+1
Rolf, what is stopping you from exercising your moderating super powers?

One of the things I like about Sailing Anarchy is the lack of moderation. You really have to piss in someone's Wheaties to get a thread or post edited. I uses to be on a woodworking forum, and virtually every thread had been modified. That bullshlt gets old rather quickly.

There is no censoring here, just a Napoleon Complex by a few posters..

Tony,
Rolf does not moderate this specific board ..

There is a difference between tossing offensive points of view and boorish or disagreeable points of view.

The F16's got their panties in a bunch and decided to moderate their forum to stop what they saw as boorish and disagreeable behavior that they felt injured their class image .... end result... very short sighted...the chilling effect was noticeable. nobody pays much attention any longer. Moreover, if they tossed a handful of posts since then ... I would be stunned.
Not much good comes from trying to regulate speech that is on the topic.

However, moderating offensive speech and deleting or sending it to the political thread is more in the lines of housekeeping.... I think of it as pulling weeds.

moderating the personal attacks of one participant on the other is a grey area... (Sam vs Wouter) (Wouter vs WF) (Wouter vs Bill Roberts) (Macca vs the F16 crowd)

When the attacks just become personal... eg... the classic "JANE... YOU IGNORANT SLUT" not much positive happens. I don't believe any of those posts were tossed... The participants basically quit.

Not much good comes about when people quit or when the moderator has to step in and stop the crap!

Self regulation is the best solution. Props again to Bacho for deleting his tag line.

"The F16's got their panties in a bunch and decided to moderate their forum to stop what they saw as boorish and disagreeable behavior that they felt injured their class image .... end result... very short sighted...the chilling effect was noticeable. nobody pays much attention any longer. Moreover, if they tossed a handful of posts since then ... I would be stunned.
Not much good comes from trying to regulate speech that is on the topic."

The F16 class is doing just fine, despite the best efforts of people like you!

I miss Mary!

This forum, like any forum has "house rules". IIRC, the "house rule" on politics was expressed by Mary a while back. It was "sailors talking to sailors about politics" and therefore OK.

But Jeremy is right. Politics and sailing are mixed categories and therefore trouble. I vote to nix the political threads. It's sailing...

As far as purchasing goes, I buy from good dealers and spend a little more. But I price shop if dealers sell junk and don't ship things in a timely manner.

Regarding racism. Whether for it or against it, anyone who uses the word "racism" is racist. Civility is a better word.

Not true. I had a post deleted that had quotes from a thieving vendor.

I wonder what Jeremy's view on this would be...

I shop the best service. If that means that I pay 10% more, then absolutely. I will always give a local vendor the opportunity to earn my business, but in the end, if the service isn't there, then I have a hard time returning. In the specific case of local sponsorship you presented, then the same rules apply, and I'll certainly give them a run and see how they do, but if they don't provide the service, I have a hard time returning.

No comment.

That's some hypocritical,spun ,bullshite, that makes YOU look racist. Just because you think you're being righteous doesn't mean you're not being racist. Trying to justify it with hypothetical percentages and stats is weak ,at best.



So if this( or ,say inmate statistics) turns out to be fact instead of perception, how the F*** is it racist to point out a statistical fact. Are you really so scared you are going to hurt someone's feelings or piss someone off that you'll ignore those facts while refusing to ignore all of bacho's posts ?


And in the end isn't that exactly what libs do best.

Jake, I'm glad we don't talk politics when we see each other, it would seriously cut in to some good drinking and boat talk time.

Todd, give me a freakin' break. You think turning it around is a "liberal thing"? Seriously? If that's so, it's because you guys make it so darn easy. Try this; Why aren't you the "bigger man" here and hush here as Lee recommended when he didn't agree with what I said? That piss you off? It did me.

In the post you quoted, all I did was provide a logical (and actual) definition of racism pointing out why Lee's reverse example wasn't really racist. It wasn't a racist statement because the majority of people in government housing probably aren't white. I didn't look up the statistics so I quoted "perception". Which is really what racism is based on anyway. Are you really worried that I used "perception" instead of fact? Does that really bother you?

Nope, I'm not really bothered by any of this except the oversensitivity. My point is if you find statistics saying any race is disproportionately represented in a situation (public housing, prisons, etc.) , you seem to think that it's racist if that is pointed out. Yet, in the same situation but the term white being used , you're OK with that. It's the same thing and should be treated the same.Personally ,I think everyone should HTFU and not be so overly sensitive. I'm definitely not defending racism, it exists and sucks , but this ain't a case of it. The current pres. is open game as was everyone before it as shown in one of Schneider's posts above. Are you going to stand up for Mitt Romney when the Mormon jokes start?



No, I think the reason is spin and subterfuge are all you've got. Facts don't seem to help your case.

I haven't quoted one statistic. I talked about perception.

Let me spell it out a different way. The statement in question "Obama is just another black man in government housing" is racist. It is racist because "...just another black man..." plays on the perception that African Americans make up a significant portion of people that partake of government provided housing and it infers that it is due to their skin color ("just another"). This is racist. It is not me trying to make anything of, or for, myself. This is not me "spinning" anything...in fact, if you look up the definition of "racism", you'll see that this fits within the definition and that the counter example does not because it's not as common for white people to be in government housing. I also haven't brought politics or political persuasion into this.

This is the only fact that I've discussed...and I'm not sure how it doesn't help my case. It's pretty clear.

Would you say that it is a "distinctive cultural characteristic" that white people are in government housing? It is not. This is why the posted counter statement is not racist.

You haven't pissed me off, I'm not sure you could.
I'm not defending racism ( It has affected me far more than you'll ever know), just thought your reaction, in multiple threads to 1 persons sig line was over the top. You stated how you felt, which you should, and then felt compelled to bully him in other threads until he dropped. That's my point.
So, I'll correct the word choice of my other example by saying- You're OK with religious bigotry, just not racism.

Todd

What are you doing?..

I thought you would get the hint...
Hillbilly... Cultural bigotry.
Polish or Cuban jokes... Ethnic bigotry.
Mormon or Catholic..... Religious bigotry.

THEN WE DRAW A BRIGHT LINE.... on the bigotry that involves race..... (hint... its the genes)

Jake is not approving or condoning any of this crap... he just highlighted the line....Racist things that are way over the top. It sounds like you want to muddy the line. Why?

I got it... you don't like Obama's politics... take it to the drill baby drill politics.... don't blur the lines

First, I try to buy locally, hopefully a shop that I can actually visit and see the merchandise and develop a relationship with the owner. Second, I buy from those that are associated with the brand boat that I sail in order tohave support from the manufacturer. After that, price.....

You're not making sense. This is the only thread I posted about it and it remains here. I responded only once directly to the person with the signature and then I only responded to those that addressed me directly. Now you complain about me continuing this thread but it was dead until you revived it again addressing me directly...and this continued discussion is somehow my fault? Typical.

When did religious bigotry enter the picture? I've never discussed that here. Now you are just inventing stuff trying to muddy the water.

Typical of what? Independent voters, White men in their 40s, Christians, Blue collar workers,... What are you trying to say Jake? That sounded a bit bigoted.
The religous bigotry came up when you said my Mitt/Mormon question wasn't the same as the Black man stuff.Try to keep up.

I'm done, I've got to go to work to help pay for our presidents housing, rather he deserves it or not.