SteveC

Snowflakes and sailing

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, comcrudesgru8 said:

what sports do you do ?

Unlike you, im pretty sure clean sails.

Share this post


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

Fuck you, (turning to helm) just hit him, go up and hit that fuckwit

CONTACT

Fuck off Protest

I remember the days when that was SOP. Nowadays, avoiding contact is more important (room and opportunity) and makes protests more all the more difficult to prove.

Share this post


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

This one drives me wild . .  "knowingly infringing a rule with intent to gain an unfair advantage" 

the scenario in which an experienced sailor calls what they know is a phony rule on a newbie sailor . . 

and then goes back to the bar and brags about it openly. 

[sound of boiling blood] 

World Sailing Case 47 deals with this specifically. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually heartened by the split in opinion in the thread. I'm soundly in the camp that you need to have a thick skin and be able to let verbal insults go like water off a ducks back.

I'm also of the opinion that what happens on the water (as far as this thread subject is concerned / bit of heated shouting) is forgiven or at least reduced to friendly banter in the bar afterwards and we all have a laugh about it.

I fully accept the POV that the sport maybe needs less cussing, and maybe R69 can sort it, however, I cannot condone the use of the rule to enable frivolous reports just because the reporter has had a bad day and wants to penalize a competitor by any means possible..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

This one drives me wild . .  "knowingly infringing a rule with intent to gain an unfair advantage" 

the scenario in which an experienced sailor calls what they know is a phony rule on a newbie sailor . . 

and then goes back to the bar and brags about it openly. 

[sound of boiling blood] 

Yep, plenty of that.

These are the same egotistical smart arses that Rule 69 can used on.   As part of the bluster and bluff usually there is lot's of swearing and related abuse.

They need to be put in their place with quiet use of the rules.

And about the rest of this thread?  Some people don't like being asked not to swear, some others don't like having to tack away for smaller boats in mixed fleets or be called up at the start line.  There are rules about all these and it is those who think they only apply to other people who should think about their behaviour.

The way I see it, those here who are calling others 'snowflakes' think they are above the rules.  Every competitor has a right to protest, don't abuse people and you have nothing to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bill clinton left the white house 16 million in debt from fighting protests....or so he says......any quasi court proceeding is corrupt.....court proceedings as well.....its human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, comcrudesgru8 said:

bill clinton left the white house 16 million in debt from fighting protests....or so he says......any quasi court proceeding is corrupt.....court proceedings as well.....its human nature.

You might like to elaborate on what that comment has to do with the RRS.

Share this post


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

Some people barge, foul, hit buoys or other boats and continue on. Some people don't.

I had a college coach who claimed he broke the rules all the time -- windward/leeward, port/starboard, room at marks and starting, etc. -- saying, "Nobody ever protests, so..."

Then there is the quote attributed to Blackaller: "The best part about winning by cheating is it's like you win twice!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, axolotl said:

An accurate list for Rule 69 infractions.  Note that being a loudmouth asshole yeller on the racecourse  is not included.  If it were, 1/3 of the fleets I'm now in would have several rule 69 protests every race.  Some people have coprolalia and can't help themselves.

Have to disagree with the above.

Being a profane loudmouth who yells at other boats is arguably covered by one of the examples given in Case #138 (although omitted by ScowLover in Post #8): "bullying, discriminatory behaviour and intimidation";

In any event, Case 138 expressly says: "the following actions should be considered as examples of misconduct, but they are not exclusive examples and this is not a definitive list".

The fact that certain fleets don't allege R.69 for chronic swearing means that their tolerance level is relatively high. It doesn't mean that misconduct wouldn't be found in appropriate circumstances, if and when someone - remember, it doesn't have to be a competitor - chooses to report a R.69 incident. 

Finally, coprolalia is a very rare symptom of neurological disorders. It in no way excuses deliberate swearing by healthy adults who are perfectly capable of controlling themselves.

 

 

Share this post


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

I had a college coach who claimed he broke the rules all the time -- windward/leeward, port/starboard, room at marks and starting, etc. -- saying, "Nobody ever protests, so..."

Then there is the quote attributed to Blackaller: "The best part about winning by cheating is it's like you win twice!"

Buddy Melges. “Sportsmanship is just cheatin’ fair”

Share this post


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

Oh. Lacrosse, eh?

  ascot.jpg.67b6014f05db87493fa8f202e90fa682.jpg  grey_poupon_01.jpg.44565c8744eea91d1d328c2a0f2e661f.jpg

 

 

Dude, lacrosse is all over the country at this point. It’s no longer stodgy like those pictures. While it may have started there, it’s mainstream now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I had a college coach who claimed he broke the rules all the time -- windward/leeward, port/starboard, room at marks and starting, etc. -- saying, "Nobody ever protests, so..."

What a jerk ... exactly the sort of person who has no business coaching anyone about anything.

Perhaps this is an opportune time to reflect upon the RRS' Basic Principles, specifically Sportsmanship and the Rules:

Quote

Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the fuck this is so difficult

If you say fuck you to a competitor  you do a 1/4 penalty turn.

If you sat fuck you and include their mother you do 1/2 penalty turn .

If you include asshole then 3/4 penalty turn. 

If you say any of the below  to someone under 16 then you double each penalty 

If you say any of the below to the arrogant parent of an out of control kid then no penalty 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Not sure why the fuck this is so difficult

If you say fuck you to a competitor  you do a 1/4 penalty turn.

If you sat fuck you and include their mother you do 1/2 penalty turn .

If you include asshole then 3/4 penalty turn. 

If you say any of the below  to someone under 16 then you double each penalty 

If you say any of the below to the arrogant parent of an out of control kid then no penalty 

 

 

 

 

We need more curse words. That’s only 540 degrees...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 6:24 PM, equivocator said:

However, no matter how you slice it, an "Organizing Authority" that puts on an event should probably not be allowed to exclude an otherwise-eligible competitor from competing in its events without a formal hearing.

As long as they do it before the first race, that's exactly what rule 76.1 permits the OA to do.  See the discussion in this thread

On the other hand, how does Ed think clubs should try to control misconduct by intoxicated sailors? St. Francis has employees who give out cards asking sailors to remove their hats in the clubhouse, but I'd bet they'd kick you out if you grope the commodore's wife or his teenage daughter, and the boat you are on might get kicked out if it happens during a regatta.

Once a boat has started in the first race, this is what rule 69 is there to do.  It would be an improper action for the club/OA to deny a competitor access to or use of their facilities so as to prevent them from racing, but a rule 69 hearing can exclude the competitor from the event and the venue (rule 69.2( h)(3)). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we really arguing about whether or not its acceptable to be malicious?  I do not have the right to mistreat you; and, you do not have the right to mistreat me. I have never filed a Rule 69 against anyone, and don't anticipate doing so, but I am amazed that anyone would argue that when someone is offended by the malice or anger of another person, it is the offended person who is in the wrong.  You have every right to be angry or malicious.  I have every right not to want to deal with you if you cannot behave with decorum.  What happened to basic manners?

“Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”


 Kurt Vonnegut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cant handle been told to fuck off in yachting, you probably need to take up sewing. It really only becomes an issue if it gets personal. When a competitor on port wrecks your boat you are allowed to say whatever you like btw

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vantage point:

There is a saying that a bad day of sailing is better than a good day at the office. Clearly, that is not always the case ... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Svanen said:

What a jerk ... exactly the sort of person who has no business coaching anyone about anything.

I agree.

I lost respect for him at that moment.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can empathize. My Grade 7 Science teacher used to boast about “experimenting” in college by pouring sulphuric acid on a dog. Sick bastard, I certainly had no respect for him. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 5:03 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

There's a whole lot of 'enduring abuse' that you seem to think is going on here, but this discussion really isn't about 'abuse' - it's about regular language in regular life that a few old people and fearful grandparents want to prevent.

I really, really don't understand how hearing curse words is 'enduring abuse'.  

An sailor who is ABUSING others - especially kids - should be penalized, and I don't really see anyone disputing that. 

But if the word "FUCK" is categorized as 'abuse' to you, I think you need to go to your fainting couch and take a break.  

Do not try to use 1950 standards to patrol a 2020 world.

Other answers: (1) I don't swear in my commentary because I am paid not to swear in my commentary.  Pro tennis players don't swear (loudly) because they do not want to lose sponsors or have soundbites go viral on social media.  (2) My wife is like me - she takes zero shit from people.  You talk shit, she comes back at you harder.  If I wanted a girl who liked to turn the other cheek, I'd have found some dirty-minded catholic girl.

I think you are conflating all sorts of things to avoid saying what you really want to: "I don't like those dirty words and I don't want others to have the right to say them out loud while I'm yachting'

 

Erm, yes, my point was about abuse. A few posters were saying there should be no rules 69, or rule 69 should be  thing for the courts, not protest committees. My point was there are things, which aren't illegal but shouldn't be apart of sailing, like abuse and deliberate / premeditated cheating.  

Secondly, I used the family members as an example, as a rhetorical question. How would you feel if it was your family being sworn at? I did readers may not have much sympathy for someone charging in a start line getting a verbal lashing, but they may think twice if it was someone they are close to and do have empathy for, like a family member. You obviously interpreted at this being some sort of stance that my family need m protection or something, they don't, I don't have any family who sail (except my partner).

Read my other post to get the clear drift I'm talking about abuse, not specifically swear words, but swear words used at or toward someone can be part of that verbal abuse.

However, after calling me out for bullshit, you now seem to agree with me, a sailor abusing others, especially kids - should be penalized. Well, fuck me, it seems we agree! 

Finally, the word fuck is not categorised as 'abuse' to me. I never got close to saying that. Swearing at people, deliberately trying to intimidate or bully them. There's a link to my sailing videos, watch a few and you'll hear some colourful language. I'm not for one moment suggesting letting slip a f-bomb when you stub your tow, mess up a mark rounding, or find yourself over at the situation you find yourself in should be punished or is abuse of those who might overhear. 

Do not try to use 1950 standard to a 2020 world? I'm not sure what your point is here. Ill tell you why I don't think abusive language should be part of the sport. I think sailing should be about using boat handling, wind shifts, strategy, sail trim, tides and waves to get a sail boat around the course. I don't think verbally attacking people, hoping they will be fearful or your aggression should be part of the sport and change their actions (i.e. bullying someone out of your way) should be part of the sport.

Let me ask you this. When you attack some verbally, shout them down on the race course, what are you hoping to achieve? You'll say if they don't want to be called a fucker, they shouldn't act like a fucker. But it's clear your just trying to induce an action from them, otherwise you wouldn't be communicating with them at all. But who's to say they were acting like a fucker in the first place? That's just your call. And you're not always right. I've been in enough protests and done enough sailing to know people can be convinced they are righteous, when in fact it's just them being the fucker. It soon descend s in to sailors, whether they're in the right or wrong, abusing / intimidating / bullying other, so they get out of their way, regardless of whose right in terms of RRS. There's plenty of great ways in sailing to get an advantage over competitors using sailing skill, without resorting to bullying. So it's not about snowflakes or anything like that, it's just something that doesn't add to the game of sailing and shouldn't be in the sport.

Finally, your wife. She takes zero shit, somebody talks shit at her, she comes back harder. What specifically does that mean? She shouts louder? She uses naughty words too? She resorts to a bitch fight like walmart mums? Is there an implicit threat of violence when she returns heat with heat? Well, she sounds like a keeper. But I really think the testing of this special skill of hers shouldn't be part of what makes a good sailor good.  I don't think many people want to be part of a sport where taking a dressing down from MRS CLEAN is a key determination of your ability to play. It just sounds like a shit sport. 

So in conclusion, its not me conflating all sorts of things to avoid saying that I don't like swear words being used. It is you who are conflating things, because it is not the language per-see that I object to it's the use of the language to attack people. My underlying motive is that I want to keep sailing about sailing, not bitching at one another. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 2:03 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

There's a whole lot of 'enduring abuse' that you seem to think is going on here, but this discussion really isn't about 'abuse' - it's about regular language in regular life that a few old people and fearful grandparents want to prevent.

I really, really don't understand how hearing curse words is 'enduring abuse'.  

An sailor who is ABUSING others - especially kids - should be penalized, and I don't really see anyone disputing that. 

But if the word "FUCK" is categorized as 'abuse' to you, I think you need to go to your fainting couch and take a break.  

Do not try to use 1950 standards to patrol a 2020 world.

Other answers: (1) I don't swear in my commentary because I am paid not to swear in my commentary.  Pro tennis players don't swear (loudly) because they do not want to lose sponsors or have soundbites go viral on social media.  (2) My wife is like me - she takes zero shit from people.  You talk shit, she comes back at you harder.  If I wanted a girl who liked to turn the other cheek, I'd have found some dirty-minded catholic girl.

I think you are conflating all sorts of things to avoid saying what you really want to: "I don't like those dirty words and I don't want others to have the right to say them out loud while I'm yachting'

 

Well Clean, it really doesn't matter what you think, or how your wife behaves.   Rule 69 exists and competing sailors can protest citing it.  The 'Room' makes the call.  If you think this is just about "a few old people and fearful grandparents' you are wrong.

Weak as piss weasel reasoning about you not being paid to swear.  You don't do it for the same reason as the tennis players, try to be honest with at least yourself.  You would be sacked because viewers would 'protest'.

With attitudes like yours, are you still wondering why American sailing is so fucked up?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. CLEAN, you referred to my reasoning as some sort of 'colonialism'. I'm unsure why it is related, so maybe you could explain? It seems to be that you're trying to frame me as some overbearing figure that you, as MR CLEAN are fighting to overthrow in your crusade for 'Free America' and 'Free Speech'. You've probably been pulled on to this track because of the snowflake reference. "I'm American, I have free speech, and anyone who is offended is a snowflake, fuck them!". It seems the OP has baited you in to this stance and you've fell for it. 

There some irony that you accuse me of holding you to 1950s standards, but then call me out for something that happened many generations ago and is really nothing to do with me. Who's really living in the past here?

The fight for free speech is a just one, I'm not against you there. I certainly have no links to colonialism personally, or the repression of free speech. 

But, specifically in the game of sailing, using language to make someone feel intimidated is not needed. If you don't want people to start above you, close the gap and hold your height. If you don't want people sailing up below you, then trigger faster and roll them. Know the rules and let other know you know them, protest if needs be. You'll soon find that you'll get the respect you deserve. As someone who has built up the sailing skills to hold my own in a race, I object to others getting the same advantage, not because they're good at sailing, but because they're an aggressive, abusive angry person. I want the game of sailing to find the best sailors, not the best bullies. 

You can have your free speech, but the consequence is people will judge you on what you say. When people say abusive language should be part of the sport, then I judge that they are compensating for the sailing skills they lack. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I hear vulgarity I hear at best lazy language choices, but generally weakness.  If someone communicating to me must pepper his language with unpleasant language - whether or not that language is vulgar, or consists of "curse" words - I hear a person who lacks confidence in his position.  When that person uses language - vulgar or otherwise - to frame me as part of that dialogue, I hear someone who is so unsure of his own standing, that he feels the need to try to reduce mine in order to prevail.  When I see a competitor demean or intimidate another competitor, I see someone who lacks either the skill or preparation to win on his own merits.  The guy who didn't go up when you called, "Leeward!" probably isn't going to go up when you tell him he's a Fuckwit, either.  Flag him, or don't, and continue on your way.

Speak to me how you will.  If I find it unpleasant you will not speak to me a second time. I will be sorry because I think my world is better with more inputs and more influences, but you will not be a force of hostility in my life.  If you want me to consider modifying my behavior, persuade me; don't try to shame or compel me.  I will do the same. 

This is not about taking other's people's crap, or not.  There is nothing that using language to offend can accomplish that confidence and persuasion cannot accomplish at least as well.  There nothing about being brash that makes a person strong.  Competence makes a person strong.  Perseverance makes a person strong.  Drive and desire make a person strong.

If you want to be heard, start by being someone worthy of listening to.

</sermon>

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

When I hear vulgarity I hear at best lazy language choices, but generally weakness.  If someone communicating to me must pepper his language with unpleasant language - whether or not that language is vulgar, or consists of "curse" words - I hear a person who lacks confidence in his position.  When that person uses language - vulgar or otherwise - to frame me as part of that dialogue, I hear someone who is so unsure of his own standing, that he feels the need to try to reduce mine in order to prevail.  When I see a competitor demean or intimidate another competitor, I see someone who lacks either the skill or preparation to win on his own merits.  The guy who didn't go up when you called, "Leeward!" probably isn't going to go up when you tell him he's a Fuckwit, either.  Flag him, or don't, and continue on your way.

Speak to me how you will.  If I find it unpleasant you will not speak to me a second time. I will be sorry because I think my world is better with more inputs and more influences, but you will not be a force of hostility in my life.  If you want me to consider modifying my behavior, persuade me; don't try to shame or compel me.  I will do the same. 

This is not about taking other's people's crap, or not.  There is nothing that using language to offend can accomplish that confidence and persuasion cannot accomplish at least as well.  There nothing about being brash that makes a person strong.  Competence makes a person strong.  Perseverance makes a person strong.  Drive and desire make a person strong.

If you want to be heard, start by being someone worthy of listening to.

</sermon>

If this sermon were being delivered from across a relatively empty bar in Glasgow on the tail end of a bottle of scotch, it might be kind of funny...even funnier as the barman escorts you under protection to your cab. 

The 'Speak to me how you will. If I find it unpleasant you will not speak to me a second time' part would go over particularly well with the locals, who enjoy some colourful language here and there. Your right. No one would speak to you a second time. They'd have to stoop over to low to hear you wheezing on the bar room floor trying to form your version of a sentence after being summarily clocked. 

Par for the course in some jurisdictions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to note that language is a fluid thing. Trying to frame what people can and cannot say to you is not.

Cheers. You have no standing one way or the other with me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was unclear; I'm sorry about that.  I have no interest in controlling what anyone else says.  I'll just walk away and not reengage.  Its telling that your response to my post - which included absolutely nothing from which you could infer that I intended to control anything other than myself and my own environment - was graphically violent.  I don't think violence is called for because I don't want to have certain conversations that I find unpleasant. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sshow Bob,

I too was perhaps a little harsh, and apologize for the graphic imagery...was just trying to make the point that 'controlling your own environment' might limit the scope of your communications. There are many versions of the Queens English that serve as accurate, compassionate, and purposeful language. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The guy who didn't go up when you called, "Leeward!" probably isn't going to go up when you tell him he's a Fuckwit, either.  Flag him, or don't, and continue on your way.

^^^THIS^^^

(1) Spicing any request with shouting and profanity is generally unproductive. You don't need to read Dale Carnegie to realize that.

(2) If you seriously object to another competitor's conduct, protest him or her.

Share this post


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

^^^THIS^^^

(1) Spicing any request with shouting and profanity is generally unproductive. You don't need to read Dale Carnegie to realize that.

 

Don't know that I completely agree with this but maybe we're just differing on the appropriate context. A wise, senior Air Force officer once told me profanity had a place when the occasion called for instant attention and immediate corrective action, but there is no place in a leader's repertoire for obscenity, and habitual, monotonous swearing was obscene. I was a newly minted Navy ensign at the time, and in danger of becoming a habitual foul mouth. 

Dad was right (not for the first time ;)), the use of profanity loses its shelf life quickly if you go to that well too often. But, establish a behavioral pattern of dealing calmly and rationally with stressful situations and suddenly take the gloves off when you really, REALLY need to make something happen like right now, that gets their attention like nothing else, in my experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Its telling that your response to my post - which included absolutely nothing from which you could infer that I intended to control anything other than myself and my own environment

The fact that you are posting here negates those words.  The irony is strong with you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mozzy Sails said:

 

specifically in the game of sailing, using language to make someone feel intimidated is not needed.

 

Not needed? Sure.  But only the most crazed puritan tries to legislate against all the things that are 'not needed'.  

intimidation is part of every sport where two people want to occupy the same piece of road/track/field/pitch/court/course and even in those where they don't. The list of champions who don't play head games, talk shit, or use their moves or body language to intimidate their opponents is probably a short one indeed.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The list of champions who don't play head games, talk shit, or use their moves or body language to intimidate their opponents is probably a short one indeed.

"You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors."

2016-12-08_7-14-50.jpg

"Winning is the object of the game, but it is not the object of playing the game."

1200px-Stuart_H._Walker.JPG

But then again, The Great Dane was only sailing's most successful champion ever; so what did he know?  And Stuart Walker is just a no-talent clown who never amounted to anything in sail racing. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Mr. Elvstrom didn't intimidate his competitors then you know nothing about him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of people were understandably intimidated by his skill, versatility, competitive nature and tremendous work ethic. But he was a good sportsman who intimidated no one by shouting, swearing or similar bullying conduct.

If I am wrong in the above assessment, please produce evidence of Elvstrom being sanctioned for bad language. I'm always happy to learn something new.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Colorful" language, or specific tone, or volume:

Used very sparingly, can have an effect of gaining attention.

Used frequently it has the effect of losing attention. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not needed? Sure.  But only the most crazed puritan tries to legislate against all the things that are 'not needed'.  

intimidation is part of every sport where two people want to occupy the same piece of road/track/field/pitch/court/course and even in those where they don't. The list of champions who don't play head games, talk shit, or use their moves or body language to intimidate their opponents is probably a short one indeed.  

It sounds like you are attempting to defend abusive and threatening behavior while sailing…..!!!??? This is not MMA.

Although some have tried to frame it that way, this is also not a discussion of what constitutes abusive behavior. It is a discussion of whether or not abusive behavior should be tolerated in sailing and how best to deal with it.

Some say let it occur because it is a part of the sport, and others say no, it’s not, it has nothing to do with sailing and it has no place on the water.

I maintain that abusive behavior should not be dealt with through a rule 69 hearing but instead should be dealt with directly in the rules and should be directly and emphatically prohibited.

Hate to be cliché but in response to the claim that it would be impossible to clearly define what is abusive behavior I call bullshit. As has been said before, I can’t define pornography but I know it when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not needed? Sure.  But only the most crazed puritan tries to legislate against all the things that are 'not needed'.  

intimidation is part of every sport where two people want to occupy the same piece of road/track/field/pitch/court/course and even in those where they don't. The list of champions who don't play head games, talk shit, or use their moves or body language to intimidate their opponents is probably a short one indeed. 

 

Which is why every sport has an approach to limit this behavior to what is considered an acceptable range. What is acceptable changes with time.

It wasn't that long ago that blatant racism was considered just talking shit to an opponent. I do not believe that this level of 'talking shit' is still considered acceptable. I have no doubt that it is still present in most sports. But sports have mechanisms for dealing with this.

It was never 'needed' for white professional sportsmen to taunt, spit at, and swear at black professional opponents. That did not stop them doing it.

It was never 'needed' for professional football players to try to injure their opponents. That did not stop them doing it. (or from clubs giving them bonus's for doing it.

Rules and standards of conduct can and do evolve. As players of our sport we can make choices as to how that evolution should occur.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not needed? Sure.  But only the most crazed puritan tries to legislate against all the things that are 'not needed'.  

intimidation is part of every sport where two people want to occupy the same piece of road/track/field/pitch/court/course and even in those where they don't. The list of champions who don't play head games, talk shit, or use their moves or body language to intimidate their opponents is probably a short one indeed.  

 

Then I think we have found our difference. When I say not needed, I see it as detrimental to the game. Sailing for me is about finding the best sailors. We have a unique set of rules where positioning the boat gains tactical advantage through the rules. Every time a better sailor yields a position to verbal abuse, then sailing as a  sport is worse off for it; because the race has failed to find the best sailor.  Let people respect your ability to sail fast, to handle your boat or to execute tactics. I'd rather not see fear of aggression be the deciding factor in who wins a boat race. That's my opinion. 

Comparing to other sports is a bit idiotic. Different sports find different champions. They have different rules to test different qualities. Just because it's not against the rules in other sports, shouldn't mean it should be allowed in ours? After all we don't allow contact, but it's a fixture of a hell of a lot of sports.

However, the actual amount of sports that allow (in there rules) intimidation through verbal abuse is actually quite small. Sure when people come in close contact it's hard to police sledging and in some sports its become part of the game, but most still view it as bad sportsmanship (even in cricket). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not needed? Sure.  But only the most crazed puritan tries to legislate against all the things that are 'not needed'.  

intimidation is part of every sport where two people want to occupy the same piece of road/track/field/pitch/court/course and even in those where they don't. The list of champions who don't play head games, talk shit, or use their moves or body language to intimidate their opponents is probably a short one indeed.  

 

 

 

 

You are going down in round 8!

Intimidation, friendly banter or informative?

472621064_Round8.thumb.jpg.3a7d28176eeffa261b53eac18a4c122d.jpg

Share this post


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

The fact that you are posting here negates those words.  The irony is strong with you.

 I perceive a difference between attempting to lead and influence by example, and attempting to force someone to behave differently. I accept that you may not.  I am open to being educated, but not to being controlled.  Similarly I may try to educate, but not to control.  I don't even suggest that my approach is the only approach, or even the best approach.  I say only what my approach is, and that it works for me. I offer my observation that I have been a happier person since adopting it. I wish each person an approach that works for that person.

Edited by sshow bob
edited to correct an error of grammar

Share this post


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

Intimidation, friendly banter or informative?

Perhaps fulfillment of contractual obligations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, sshow bob said:

I am open to being educated, but not to being controlled.

Oh Really?  So what planet are you on?  Do you have a drivers license or a passport?

Do you understand how that statement, counter to the reality of how you are required to live, has just blown any credibility you might have had in this thread?

But then you have been posting and attempting to influence others while saying that you are not.  You have moved from unrealised irony to hypocrisy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The list of champions who don't play head games, talk shit, or use their moves or body language to intimidate their opponents is probably a short one indeed.  

So did they break Rule 69?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 7:29 AM, random said:

Bottom line is that the rules are there to sort it out.  Of course protests can be either scurrilous or genuine, the system will sort that out.

From my own experience the sport has been damaged more by people not protesting (like me) to show that bad behaviour does not pay. 

My fucking god you are a hypocrite. Remember giving me grief in the Hobart thread for not protesting WOXI? 

Snowflake.

Share this post


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

Oh Really?  So what planet are you on?  Do you have a drivers license or a passport?

Do you understand how that statement, counter to the reality of how you are required to live, has just blown any credibility you might have had in this thread?

But then you have been posting and attempting to influence others while saying that you are not.  You have moved from unrealised irony to hypocrisy.

Okay, thank you for your perspective. 

Share this post


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

My fucking god you are a hypocrite. Remember giving me grief in the Hobart thread for not protesting WOXI? 

Snowflake.

Nah, he's just an ass-clown troll. He'll change his position 180 degrees just to provoke...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, sshow bob said:

Speak to me how you will.  If I find it unpleasant you will not speak to me a second time.

 

9 hours ago, sshow bob said:

I was unclear; I'm sorry about that.  I have no interest in controlling what anyone else says.  I'll just walk away and not reengage. 

Disappointing.  I thought Lord Dubin was back.

Share this post


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

 

Disappointing.  I thought Lord Dubin was back.

Why is it so offensive to some that I would accept the right of another to act how he will, and to exercise my right to remove myself from thay person's presence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, sshow bob said:

Why is it so offensive to some that I would accept the right of another to act how he will, and to exercise my right to remove myself from thay person's presence?

That's not in the least offensive.

What some might have found offensive was the implication, which you have since convincingly repudiated, in your saying " If I find it unpleasant you will not speak to me a second time" that you might respond with physical violence to a conversation.

Perhaps you missed the meaning of my reference to Ian 'take a walk with me in the dark' Dubin, of Hong Kong.

Share this post


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

Why is it so offensive to some that I would accept the right of another to act how he will, and to exercise my right to remove myself from thay person's presence?

As they say "don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LB 15 said:

My fucking god you are a hypocrite. Remember giving me grief in the Hobart thread for not protesting WOXI? 

Snowflake.

No, got a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hoppy said:

Nah, he's just an ass-clown troll. He'll change his position 180 degrees just to provoke...

Really?  Got a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, random said:
8 hours ago, LB 15 said:

My fucking god you are a hypocrite. Remember giving me grief in the Hobart thread for not protesting WOXI? 

Snowflake.

No, got a link?

Then ...

1 minute ago, LB 15 said:

Someone's off their meds today.

You made the claim. but can't back it up.

Business as usual for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to waste an hour of my life scrolling back through and old thread just to prove you are a dick. No one needs anymore convincing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LB 15 said:

I don't need to waste an hour of my life scrolling back through and old thread just to prove you are a dick. No one needs anymore convincing. 

It would take you more than an hour, because what you are claiming is not there.

Weak as piss.

Share this post


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

If you think Mr. Elvstrom didn't intimidate his competitors then you know nothing about him.

 

Absolutely - BUT - he did certainly not do it by cursing and swearing at them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randumb do you have early dementia or is it just that you are a hypocrite so often that you can't remember each one? 

Share this post


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

Randumb do you have early dementia or is it just that you are a hypocrite so often that you can't remember each one? 

I think he has multiple personalities.

Unfortunately everyone of them is a total dick.

Share this post


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

Randumb do you have early dementia or is it just that you are a hypocrite so often that you can't remember each one? 

I can remember saying that WOXI fouled and they should be DSQ'd.  You can't so which of us has the memory problem?

Weak as piss bro, I think you are losing it big-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 6:33 AM, sshow bob said:

When I hear vulgarity I hear at best lazy language choices, but generally weakness.  If someone communicating to me must pepper his language with unpleasant language - whether or not that language is vulgar, or consists of "curse" words - I hear a person who lacks confidence in his position.  When that person uses language - vulgar or otherwise - to frame me as part of that dialogue, I hear someone who is so unsure of his own standing, that he feels the need to try to reduce mine in order to prevail.  When I see a competitor demean or intimidate another competitor, I see someone who lacks either the skill or preparation to win on his own merits.  The guy who didn't go up when you called, "Leeward!" probably isn't going to go up when you tell him he's a Fuckwit, either.  Flag him, or don't, and continue on your way.

Speak to me how you will.  If I find it unpleasant you will not speak to me a second time. I will be sorry because I think my world is better with more inputs and more influences, but you will not be a force of hostility in my life.  If you want me to consider modifying my behavior, persuade me; don't try to shame or compel me.  I will do the same. 

This is not about taking other's people's crap, or not.  There is nothing that using language to offend can accomplish that confidence and persuasion cannot accomplish at least as well.  There nothing about being brash that makes a person strong.  Competence makes a person strong.  Perseverance makes a person strong.  Drive and desire make a person strong.

If you want to be heard, start by being someone worthy of listening to.

</sermon>

While I agree with much of what you say here, I have a mental image that is making me giggle, and that is of you going through this complete reasoning and decision making process, all the while another sailor is screaming "@#$%^&#&*&&#@^$%@!!!" at you.   . . .and it's 30 seconds later.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I can remember saying that WOXI fouled and they should be DSQ'd.  You can't so which of us has the memory problem?

Weak as piss bro, I think you are losing it big-time.

You should protest me then since you love the room so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

You should protest me then since you love the room so much.

Rule 2.  You would be fucked.  Then you might like a 69 from the committee.

Share this post


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

While I agree with much of what you say here, I have a mental image that is making me giggle, and that is of you going through this complete reasoning and decision making process, all the while another sailor is screaming "@#$%^&#&*&&#@^$%@!!!" at you.   . . .and it's 30 seconds later.

 

A good friens and I tease each other with: five minutes later its not a retort...

Share this post


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

Rule 2.  You would be fucked.  Then you might like a 69 from the committee.

Do they swallow?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 5:33 PM, Sail4beer said:

Like LB15 and WOXI or Comanche? Whichever boat it was..

Just saying...

 

On 6/4/2018 at 5:37 PM, random said:

What are you saying?

 

On 6/4/2018 at 5:41 PM, Sail4beer said:

You railed against him in the WOXI thread for letting one of them cross and not protesting. 

That’s what I am saying

Glad you owned up to it 

 

On 6/4/2018 at 6:00 PM, random said:

WTF are you talking about?  There was a successful protest and I supported it.

What are you on?

 

On 6/7/2018 at 5:42 PM, LB 15 said:

My fucking god you are a hypocrite. Remember giving me grief in the Hobart thread for not protesting WOXI? 

Snowflake.

He never gets it!

Short term memory distortion or some fancy shit like that...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should all chip in and buy him a hooker. He seems very bound up lately. He needs to pump the bilges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me more about the condition, so I'm prepared when it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randumb, I think a good root would sort you out - not sure if you're top or bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darky, thank you for yet another valuable contribution to the thread.  No personal attacks for you, just great content and insights into interesting concepts

Keep up the great work!

P.S. Tell me about your experience in being 'sorted out' by a good root?

Frasier-Im-Listening.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dark Cloud said:

thanks for your feedback Randumb - i feel much better now

image.png.14cef28133967c51b3b1cc89694dd8e3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 4:15 PM, Gutterblack said:

When was the last time you heard ...top sports people in any field use foul language unless they lose self control?    

                                                                                                                          

This is a joke, right?  Ever listen to any pro sport "mic'd up" on Youtube?  The difference you're pointing out is that some sports don't allow opportunities for inter player communication without spectators listening (tenns, golf).

Share this post


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

Tell me more about the condition, so I'm prepared when it happens.

 

2C9F2F0E-C5BD-4EA4-BC8B-F39F7778C66E.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, olshitsky said:

This is a joke, right? 

No, but the poster ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Elvstrom wisdom:

Quote

Here is an important idea: If you are fair and a nice man to everybody, they will accept that you are first; if you're not, then nobody will accept you are first. So it's much easier to be first if you are nice.

Let us say for instance, starboard/port. If the port is a little close to you, let him sail past you, because you shall pass him if you are better or you are faster. If there’s doubt, let him go, because this man, he will always accept that you will beat him, because he felt you were so fair.

And another thing. In a regatta, some people are crying, "Starboard!" Why? It's unnecessary. The man on port is not stupid. He knows that you are there. So it's nice to compete with people who are not using a big mouth.

 

Share this post


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

Not to pick a fight with the memory of a legend but I think if the port boat doesn't give you a clue as to its intentions, hailing Starboard before it gets to an imminent collision condition is as polite a way to say "WTF" as anything else.  Last Fall I was crewing for a club member with a new to him boat, on starboard, close hauled, and another boat from the next fleet up had us boresighted on port tack. The new skipper decided not to hail because we both knew the other skipper was experienced. Why insult him? He would surely tack or duck. Only he didn't. At the last second, with no time to hail and hope for a reaction, we crash tacked underneath. As the bigger yacht sailed over us I yelled "Why didn't you tack or duck" and their skipper just gave us a shrug and a smile and said "You never hailed". I was incensed but my skipper didn't want to rock the boat, the other boat wasn't in our class nor were we in contention at the finish, so he let it go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites