"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 9:07 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

I've been watching the TV show. In any case, a small boat is no
threat to
a big ship.

Captains Richard Phillips (MV Maersk Alabama) and Kirk Lippold (USS
Cole)
would think otherwise.

Eisboch

You're claiming that the WW boat was intent on holding the Japanese crew
and
cargo hostage?? That's your argument?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Ma'am, I can't speak for Rich but I think he's demonstrating that
small boats can be a threat to craft larger than the Japanese whalers.
aka Somalian pirates. and Muslim terrorists that like to blow people
up along with themselves.

Anymore, if i was the captain of a large vessel,and a small (possibly
unflagged) boat approached at speed, I'd tend to be a shy bit leery
of their motives.

Reply:
Under the law, a commercial fishing boat in the act of fishing has right
of way over a small craft. Last year, some guy had to cough up about a
1/2 million bucks, from what I remember, to repair the bumper on the San
Raphael bridge after he cut off a large freighter that tried to avoid the
idiot. Hit the bridge bumper. Plus you can see the WW boat speed up. So
give the WW boat his wish and crash it with your massive steel bow. But
film it it cover your ass.

Again, I'm no expert, but looking at the Navigation Rules
(http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/navrules.htm), but Rule 7 seems
pretty clear. There's no mention of "right-of-way" as a factor that
invalidates it:

"Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If
there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist."

Also, Rule 8 seems to apply. Thus, as I said previously, it appears that
both boats were at fault.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Rule 17 does say the whaling vessel shall try to avoid another boat ignoring
the rules.
" This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep
out of the way" and the WW vessel was obligated to keep out of the way.

Rule 18
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

1.. a vessel not under command;
2.. a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
3.. a vessel engaged in fishing;
4.. a sailing vessel.
Fishing has been ruled as commercial fishing.

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 10:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 12:57 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Jan 9, 11:53 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message

m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

I've been watching the TV show. In any case, a small boat is no
threat
to a big ship.

Captains Richard Phillips (MV Maersk Alabama) and Kirk Lippold
(USS
Cole) would think otherwise.

Eisboch

You're claiming that the WW boat was intent on holding the Japanese
crew
and cargo hostage?? That's your argument?

Of course not. I was responding specifically to your comment. I
really
don't read all the posts here much anymore .... just skim through
them.
Your comment caught my attention.

Carry on. It's entertaining. Particularly your argument that the WW
boat was "moving slowly".
Have you ever considered the amount of released energy involved when
a
vessel weighing many tons
comes to a stop in time=zero, even at "slow" speeds?

Eisboch

Not sure what the released energy has to do with following
international
law? Perhaps you can clarify.

--
Nom=de=Plume

The cross-eyed girl with the distant stare strikes again.

Why don't you go back to calling me average. It sounds so much more like
the
child you are.

--
Nom=de=Plume
D'Plume. Child, I never have and never will call you "average."

In that case, you can stop calling me cross-eyed, child, or any other name
that's a put-down.

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume, it would help if your posts made a minimal amount of sense.
It is easy to do. Try thinking for a change.


It would help if you could read. Try it for a change. Change (and reading)
can be difficult.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 9:07 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

I've been watching the TV show. In any case, a small boat is no
threat to
a big ship.

Captains Richard Phillips (MV Maersk Alabama) and Kirk Lippold (USS
Cole)
would think otherwise.

Eisboch

You're claiming that the WW boat was intent on holding the Japanese
crew and
cargo hostage?? That's your argument?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Ma'am, I can't speak for Rich but I think he's demonstrating that
small boats can be a threat to craft larger than the Japanese whalers.
aka Somalian pirates. and Muslim terrorists that like to blow people
up along with themselves.

Anymore, if i was the captain of a large vessel,and a small (possibly
unflagged) boat approached at speed, I'd tend to be a shy bit leery
of their motives.

Reply:
Under the law, a commercial fishing boat in the act of fishing has right
of way over a small craft. Last year, some guy had to cough up about a
1/2 million bucks, from what I remember, to repair the bumper on the San
Raphael bridge after he cut off a large freighter that tried to avoid
the idiot. Hit the bridge bumper. Plus you can see the WW boat speed
up. So give the WW boat his wish and crash it with your massive steel
bow. But film it it cover your ass.

Again, I'm no expert, but looking at the Navigation Rules
(http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/navrules.htm), but Rule 7 seems
pretty clear. There's no mention of "right-of-way" as a factor that
invalidates it:

"Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing
circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If
there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist."

Also, Rule 8 seems to apply. Thus, as I said previously, it appears that
both boats were at fault.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Rule 17 does say the whaling vessel shall try to avoid another boat
ignoring the rules.
" This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to
keep out of the way" and the WW vessel was obligated to keep out of the
way.

Rule 18
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

1.. a vessel not under command;
2.. a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
3.. a vessel engaged in fishing;
4.. a sailing vessel.
Fishing has been ruled as commercial fishing.



I agree.. the WW was obligated, but since it didn't (at least that's the
argument, which isn't yet clear), the J boat needed to take evasive action.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 10:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:


snip

Actually, I do have a friend who lives in Hollywood. She's in a band.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Betty Blowtorch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxSNANQ89W8


Minus the tattoos, it's not that far off actually. She's much younger than
I.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Jan 10, 11:40*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



snip

It would help if you could read. Try it for a change. Change (and reading)
can be difficult.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I'm quite certain you have drawn that conclusion on your own.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 9:07 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

I've been watching the TV show. In any case, a small boat is no
threat to
a big ship.

Captains Richard Phillips (MV Maersk Alabama) and Kirk Lippold (USS
Cole)
would think otherwise.

Eisboch

You're claiming that the WW boat was intent on holding the Japanese
crew and
cargo hostage?? That's your argument?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Ma'am, I can't speak for Rich but I think he's demonstrating that
small boats can be a threat to craft larger than the Japanese whalers.
aka Somalian pirates. and Muslim terrorists that like to blow people
up along with themselves.

Anymore, if i was the captain of a large vessel,and a small (possibly
unflagged) boat approached at speed, I'd tend to be a shy bit leery
of their motives.

Reply:
Under the law, a commercial fishing boat in the act of fishing has
right of way over a small craft. Last year, some guy had to cough up
about a 1/2 million bucks, from what I remember, to repair the bumper
on the San Raphael bridge after he cut off a large freighter that tried
to avoid the idiot. Hit the bridge bumper. Plus you can see the WW
boat speed up. So give the WW boat his wish and crash it with your
massive steel bow. But film it it cover your ass.

Again, I'm no expert, but looking at the Navigation Rules
(http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/navrules.htm), but Rule 7 seems
pretty clear. There's no mention of "right-of-way" as a factor that
invalidates it:

"Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the
prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of
collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to
exist."

Also, Rule 8 seems to apply. Thus, as I said previously, it appears that
both boats were at fault.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Rule 17 does say the whaling vessel shall try to avoid another boat
ignoring the rules.
" This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to
keep out of the way" and the WW vessel was obligated to keep out of the
way.

Rule 18
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

1.. a vessel not under command;
2.. a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
3.. a vessel engaged in fishing;
4.. a sailing vessel.
Fishing has been ruled as commercial fishing.



I agree.. the WW was obligated, but since it didn't (at least that's the
argument, which isn't yet clear), the J boat needed to take evasive
action.

--
Nom=de=Plume


The J boat took action, just not the correct one for the idiots of the WW.

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:40:20 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 10:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 12:57 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Jan 9, 11:53 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message

m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

I've been watching the TV show. In any case, a small boat is no
threat
to a big ship.

Captains Richard Phillips (MV Maersk Alabama) and Kirk Lippold
(USS
Cole) would think otherwise.

Eisboch

You're claiming that the WW boat was intent on holding the Japanese
crew
and cargo hostage?? That's your argument?

Of course not. I was responding specifically to your comment. I
really
don't read all the posts here much anymore .... just skim through
them.
Your comment caught my attention.

Carry on. It's entertaining. Particularly your argument that the WW
boat was "moving slowly".
Have you ever considered the amount of released energy involved when
a
vessel weighing many tons
comes to a stop in time=zero, even at "slow" speeds?

Eisboch

Not sure what the released energy has to do with following
international
law? Perhaps you can clarify.

--
Nom=de=Plume

The cross-eyed girl with the distant stare strikes again.

Why don't you go back to calling me average. It sounds so much more like
the
child you are.

--
Nom=de=Plume
D'Plume. Child, I never have and never will call you "average."

In that case, you can stop calling me cross-eyed, child, or any other name
that's a put-down.

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume, it would help if your posts made a minimal amount of sense.
It is easy to do. Try thinking for a change.


It would help if you could read. Try it for a change. Change (and reading)
can be difficult.

My goodness. You're wasting your time, as you already know.

Arguing with a thinking person of another opinion can be engaging, a
challenge and even inspiring.

You'll find none of that with this dolt.

Thought you'd appreciate a periodic reminder that you needn't bang
your head against a wall.

TopBassDog wrote:
On Jan 10, 10:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:


snip
Actually, I do have a friend who lives in Hollywood. She's in a band.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Betty Blowtorch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxSNANQ89W8


That's Krausies kind of woman.

Jim wrote:
TopBassDog wrote:
On Jan 10, 10:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:


snip
Actually, I do have a friend who lives in Hollywood. She's in a band.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Betty Blowtorch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxSNANQ89W8


That's Krausies kind of woman.

Uh-huh...how's that fat, old, 1940's vintage woman of yours...the one
who tossed you out of the bedroom because a cucumber was stronger,
firmer and smelled better?

jps wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:40:20 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jan 10, 10:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 12:57 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 11:53 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
I've been watching the TV show. In any case, a small boat is no
threat
to a big ship.
Captains Richard Phillips (MV Maersk Alabama) and Kirk Lippold
(USS
Cole) would think otherwise.
Eisboch
You're claiming that the WW boat was intent on holding the Japanese
crew
and cargo hostage?? That's your argument?
Of course not. I was responding specifically to your comment. I
really
don't read all the posts here much anymore .... just skim through
them.
Your comment caught my attention.
Carry on. It's entertaining. Particularly your argument that the WW
boat was "moving slowly".
Have you ever considered the amount of released energy involved when
a
vessel weighing many tons
comes to a stop in time=zero, even at "slow" speeds?
Eisboch
Not sure what the released energy has to do with following
international
law? Perhaps you can clarify.
--
Nom=de=Plume
The cross-eyed girl with the distant stare strikes again.
Why don't you go back to calling me average. It sounds so much more like
the
child you are.
--
Nom=de=Plume
D'Plume. Child, I never have and never will call you "average."
In that case, you can stop calling me cross-eyed, child, or any other name
that's a put-down.

--
Nom=de=Plume
D'Plume, it would help if your posts made a minimal amount of sense.
It is easy to do. Try thinking for a change.

It would help if you could read. Try it for a change. Change (and reading)
can be difficult.

My goodness. You're wasting your time, as you already know.

Arguing with a thinking person of another opinion can be engaging, a
challenge and even inspiring.

You'll find none of that with this dolt.

Thought you'd appreciate a periodic reminder that you needn't bang
your head against a wall.

He's right Maam. You needn't keep banging your head on the wall.
JPS is challenging you to be engaged and be inspired by him and not
waste your time with those other fools who can't appreciate how smart
you are. You can't improve yourself unless you reach out and take a
chance on entering into discussion with minds greater than yours. DON'T
BE AFRAID. JUST DO IT.