Dr Clog for advice on how the two crew shown on the video should apply the sudocream, not AB herself. So if AB maintained control and gave an answer, she would have been complicit in sexual harassment of the two crew.

Now would you or the other complainers be attacking her?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NORBowGirl said:

It’s a tiny bit amusing that the rule is number 69. 

Yes I’m childish....sorry :) 

Given the nature of the thread, it's amazing it took so long for this to come up. I guess it was too obvious ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

Is SA the only site you visit sir? There were rather more than a "couple of other posters" on Scallywag's Facebook page and NOT by people who hide behind fictitious screen names. I would hardly call that fake offence.

You need to get out more hoppy.

People who "fake offence" look for any little discretion just so they can be offended. They use that as an excuse the show to the world how morally superior they are. If anything, facebook and personal blogs are the best place for them to fake offence because people know who it is who is "morally superior". On facebook the fake offence people probably get more satisfaction from rubbing sudocream on their scrotum or each others when two "offended" support each other than they do when applying it here behind their screen names.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that clear protocol on poo aboard is required.

Close quarters, marine heads...we've all unclogged an abused head I am sure...

In 20 years of mix-gender sailing on my boats, discussions about bodily functions is done matter of fact and taken care of before we leave the dock and to make sure everyone is not embarrassed about having a gastric emergency aboard. The worst is someone embarrassed and then later I find a bag of shit hidden in a cupboard.

Now this Witty thing...

A professional skipper luridly talking about lathering up a scrotum in the middle of a 5000 mile passage with a mix gender professional crew....mmmm yeah...probably a problem best nipped before it gets worse...

Also lets be clear...this is not a Wednesday night beer can race on your J-erk Boat with your drinking buddies. This is professional ocean racing at the highest level. As a fan, I for one expect a high degree of professionalism from the skippers.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Given the nature of the thread, it's amazing it took so long for this to come up. I guess it was too obvious ;)

No, the number was just was waiting for a schoolboy or girl to come along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Clearly you did not watch the video or pay attention....

They only asked Dr Clog for advice on how the two crew shown on the video should apply the sudocream, not AB herself. So if AB maintained control and gave an answer, she would have been complicit in sexual harassment of the two crew.

Now would you or the other complainers be attacking her?

Just out of curiosity, what is the answer on that? Is it some special routine to it? Or just plain “add it like any other cream”? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, random said:

No, the number was just was waiting for a schoolboy or girl to come along.

I’m proud of my ability to keep my inner child alive :) 

When I’m old and gray I’m gonna scare teenagers with blunt jokes. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

My ex father in-law is a High Court Judge (who originaly hated my guts as I ended up with half his daughters inheritance and spent half of my half on a boat bigger than his and the other half on a nubile replacement)...anyway I just ran this and your legal back up opinion past him. He simply said "your fuckin joking and I hope that barrister's Mini Minor doesn't break down soon". A man who has an economy with words.

 

I will take the opinion of a barister who specialises in this area of the law over a crusty old judge any day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NORBowGirl said:

Just out of curiosity, what is the answer on that? Is it some special routine to it? Or just plain “add it like any other cream”? 

 

To be honest, I don't know. I've only used sudocream for my daughters nappy rash and never considered using it for self application or as an essential item on my yacht. We have a twilight race this evening and I'll report back.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stief said:

OK. Rather than focusing on TTOP,  surprised the mates down under didn't bring up the injustice of the PC brigade or pearl-clutchers not condemning the VOR Live for the French and Spanish males joking about women.

Can you explain why that is in any way sexual harassment? There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they were saying. They were making a joke about something that everybody would know was not going to happen. If Charles had done a Trump and said he was going down to his bunk to grab her .......... that would have been a different matter. But instead, they were having a laugh about something that clearly was not going to happen. It could only be offensive if anybody would believe that it was going to happen and that Carolijn wanted it to happen. Trust me on this. It was not going to happen and Carolijn is not interested in Charles!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SimonN said:

Can you explain why that is in any way sexual harassment? There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they were saying. They were making a joke about something that everybody would know was not going to happen. If Charles had done a Trump and said he was going down to his bunk to grab her .......... that would have been a different matter. But instead, they were having a laugh about something that clearly was not going to happen. It could only be offensive if anybody would believe that it was going to happen and that Carolijn wanted it to happen. Trust me on this. It was not going to happen and Carolijn is not interested in Charles!

Correct. Just an example that shows two fellows laughing over a 'gotcha'. Xabi actually seemed a little embarrassed to be caught off guard by Charles' remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hoppy said:

To be honest, I don't know. I've only used sudocream for my daughters nappy rash and never considered using it for self application or as an essential item on my yacht. We have a twilight race this evening and I'll report back.

Same drill. 

Dry skin. Apply cream. French sailors are often also avid cyclist and basically saddle rash/gunwale bum are the same things. Chamois cream. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NORBowGirl said:

It’s a tiny bit amusing that the rule is number 69. 

Yes I’m childish....sorry :) 

We are all naughty kids here, (though some think they are good parents).

 

1 hour ago, hoppy said:

Given the nature of the thread, it's amazing it took so long for this to come up. I guess it was too obvious ;)

 

20 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

69 Rules forever !

Sexual explicit picture removed by PC Police      (Post  #336)

Guess I was too subtle for a change.

And hopeless, you even quoted that post and picture!  Never done a Rorschach test ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, hoppy said:

To be honest, I don't know. I've only used sudocream for my daughters nappy rash and never considered using it for self application or as an essential item on my yacht. We have a twilight race this evening and I'll report back.

perhaps not surprisingly, the nappy rash creams are a great place to start for gunnel bum solutions.

Another good one is Bepanthen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Can you explain why that is in any way sexual harassment? There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they were saying. They were making a joke about something that everybody would know was not going to happen. If Charles had done a Trump and said he was going down to his bunk to grab her .......... that would have been a different matter. But instead, they were having a laugh about something that clearly was not going to happen. It could only be offensive if anybody would believe that it was going to happen and that Carolijn wanted it to happen. Trust me on this. It was not going to happen and Carolijn is not interested in Charles!

what sort of Gordian knot are you tying yourself into here ?

The the Witt vid, Dr Clog is asked for advice only.  There was never any request to apply the cream; and, using your words, everybody knew the application of the cream was not going to happen (on camera).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

what sort of Gordian knot are you tying yourself into here ?

The the Witt vid, Dr Clog is asked for advice only.  There was never any request to apply the cream; and, using your words, everybody knew the application of the cream was not going to happen (on camera).

 

Simonn's Gordian Knot:

image.jpeg.c76c87d8e6d19b7e2b2dd415d83f28f9.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Stief my interest is in the identity of the currently anonymous person(s) who furnished the RO with their 69er complaint and whether their identity will be made public or not? I can hear some axe grinding in the background though.

Absolutely, all parties need to their case known to all. Otherwise it’s just a kangaroo court. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Miffy said:

Ppl routinely relive themselves off the back of the boat. 

 

 

2 hours ago, southerncross said:

Try to keep up Miffy.  People routinely shit off the back of a boat?  I thought there were buckets and heads for that.  

 

 

2 hours ago, NORBowGirl said:

I think that among the many things that may give the sport a bad image, shitting  off the back is on that list. 

 

I remember seeing a full picture of an outside toilet in one of my books. Can't find it anymore, but the nice teak toilet-ring in this picture looks very much like it. Even got a pulpit to stay safe while enjoying nature!

5a271bf690524_flyer2sterntoiletclose-up.jpg.f48ae5ed77fb14e99dad0a81cceb8747.jpg

Anyone knows about this, and how they kept the reversed transom so spotless ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite making it clear in my profile that I now sail an A Class cat, which should clearly identify me, some people have been giving Simon Nearn, a well known 18' skiff sailor, grief for my views. While I know Simon Nearn and have the pleasure of sailing against him in a number of classes, I want to make it clear that I am not him and that my views do not represent his views in any way (I don't actually know his view on this subject). I find this particularly annoying because I make no attempt to hide my identity by providing my full history, which is different to Simon Nearn's, yet some seem to get so hot under the collar that they don't bother reading and jump to conclusions. This is a shame because I have now felt obliged to change my profile details and remove mention of past sailing which I am proud of.  The irony is that I want people to know who I am yet by now removing detail from my profile, it makes it less likely people will be able to identify me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pudge said:

You think I haven't? Apologies if they don't represent and defend themselves on some internet forum full of vulgar opinions. I'll be sure to get everyone together on my side and collectively chime in next time for my posts. 

Don't flatter yourself cupcake- no one except you gives a fuck what you think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

Not sure about you guys, but this one is slightly over the top.  Depiction of violence against women has no place here.

Jack you should take it down.  Then I will remove this quote.

Yes that is a disturbing image. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SimonN said:

Despite making it clear in my profile that I now sail an A Class cat, which should clearly identify me, some people have been giving Simon Nearn, a well known 18' skiff sailor, grief for my views. While I know Simon Nearn and have the pleasure of sailing against him in a number of classes, I want to make it clear that I am not him and that my views do not represent his views in any way (I don't actually know his view on this subject). I find this particularly annoying because I make no attempt to hide my identity by providing my full history, which is different to Simon Nearn's, yet some seem to get so hot under the collar that they don't bother reading and jump to conclusions. This is a shame because I have now felt obliged to change my profile details and remove mention of past sailing which I am proud of.  The irony is that I want people to know who I am yet by now removing detail from my profile, it makes it less likely people will be able to identify me.

Jeyzus you are an insufferable attention whore. Firstly you bang on with mock indignation about a video that doesn't in anyway effect you and now you are claiming that a well known sailor is being mistaken for you and is copping abuse? Get over yourself dickbreath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, duncan (the other one) said:

what sort of Gordian knot are you tying yourself into here ?

The the Witt vid, Dr Clog is asked for advice only.  There was never any request to apply the cream; and, using your words, everybody knew the application of the cream was not going to happen (on camera).

 

Simon doesn't let the facts get in the way of his anguish. This thread is all about him after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Don't flatter yourself cupcake- no one except you gives a fuck what you think. 

Crawl back under your bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chuso007 said:

I NEED to know how English speaking people pronounce this word, pleeeeeeease!!

We always pronounced it foo-ket when we lived there

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pudge said:

Crawl back under your bridge.

Probably best you stay up there on top, flinging shit with your little sock puppet gloves on.  

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Stief my interest is in the identity of the currently anonymous person(s) who furnished the RO with their 69er complaint and whether their identity will be made public or not? I can hear some axe grinding in the background though.

Just catching up.

Methinks the RO can themselves make a 69 complaint / report ... No?

Will keep reading through the thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NORBowGirl said:

It’s a tiny bit amusing that the rule is number 69. 

Yes I’m childish....sorry :) 

To be fair methinks the rule makers might be in on the joke. Therefore if true they clearly enjoy a little double entendre as many of us do... and why not..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

Jack you should take it down.  Then I will remove this quote.

Down....Bad moment. Hardened by ones environment. The devil made me do it. I have been kidnapped and was trying to send a coded message to you. Oopsie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, rogerfal said:

Just catching up.

Methinks the RO can themselves make a 69 complaint / report ... No?

Will keep reading through the thread

Potter has confirmed it was Dawn Riley. She tweated from memory about women's sailing at the Racing Forum held weekend before last but no mention of this. Potter would know. 

In prosecuting this particular incident I do question her motives. That aside my opinion is she hasn't thought this through and it will unfortunately promote polarisation and paranoia in offshore sailing.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Down....Bad moment. Hardened by ones environment. The devil made me do it. I have been kidnapped and was trying to send a coded message to you. Oopsie.

No problem decoding your message, thought it was your future ex.

Only disturbing for her, methinks, but hey, we are used to this practice over here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Jeyzus you are an insufferable attention whore.

Not too interested in defending his views either. Did a length quote and reply to his shit yesterday which he ignored. Maybe I should have used shorter words. Starting to think Witty revisited the sandwich hamper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Anyone knows about this, and how they kept the reversed transom so spotless ?

Yes was used. Bucket and waves up the arse. Down below comfortable compared to today with diesel ducted heating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites