BLUEMOMENT

The only forums I have seen that function well are those with hands on moderation.

jim.r wrote:The only forums I have seen that function well are those with hands on moderation.

You're not suggesting that Nick is a bit haun'less?

I widnae dare,he micht take ra huff!

.. are you implying this forum isnae functioning well ye shitstirrinlangstreakopiss?

Moderation Is Not a Negation of Intensity, But Helps Avoid Monotony

Will you stop for a while, stop trying to pull yourself
together
for some clear "meaning" - some momentary summary?
no one
can have poetry or dances, prayers or climaxes all day;
the ordinary
blankness of little dramatic consciousness is good for the
health sometimes,
only Dostoevsky can be Dostoevskian at such long
long tumultuous stretches;
look what that intensity did to poor great Van Gogh!;
linger, lunge,
scrounge and be stupid, that doesn't take much centering
of one's forces;
as wise Whitman said "lounge and invite the soul." Get
enough sleep;
and not only because (as Cocteau said) "poetry is the
literature of sleep";
be a dumb bell for a few minutes at least; we don't want
Sunday church bells
ringing constantly.

-John Tagliabue

Nick wrote:no one can have poetry or dances, prayers or climaxes all day;

Not strictly true. Young ladies privileged enough to enjoy Hot-Markie-Lurve can climax all day. Oh yeah.

I think this guy was wrong!



I can find his Sail-No if required.

Nick wrote:.
There's more than a few sensible sounding sailors posting on YBW who never come over here for a chat - why do you think that is?

(Yes I know, probably the shocking rep. of the site owner - before someone else says it)

I always thought this forum was purely for Scottish sailing. Rightly or wrongly, that is the impression I had.

Alcyone wrote:

Nick wrote:.
There's more than a few sensible sounding sailors posting on YBW who never come over here for a chat - why do you think that is?

(Yes I know, probably the shocking rep. of the site owner - before someone else says it)

I always thought this forum was purely for Scottish sailing. Rightly or wrongly, that is the impression I had.

It says 'UK Sail Cruising Forum' at the top and always has . . . it has ended up predominately Scots by chance, not by intention.

No, I fully understand that. It's just a personal observation. You asked the question, that's my take. It may, or may not be something that others feel.

It didn't bother me, clearly, as I've always loved the place, anyway, and the waters up there.

FullCircle wrote:Ahem.

Aye but you've been barred from the other place - or at least that's what everyone seems to think despite Neil et al insisting that it's not so.

FullCircle wrote:Ahem...... I'm resting.........

Good Burns Night then? Here's a glass of water.

This (to my mind) is another example:

What is needed in these pirate infested waters is to behead offenders and for the other offenders to know about it. That will put an end to aspirant pirates' aspirations. The longer this sanguine requirement is delayed the worse the situation will become, and never mind the United Nations or anyone else.

And THAT is what is needed, nothing else.


Apart from the worryingly bloodthirsty tone:

Do countries with the death penalty have zero crime for capital offences?
Don't hundreds of Pirates die anyway in the course of carrying out the piracy?
Is it fair to force UK RN staff to carry out beheadings of prisoners? (If the Waffen SS didn't like it, will PO Smith from Droitwich like it?)
Nothing else? Wouldn't ending payment of Ransoms be effective also?

These guys can vote.

I wasn't aware that the ability to think was a prior requirement for enfranchisement.

I have seen little evidence of it elswhere.

Arghiro wrote:I wasn't aware that the ability to think was a prior requirement for enfranchisement.

I have seen little evidence of it elswhere.

I've always thought that every voting paper should come with a general knowledge paper and the vote be weighted on the result. So if you get 100pc your vote is worth 1. If you get 20pc your vote is worth .2.

Mark wrote:

Arghiro wrote:I wasn't aware that the ability to think was a prior requirement for enfranchisement.

I have seen little evidence of it elswhere.

I've always thought that every voting paper should come with a general knowledge paper and the vote be weighted on the result. So if you get 100pc your vote is worth 1. If you get 20pc your vote is worth .2.

I understand the principle, but who sets the questions? There is a lot of opportunity there to affect who votes.