Jump to content


Editorial Integrity


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#101 couchsurfer

couchsurfer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,754 posts
  • Location:NA westcoast
  • Interests:...pimping HOOTs
    ...i550 NW circuit

Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:35 PM


Ah, try estimating the percentage of your posts that are related to Reid Stowe, vs my percentage (probably scarcely over 1%.) Or any other person that you claim to be obsessed with the guy.

Could be a wake-up call.

Btw, you may want to get a refund on that dictionary or thesaurus: it isn't doing well for you.



you obsequiously obsessed asshole One Percenter :P


hey asshole you want to remain an asshole then stalk me on sa to prove you're stowe fucking obsessed wherever i post and then fucking blame me for it. asshole.

in this one case you may have something as to the idea of stowe being libeled or whatever the fuck the legal term is, his so called friends slandered and stalked by the fucking cult here on SA with the active encouragement of the SA editorial board or so it would appear, at least certainly not their interference in the gang cyber bullying campaign which certainly caused damage to Stowe, and definitely hurt people who were only marginally involved by dragging their names through the mud, unreasonably slanderous conduct in posts over years which would call into question the integrity of the non-existent editorial process on fake sailing anarchy, unless it's their ass on the line that is threatened with legal action.
Posted Image


fark,I can imagine you as a 4 yearold playing in a sandbox <_<

....not hard at all :)

#102 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:08 PM


Ah, try estimating the percentage of your posts that are related to Reid Stowe, vs my percentage (probably scarcely over 1%.) Or any other person that you claim to be obsessed with the guy.

Could be a wake-up call.

Btw, you may want to get a refund on that dictionary or thesaurus: it isn't doing well for you.



you obsequiously obsessed asshole One Percenter :P


hey asshole you want to remain an asshole then stalk me on sa to prove you're stowe fucking obsessed wherever i post and then fucking blame me for it. asshole.

in this one case you may have something as to the idea of stowe being libeled or whatever the fuck the legal term is, his so called friends slandered and stalked by the fucking cult here on SA with the active encouragement of the SA editorial board or so it would appear, at least certainly not their interference in the gang cyber bullying campaign which certainly caused damage to Stowe, and definitely hurt people who were only marginally involved by dragging their names through the mud, unreasonably slanderous conduct in posts over years which would call into question the integrity of the non-existent editorial process on fake sailing anarchy, unless it's their ass on the line that is threatened with legal action.
Posted Image


Go for it sport! You have a great case - it was obvious that Stowe was on the path to immortality until this place pooped in that pie.

Get together, hire a lawyer, and start spitting out papers.

Better hurry though, the line is growing.

#103 narecet

narecet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:21 PM


in this one case you may have something as to the idea of stowe being libeled or whatever the fuck the legal term is, his so called friends slandered and stalked by the fucking cult here on SA with the active encouragement of the SA editorial board or so it would appear, at least certainly not their interference in the gang cyber bullying campaign which certainly caused damage to Stowe, and definitely hurt people who were only marginally involved by dragging their names through the mud, unreasonably slanderous conduct in posts over years which would call into question the integrity of the non-existent editorial process on fake sailing anarchy, unless it's their ass on the line that is threatened with legal action.


Go for it sport!


"Don't call me sport, friend!"

"I'm not your friend, guy!"

"Well, I'm not your guy, buddy!"

"I'm not your buddy, friend!"


Etc...

#104 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:25 PM

He started it. He called us a "fucking cult".

Can't even spell cunt right.

#105 Harpoon

Harpoon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,011 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 09:45 PM

Fucking cunt cult.

#106 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts

Posted 29 March 2012 - 11:00 PM

used frangas etc
Sorted.



OK, so what's a 'franga'?

:P


Its what a few poster's dads should have used.

#107 pikeout

pikeout

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:17 AM

Franga means you come from Frankston. It's also a give away as to where you come from.

#108 Mexican

Mexican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,529 posts
  • Location:From south of the border

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:18 AM

Franga means you come from Frankston. It's also a give away as to where you come from.

Correct but in the wrong context.

In this case, "used frangas" refers to used condoms.

Mex

#109 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:49 AM


Franga means you come from Frankston. It's also a give away as to where you come from.

Correct but in the wrong context.

In this case, "used frangas" refers to used condoms.

Mex


Only in Mexico.

#110 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:53 AM



Franga means you come from Frankston. It's also a give away as to where you come from.

Correct but in the wrong context.

In this case, "used frangas" refers to used condoms.

Mex


Only in Mexico.


Franga or condom, I would have gladly shouted your dad some since he quite obviously couldn't afford them.

#111 Flatbag

Flatbag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,121 posts
  • Location:High above the river...
  • Interests:Shattering illusions

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:03 AM




Franga means you come from Frankston. It's also a give away as to where you come from.

Correct but in the wrong context.

In this case, "used frangas" refers to used condoms.

Mex


Only in Mexico.


Franga or condom, I would have gladly shouted your dad some since he quite obviously couldn't afford them.


Get it right guys!
A Franga is a resident of the Melbourne bayside suburb of Frankston, arguably the arsehole of the world.

A Ranga is a redheaded person. A Franga Ranga is a totally lost cause.

A Franger, however, is a condom. Origin obscure.

#112 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:27 AM

Get it right guys!
A Franga is a resident of the Melbourne bayside suburb of Frankston, arguably the arsehole of the world.

A Ranga is a redheaded person. A Franga Ranga is a totally lost cause.

A Franger, however, is a condom. Origin obscure.



Flatbag, I'll stand corrected. However I've seen both spellings for `condom' and its in an on line urban dictionary with that spelling. Nevertheless I'd hate to be culturally insensitive to the good people of Frankston so `Franger' it is.

#113 highndry

highndry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests:inshore / offshore, cruising, travel, retirement

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:34 AM

Franga is a contraction of another name for condomn, " Frenchie "

#114 auscat

auscat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts
  • Location:Airlie Beach

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:03 AM




Franga means you come from Frankston. It's also a give away as to where you come from.

Correct but in the wrong context.

In this case, "used frangas" refers to used condoms.

Mex


Only in Mexico.


Franga or condom, I would have gladly shouted your dad some since he quite obviously couldn't afford them.


If he'ed just kept it in his sisters mouth it wouldn't be a problem:o :P :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

#115 punter

punter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:00 AM

Should the site be re-named from Anarchy to Conformity?

#116 Tryandsueme

Tryandsueme

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Location:My head up my ass
  • Interests:Seeing everyone knows the truth

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:14 AM

NS says jump,SA says how high ......

#117 Jabbawocky

Jabbawocky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Lots

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:51 AM

Posted ImageIts an interesting paradym shift, here at Sailing Conformity.


You can shoot the breeze, talk racist rubbish, cuss and cuss but Nicole Scot and her good friends Judith Webb, Judiann Scott Kippin, Sue Slander and Cassandra Decastro have shown that it you get serious and call rubbish what it is on Sailing Conformity the thread is likely to get yanked and the serious contributor get banned.

You really would be forgiven for thinking that the title of this thread is correct.

Editorial Integrity gone AWOL

Of course, Scott and Alan can prove its correct by pressing the delete button on any of us, not sure that is a way forward that will work for long.

What do you think?


.

#118 Flatbag

Flatbag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,121 posts
  • Location:High above the river...
  • Interests:Shattering illusions

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:27 AM

Franga is a contraction of another name for condomn, " Frenchie "


Derived of course from the infamous French Letter, ie the one that comes in a little envelope.

Fuck it, how do I know all this shit?

#119 Flatbag

Flatbag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,121 posts
  • Location:High above the river...
  • Interests:Shattering illusions

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:30 AM

Posted ImageIts an interesting paradym shift, here at Sailing Conformity.


You can shoot the breeze, talk racist rubbish, cuss and cuss but Nicole Scot and her good friends Judith Webb, Judiann Scott Kippin, Sue Slander and Cassandra Decastro have shown that it you get serious and call rubbish what it is on Sailing Conformity the thread is likely to get yanked and the serious contributor get banned.

You really would be forgiven for thinking that the title of this thread is correct.

Editorial Integrity gone AWOL

Of course, Scott and Alan can prove its correct by pressing the delete button on any of us, not sure that is a way forward that will work for long.

What do you think?


.


Scooter owns the joint, he can do what he likes. Clean on the other hand... Seen here at the last SA Editorial Meeting:
Attached File  Blaze of glory.JPG   832.36K   14 downloads

#120 narecet

narecet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:38 PM

Actually I don't get this. Clean's involvement seems to have been minimal.

Reportedly and my personally not seeing any other evidence that would have me think different, Clean:
  • Received article
  • Decided to pass it on (may not have been within job description to deem it a bad direction to go and therefore bin it on his own)
  • Corrected punctuation and e-mailed to Scot, who edited further -- possibly only condensing -- and decided to put on FP
  • Stated pretty much the above in some posts, probably insulted a few people along the way
  • Didn't post any agreement with calls for apology or retraction of FP article (probably not within job description / authority) and probably had one or two posts supporting the editorial decisions
  • Posted statements and started a thread saying SA was threatened with lawsuits, he explained thread deletions on this basis, and asked that people stop making false statements of fact about NS on this basis
  • Didn't flick anyone or delete any threads (if I understand correctly, he's not the guy that does that)
So regardless of journalism lacks, yellow journalism, or any other trait, it seems to me more that while this was (as personal opinion, not statement of fact) a very Clean-esque episode, it seems Clean actually had little involvement or causative effect.

Don't get me wrong: as personal opinion, I think that if the car keys had been in Clean's hands, he'd probably have done most of the same things as actually happened. So it's not spoiling my cornflakes that he's being blamed for it. But it does seem he was not actually in the driver's seat at any point.

#121 dyslexic dog

dyslexic dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,057 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:55 PM



So for example do you think the flick of the fellow (not myself) who wrote the "Sailing Tyranny" parody was from possible lawsuits resulting from Clean and Tempesta's actions being criticized?


I missed reading that..

Are Clean and Tempesta liable for our posts on their site?

:unsure: that's an unsure face.



Re-reading the "Sailing Tyranny" parody - (I still have the original) there was no reference to who wrote the alleged article on which the parody was based. There was also no reference to any other matters that have been raised by the supposed press release from saiingimages.net


So I woud say NO - rather it is likely that the parody piece simply cut too close to the bone, as it queried the editorial integrity and fairness of the SA editors.

Melb_Paul is still flicked - I don't really care. Don't bother with the site much anymore. Just check occasionally to see what else is popping up regarding the issue.

previously Melb_Paul


SO, can you post it again so we all can read it? Or send it to me if you don't want to get flicked. I could care less if I do.

#122 SA Lurker

SA Lurker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 504 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:26 PM

Actually I don't get this. Clean's involvement seems to have been minimal.

Reportedly and my personally not seeing any other evidence that would have me think different, Clean:

  • Received article
  • Decided to pass it on (may not have been within job description to deem it a bad direction to go and therefore bin it on his own)
  • Corrected punctuation and e-mailed to Scot, who edited further -- possibly or as personal opinion probably only condensing -- and decided to put on FP
  • Stated pretty much the above in some posts, probably insulted a few people along the way
  • Didn't post any agreement with calls for apology or retraction of FP article (probably not within job description / authority) and probably had one or two posts supporting the editorial decisions
  • Posted statements and started a thread saying SA was threatened with lawsuits, he explained thread deletions on this basis, and he asked that people stop making false statements of fact about NS on this basis
  • Didn't flick anyone or delete any threads (if I understand correctly, he's not the guy that does that)
So regardless of journalism lacks, yellow journalism, or any other trait, it seems to me more that while this was (as personal opinion, not statement of fact) a very Clean-esque episode, it seems Clean actually had little involvement or causative effect.

Don't get me wrong: as personal opinion, I think that if the car keys had been in Clean's hands, he'd probably have done most of the same things as actually happened. So it's not spoiling my cornflakes that he's being blamed for it. But it does seem he was not actually in the driver's seat at any point.


The Scooter/Clean response to the Community take on what appeared to be a rather benign affair with NS seemed a bit rash.

One casualty, the Melb-Paul piece, was well-crafted but may have come too close to Truth for their comfort.

But that Clean would endeavor to put an end to the topic with "OK, you've had your fun" suggests that he's lost touch with what drives the Forums.

And the beat goes on...

#123 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:39 PM


Actually I don't get this. Clean's involvement seems to have been minimal.

Reportedly and my personally not seeing any other evidence that would have me think different, Clean:

  • Received article
  • Decided to pass it on (may not have been within job description to deem it a bad direction to go and therefore bin it on his own)
  • Corrected punctuation and e-mailed to Scot, who edited further -- possibly or as personal opinion probably only condensing -- and decided to put on FP
  • Stated pretty much the above in some posts, probably insulted a few people along the way
  • Didn't post any agreement with calls for apology or retraction of FP article (probably not within job description / authority) and probably had one or two posts supporting the editorial decisions
  • Posted statements and started a thread saying SA was threatened with lawsuits, he explained thread deletions on this basis, and he asked that people stop making false statements of fact about NS on this basis
  • Didn't flick anyone or delete any threads (if I understand correctly, he's not the guy that does that)
So regardless of journalism lacks, yellow journalism, or any other trait, it seems to me more that while this was (as personal opinion, not statement of fact) a very Clean-esque episode, it seems Clean actually had little involvement or causative effect.

Don't get me wrong: as personal opinion, I think that if the car keys had been in Clean's hands, he'd probably have done most of the same things as actually happened. So it's not spoiling my cornflakes that he's being blamed for it. But it does seem he was not actually in the driver's seat at any point.


The Scooter/Clean response to the Community take on what appeared to be a rather benign affair with NS seemed a bit rash.

One casualty, the Melb-Paul piece, was well-crafted but may have come too close to Truth for their comfort.

But that Clean would endeavor to put an end to the topic with "OK, you've had your fun" suggests that he's lost touch with what drives the Forums.

And the beat goes on...


Foreigners seem to drive SA currently.

#124 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:09 PM

Actually I don't get this. Clean's involvement seems to have been minimal.

Reportedly and my personally not seeing any other evidence that would have me think different, Clean:

  • Received article
  • Decided to pass it on (may not have been within job description to deem it a bad direction to go and therefore bin it on his own)
  • Corrected punctuation and e-mailed to Scot, who edited further -- possibly only condensing -- and decided to put on FP
  • Stated pretty much the above in some posts, probably insulted a few people along the way
  • Didn't post any agreement with calls for apology or retraction of FP article (probably not within job description / authority) and probably had one or two posts supporting the editorial decisions
  • Posted statements and started a thread saying SA was threatened with lawsuits, he explained thread deletions on this basis, and asked that people stop making false statements of fact about NS on this basis
  • Didn't flick anyone or delete any threads (if I understand correctly, he's not the guy that does that)
So regardless of journalism lacks, yellow journalism, or any other trait, it seems to me more that while this was (as personal opinion, not statement of fact) a very Clean-esque episode, it seems Clean actually had little involvement or causative effect.

Don't get me wrong: as personal opinion, I think that if the car keys had been in Clean's hands, he'd probably have done most of the same things as actually happened. So it's not spoiling my cornflakes that he's being blamed for it. But it does seem he was not actually in the driver's seat at any point.


I seem to remember reading - either in the article or in the response from Mr Box - that some phone calls were made from SA to the club whining about the lack of a free ride for their rep, and the resultant bad pub that could occur. Doesn't seem like Tempesta's MO.

#125 narecet

narecet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:23 PM

True, there was the phone call between Clean and Box, or phone calls. I didn't include that above because I didn't recall anything about threats by Clean or anything except his trying to find out why the ride wasn't provided, which itself doesn't seem directly causative of the problems at all.

I don't know whether the call or calls had threats of bad publicity. But to be complete, now that you point it out, I should have had the call or calls in there.

I was staying away from speculation. For example, we could speculate that Clean could have egged NS on: but with absolutely zero evidence! And so what would the point be. It doesn't seem a necessary assumption, given other things we've seen since.

#126 Jabbawocky

Jabbawocky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Lots

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:58 PM

What is also incredible is that SA would take on a 'world renowned' contributor with no evidence of her 'greatness', other than her own website and facebook page.

Just 5 mins reading by an adult would show they were (and this is only an opinion) just self serving rubbish from a no talent photgrapher.

As I noted some-one saying weeks ago, buying a Nikon does noit make you a photographer, it just makes you a Nikon owner.

#127 couchsurfer

couchsurfer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,754 posts
  • Location:NA westcoast
  • Interests:...pimping HOOTs
    ...i550 NW circuit

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:38 PM

But that Clean would endeavor to put an end to the topic with "OK, you've had your fun" suggests that he's lost touch with what drives the Forums.
And the beat goes on...


I imagine he knew what he was doing-----stir the pot,,10 more pages of tripe <_<

#128 parody_paul

parody_paul

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Lots

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:27 PM




So for example do you think the flick of the fellow (not myself) who wrote the "Sailing Tyranny" parody was from possible lawsuits resulting from Clean and Tempesta's actions being criticized?


I missed reading that..

Are Clean and Tempesta liable for our posts on their site?

:unsure: that's an unsure face.



Re-reading the "Sailing Tyranny" parody - (I still have the original) there was no reference to who wrote the alleged article on which the parody was based. There was also no reference to any other matters that have been raised by the supposed press release from saiingimages.net


So I woud say NO - rather it is likely that the parody piece simply cut too close to the bone, as it queried the editorial integrity and fairness of the SA editors.

Melb_Paul is still flicked - I don't really care. Don't bother with the site much anymore. Just check occasionally to see what else is popping up regarding the issue.

previously Melb_Paul


SO, can you post it again so we all can read it? Or send it to me if you don't want to get flicked. I could care less if I do.




Sure why not.....

The parody (original is below)

Sailing Tyranny, the website encouraging unfettered discussion on all things sailinghas commenced shutting down forum discussions at will. you might remember itas Sailing Anarchy from years past. Usually attracting more than 50,000visitors from Sydney readers and contributors, it was, until recently, thelargest community driven sailing discussion site.

Such a prestigious site attractsadvertisers, media players, photographers and sailors alike, however this week,organizers from Sailing Anarchy seemed more interested in getting negativepublicity and member criticism than in gaining good exposure for their marqueewebsite. At least that's the lesson learnt from Sailing Anarchy officials thisweek, when they refused to comment on well substantiated claims by insiders ofa breakdown in journalistic standards and ethics, and commenced deleting forumtopics at will.

As a regular reader, and sometimecontributor to the forums, I and all other bona fide members of the site (aswell as the general public) have been excluded from access to Sailing Anarchy'smost read and contributed forums of this week.

The website has no problem allowingother forum topics to continue, but only if they do not criticize the editorialstaff. Despite repeated requests by members, no reasons have been provided forthe unilateral decisions taken.

Sailing Anarchy has also not respondedto industry rumours that a leaner budget this week has resulted in smallercapacity within the forum database.

Due to the lack of feedback, thisreporter can only draw on information listed in the about page, namely,

" Where the hell else are you going tohave this much freedom to say what you want? After all, that is ultimately whatAnarchy is all about"

Officials would not respond to requestsfor an explanation of how deleting numerous forum topics fits the abovecommitment.

Sailing Anarchy had a long and esteemedpartnership with its members, but relations with the members broke down thisweek. Reasons for the breakdown were never released publicly, but given SA'sapparent lack of interest in generating maxium exposure for much lauded forums,the members probably made the right call.

To secure the vast majority of membersfor such a large forum is imperative for its quality and longevity, and onlymaximum attention to journalistic ethics and contributor selection duediligence can convince the large membership to get behind the forums.

Journalistic ethics also ensure thatthe less prominent members thos that haven't abandoned ship yet get returnfor their time spent in the forums. After all, deleting numerous forums beforeless active members have had a chance to complete their reading doesn't bodewell for continued membership.

SA officials seem to have no idea ofthese basic tenets, and their lackluster commitment to journalistic integrityand lack of response to member queries may contribute to a substantial fall ifdaily page visits in the coming weeks.

Rumours are rife that SA has been hithard by a failure to properly vet stories before publishing, and one can't helpbut wonder if their mismanagement of basic reporting duties isn't just the tipof the iceberg.

It has also been reported that membersare planning an "Occupy Anarchy" protest, where members will attempt to createas many forum topics related to the questionable reporting ethics as possible,scheduled for 12 noon 3/16/2012 USA EST.

Will SA's premier member forum loseanother 10 topics tomorrow, and each day onwards? Or will it crash under theunceasing pressure of the members.

Will it survive at all?

Not like this is won't.



And the original.....



Middle Harbour Yacht Club hosted their annual Sydney Harbour Regatta thisweekend you might remember it as the Audi Sydney Harbour Regatta from yearspast. Usually attracting more than 300 boats racing in 24 divisions on 8courses, it was, until recently, the largest keelboat regatta in Australia.
Such a prestigious event attracts media attention domestically and on aninternational level, however this year, organisers from Middle Harbour YachtClub seemed more interested in getting negative press and criticism than ingaining good exposure for their marquee event. At least that's the lessonlearnt from MHYC officials last week, when they excluded Sydney's (and theworld's) most prominent sailing website from shooting their event.
As Sailing Anarchy's chief Aussie contributor, I and several other bona fidemembers of the sailing media were excluded from access to MHYC's photo andmedia boats. The club had no problem finding spots on their boats for amateurphotographers with no press affiliation, but according to MHYC marketingmanager Alana Whiting, 'budgetary constraints' were behind the snafu for more establishedpress. "With a much leaner budget for this year's SHR event we areunfortunately already at capacity with media & photographer requests to beonsite and on our media boat for SHR and will not be able to accommodate youthis year," Whiting told me. She reportedly was still making spots availablefor unregistered media after rejecting Sailing Anarchy's presence.
Chairman of the Sydney Harbour Regatta, Ian Box, wasn't on quite the same pageas Ms. Whiting, 'We have three media boats arranged for the event and we'restruggling to get a volunteer driver for third boat'. Box told a differentstory to Sailing Anarchy Senior Editor Alan Block in a phone conversation whenhe explained that the regatta had only one media RIB available for the event."We only have spots for five media members," he said to Block's disbelief.Despite my registering for the event in February and constant attempts tocontact Club staff for three weeks, Box couldn't explain why club officials hadso much trouble accommodating my request or even responding, nor did he explainwhy he didn't know how many boats he had.

Audi had a long and esteemed partnership with the Sydney Harbour Regatta,but negotiations with MHYC broke down for the 2012 event. Reasons for thebreakdown were never released publicly, but given MHYC's apparent lack ofinterest in generating maximum exposure for their biggest event, Audi probablymade the right call.
To secure a major naming rights-sponsor for such a large event is imperativefor both its quality and longevity, and only maximum media exposure canconvince big companies to get behind yachting events. Media exposure alsoensures that the less prominent sponsors those that haven't abandoned shipyet get return for the money they spend on sponsorship, and positive storieson major events are essential to attract non-racers to yachting and dinghysailing. MHYC personnel seem to have no idea of these basic tenets, and theirlacklustre promotional and media presence may have contributed to the SHR seeingnearly 100 boats fewer on the line this year.
Rumours are rife that MHYC had been hard-hit by the loss of Audi, and one can'thelp but wonder if their mismanagement of basic regatta duties isn't just thetip of the iceberg. Will Sydney's premier regatta lose another 30% of its fleetin 2013? Will it survive at all?
Not like this it won't.




#129 narecet

narecet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:44 PM

Btw this wasn't in hindsight after the fairly-numerous flicks and thread deletions after "Occupy" had been underway for several hours: insightfully and presciently, it was right at the start.

#130 DRIFTW00D

DRIFTW00D

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,363 posts
  • Location:Blue Water Area Great Lakes

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:29 AM




#131 narecet

narecet

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:48 AM

How did it ever happen that Sonny had zero career post-Cher?

Who'da ever seen that one coming?

#132 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts
  • Location:a park by the sea

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:53 AM

How did it ever happen that Sonny had zero career post-Cher?

Who'da ever seen that one coming?


that's what the tree said

#133 Snaggletooth

Snaggletooth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,698 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 02:45 AM


Thisse one is cuute, Sonny syille thickes hes nekuille partnere.... :)

How did it ever happen that Sonny had zero career post-Cher?

She wase seene asa archtipe baibe of teh midde sixteese, herre carere juste wente on an on. Sonny lackt this qualty. :)

#134 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 02:55 AM

Sure why not.....

The parody (original is below)

Sailing Tyranny, the website encouraging unfettered discussion on all things sailinghas commenced shutting down forum discussions at will. you might remember itas Sailing Anarchy from years past. Usually attracting more than 50,000visitors from Sydney readers and contributors, it was, until recently, thelargest community driven sailing discussion site.

Such a prestigious site attractsadvertisers, media players, photographers and sailors alike, however this week,organizers from Sailing Anarchy seemed more interested in getting negativepublicity and member criticism than in gaining good exposure for their marqueewebsite. At least that's the lesson learnt from Sailing Anarchy officials thisweek, when they refused to comment on well substantiated claims by insiders ofa breakdown in journalistic standards and ethics, and commenced deleting forumtopics at will.

As a regular reader, and sometimecontributor to the forums, I and all other bona fide members of the site (aswell as the general public) have been excluded from access to Sailing Anarchy'smost read and contributed forums of this week.

The website has no problem allowingother forum topics to continue, but only if they do not criticize the editorialstaff. Despite repeated requests by members, no reasons have been provided forthe unilateral decisions taken.

Sailing Anarchy has also not respondedto industry rumours that a leaner budget this week has resulted in smallercapacity within the forum database.

Due to the lack of feedback, thisreporter can only draw on information listed in the about page, namely,

" Where the hell else are you going tohave this much freedom to say what you want? After all, that is ultimately whatAnarchy is all about"

Officials would not respond to requestsfor an explanation of how deleting numerous forum topics fits the abovecommitment.

Sailing Anarchy had a long and esteemedpartnership with its members, but relations with the members broke down thisweek. Reasons for the breakdown were never released publicly, but given SA'sapparent lack of interest in generating maxium exposure for much lauded forums,the members probably made the right call.

To secure the vast majority of membersfor such a large forum is imperative for its quality and longevity, and onlymaximum attention to journalistic ethics and contributor selection duediligence can convince the large membership to get behind the forums.

Journalistic ethics also ensure thatthe less prominent members thos that haven't abandoned ship yet get returnfor their time spent in the forums. After all, deleting numerous forums beforeless active members have had a chance to complete their reading doesn't bodewell for continued membership.

SA officials seem to have no idea ofthese basic tenets, and their lackluster commitment to journalistic integrityand lack of response to member queries may contribute to a substantial fall ifdaily page visits in the coming weeks.

Rumours are rife that SA has been hithard by a failure to properly vet stories before publishing, and one can't helpbut wonder if their mismanagement of basic reporting duties isn't just the tipof the iceberg.

It has also been reported that membersare planning an "Occupy Anarchy" protest, where members will attempt to createas many forum topics related to the questionable reporting ethics as possible,scheduled for 12 noon 3/16/2012 USA EST.

Will SA's premier member forum loseanother 10 topics tomorrow, and each day onwards? Or will it crash under theunceasing pressure of the members.

Will it survive at all?

Not like this is won't.



And the original.....



Middle Harbour Yacht Club hosted their annual Sydney Harbour Regatta thisweekend you might remember it as the Audi Sydney Harbour Regatta from yearspast. Usually attracting more than 300 boats racing in 24 divisions on 8courses, it was, until recently, the largest keelboat regatta in Australia.
Such a prestigious event attracts media attention domestically and on aninternational level, however this year, organisers from Middle Harbour YachtClub seemed more interested in getting negative press and criticism than ingaining good exposure for their marquee event. At least that's the lessonlearnt from MHYC officials last week, when they excluded Sydney's (and theworld's) most prominent sailing website from shooting their event.
As Sailing Anarchy's chief Aussie contributor, I and several other bona fidemembers of the sailing media were excluded from access to MHYC's photo andmedia boats. The club had no problem finding spots on their boats for amateurphotographers with no press affiliation, but according to MHYC marketingmanager Alana Whiting, 'budgetary constraints' were behind the snafu for more establishedpress. "With a much leaner budget for this year's SHR event we areunfortunately already at capacity with media & photographer requests to beonsite and on our media boat for SHR and will not be able to accommodate youthis year," Whiting told me. She reportedly was still making spots availablefor unregistered media after rejecting Sailing Anarchy's presence.
Chairman of the Sydney Harbour Regatta, Ian Box, wasn't on quite the same pageas Ms. Whiting, 'We have three media boats arranged for the event and we'restruggling to get a volunteer driver for third boat'. Box told a differentstory to Sailing Anarchy Senior Editor Alan Block in a phone conversation whenhe explained that the regatta had only one media RIB available for the event."We only have spots for five media members," he said to Block's disbelief.Despite my registering for the event in February and constant attempts tocontact Club staff for three weeks, Box couldn't explain why club officials hadso much trouble accommodating my request or even responding, nor did he explainwhy he didn't know how many boats he had.

Audi had a long and esteemed partnership with the Sydney Harbour Regatta,but negotiations with MHYC broke down for the 2012 event. Reasons for thebreakdown were never released publicly, but given MHYC's apparent lack ofinterest in generating maximum exposure for their biggest event, Audi probablymade the right call.
To secure a major naming rights-sponsor for such a large event is imperativefor both its quality and longevity, and only maximum media exposure canconvince big companies to get behind yachting events. Media exposure alsoensures that the less prominent sponsors those that haven't abandoned shipyet get return for the money they spend on sponsorship, and positive storieson major events are essential to attract non-racers to yachting and dinghysailing. MHYC personnel seem to have no idea of these basic tenets, and theirlacklustre promotional and media presence may have contributed to the SHR seeingnearly 100 boats fewer on the line this year.
Rumours are rife that MHYC had been hard-hit by the loss of Audi, and one can'thelp but wonder if their mismanagement of basic regatta duties isn't just thetip of the iceberg. Will Sydney's premier regatta lose another 30% of its fleetin 2013? Will it survive at all?
Not like this it won't.


I wrote a parody like that at Sailnet. It actually had way more teeth for the dudes running the show over there at the time - and I didn't even get flicked. And that's Sailnet!

Personally, I say well done. That's some classic prose there my good man. Some dudes are just tender when it comes to protecting the status quo.

She wase the archtipe baibe of teh midde sixteese, herre carere juste wente on an on. Sonny lackt this qualty. :)



You're right Snags. Sonny was definitely not the archetypical babe.

#135 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,601 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:24 AM

The parody piece was quite funny. What wasn't funny was melb_paul spraying it like diarrhea all over the forums, on threads that had nothing at all to do with it.

#136 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:27 AM

The parody piece was quite funny. What wasn't funny was melb_paul spraying it like diarrhea all over the forums, on threads that had nothing at all to do with it.


Okay - you've got a point there. But seriously, was that flickworthy? The "thread-spamming" card is pretty weak - especially when it's played in the midst of an occupy self-immolation rave.

Free the melb...and give him a Schmulitzer Prize.

#137 parody_paul

parody_paul

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Lots

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:31 AM

The parody piece was quite funny. What wasn't funny was melb_paul spraying it like diarrhea all over the forums, on threads that had nothing at all to do with it.



Hey Mr. Clean.

I take offence at that!

I didn't.

I posted that once or twice....... I suggest you re-check your offline records. I didn't think it deserved reposting so much - but it twasn't me.

I'll take the fall for shit I do, but not for stuff I didn't.

*looking for the emoticon that suits : shove an air pump hose up your [select word]*



EDIT: forgot to add, previously Melb_Paul, Oh and thanks for the compliment :P

#138 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:41 AM


The parody piece was quite funny. What wasn't funny was melb_paul spraying it like diarrhea all over the forums, on threads that had nothing at all to do with it.



Hey Mr. Clean.

I take offence at that!

I didn't.

I posted that once or twice....... I suggest you re-check your offline records. I didn't think it deserved reposting so much - but it twasn't me.

I'll take the fall for shit I do, but not for stuff I didn't.

*looking for the emoticon that suits : shove an air pump hose up your [select word]*



EDIT: forgot to add, previously Melb_Paul, Oh and thanks for the compliment :P

Belated, but well done Paully.

#139 parody_paul

parody_paul

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Lots

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:49 AM

Personally, I say well done. That's some classic prose there my good man. Some dudes are just tender when it comes to protecting the status quo.


Thanks :D Constructive criticism is always welcomed in my world Posted Image

#140 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,061 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:26 AM

Even when she was "hot" I wouldn't have fucked Cher with Lonely Bouy 15's dick.

Mainly cause it would have taken forever to find it (presuming it exists), and secondly, well, Cher....

Carry on.

#141 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,755 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 04:30 AM

Even when she was "hot" I wouldn't have fucked Cher with Lonely Bouy 15's dick.

Mainly cause it would have taken forever to find it (presuming it exists), and secondly, well, Cher....

Carry on.


Dude, no offense, but you're no Sonny. And that's saying something.

#142 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 10:02 AM


Even when she was "hot" I wouldn't have fucked Cher with Lonely Bouy 15's dick.

Mainly cause it would have taken forever to find it (presuming it exists), and secondly, well, Cher....

Carry on.


Dude, no offense, but you're no Sonny. And that's saying something.


I don't know, post tree incident - maybe.

#143 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,061 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:59 PM

That insult was so insipid I barely had to look who wrote it. I already have Johnnysaint on ignore.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users