|
I Approve of This
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:51:49 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:
Not necessarily! Speed is an integral part in the equation, too. I don't think torpedos are the same or greater mass than their intended targets!! Don't they explode? Yes! If they hit the target. The difference in a strike and a home run in baseball. They're not trying to keep it honest and simple for you. But you knew that, didn't you? |
I Approve of This
"RLM" wrote in message
... On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:51:49 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote: Not necessarily! Speed is an integral part in the equation, too. I don't think torpedos are the same or greater mass than their intended targets!! Don't they explode? Yes! If they hit the target. The difference in a strike and a home run in baseball. They're not trying to keep it honest and simple for you. But you knew that, didn't you? I would hope they would at least keep it honest for themselves. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I Approve of This
John H wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:24:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:10:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The J boat took action, just not the correct one for the idiots of the WW. What action? It seems to at a minimum kept going in the same direction. Just because the other boat acted foolishly doesn't justify inaction by the other. The regs say his obligation is to maintain course and speed, which they did, on film. That was the point of the video I suppose. BTW the Somali pirates are jumping on the SS bandwagon, saying their piracy is protecting the fishing in their area from foreign exploitation. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-68761347.html Oh for Christ's sake, enough is enough. You and I both know that there were many things the whaling ship could have done besides maintain course and speed when he was being intentionally rammed. That Japanese captain could have: Swerved into the other lane... Dropped his anchors... Applied the brakes... Pulled up his emergency brake... Put the boat in reverse and raised rpm as high as it would go... Applied his reverse thrust air brakes... And any number of other things besides that which is required by the regs. After all, he was driving a Camray, no? In his defence the road looked wet. He probably skidded. |
I Approve of This
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:21:34 -0500, Jim wrote:
John H wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:24:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:10:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The J boat took action, just not the correct one for the idiots of the WW. What action? It seems to at a minimum kept going in the same direction. Just because the other boat acted foolishly doesn't justify inaction by the other. The regs say his obligation is to maintain course and speed, which they did, on film. That was the point of the video I suppose. BTW the Somali pirates are jumping on the SS bandwagon, saying their piracy is protecting the fishing in their area from foreign exploitation. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-68761347.html Oh for Christ's sake, enough is enough. You and I both know that there were many things the whaling ship could have done besides maintain course and speed when he was being intentionally rammed. That Japanese captain could have: Swerved into the other lane... Dropped his anchors... Applied the brakes... Pulled up his emergency brake... Put the boat in reverse and raised rpm as high as it would go... Applied his reverse thrust air brakes... And any number of other things besides that which is required by the regs. After all, he was driving a Camray, no? In his defence the road looked wet. He probably skidded. LOL! Maybe that will satisfy Da Plum. OK, OK, cite him for following too close. Jeeeesh. -- America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. John H |
I Approve of This
In article ,
says... On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:24:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:10:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The J boat took action, just not the correct one for the idiots of the WW. What action? It seems to at a minimum kept going in the same direction. Just because the other boat acted foolishly doesn't justify inaction by the other. The regs say his obligation is to maintain course and speed, which they did, on film. That was the point of the video I suppose. BTW the Somali pirates are jumping on the SS bandwagon, saying their piracy is protecting the fishing in their area from foreign exploitation. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-68761347.html Oh for Christ's sake, enough is enough. You and I both know that there were many things the whaling ship could have done besides maintain course and speed when he was being intentionally rammed. That Japanese captain could have: Swerved into the other lane... Dropped his anchors... Applied the brakes... Pulled up his emergency brake... Put the boat in reverse and raised rpm as high as it would go... Applied his reverse thrust air brakes... And any number of other things besides that which is required by the regs. After all, he was driving a Camray, no? ??? |
I Approve of This
In article ,
says... John H wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:24:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:10:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The J boat took action, just not the correct one for the idiots of the WW. What action? It seems to at a minimum kept going in the same direction. Just because the other boat acted foolishly doesn't justify inaction by the other. The regs say his obligation is to maintain course and speed, which they did, on film. That was the point of the video I suppose. BTW the Somali pirates are jumping on the SS bandwagon, saying their piracy is protecting the fishing in their area from foreign exploitation. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-68761347.html Oh for Christ's sake, enough is enough. You and I both know that there were many things the whaling ship could have done besides maintain course and speed when he was being intentionally rammed. That Japanese captain could have: Swerved into the other lane... Dropped his anchors... Applied the brakes... Pulled up his emergency brake... Put the boat in reverse and raised rpm as high as it would go... Applied his reverse thrust air brakes... And any number of other things besides that which is required by the regs. After all, he was driving a Camray, no? In his defence the road looked wet. He probably skidded. LOL... |
I Approve of This
On Jan 11, 5:21*pm, Jim wrote:
John H wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:24:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:10:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The J boat took action, just not the correct one for the idiots of the WW. What action? It seems to at a minimum kept going in the same direction. Just because the other boat acted foolishly doesn't justify inaction by the other. The regs say his obligation is to maintain course and speed, which they did, on film. That was the point of the video I suppose. BTW the Somali pirates are jumping on the SS bandwagon, saying their piracy is protecting the fishing in their area from foreign exploitation. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-68761347.html Oh for Christ's sake, enough is enough. You and I both know that there were many things the whaling ship could have done besides maintain course and speed when he was being intentionally rammed. That Japanese captain could have: Swerved into the other lane... Dropped his anchors... Applied the brakes... Pulled up his emergency brake... Put the boat in reverse and raised rpm as high as it would go... Applied his reverse thrust air brakes... And any number of other things besides that which is required by the regs. After all, he was driving a Camray, no? In his defense the road looked wet. He probably skidded. I know that the Deuche Vasserpolizei did an excellent job sliding on this wet pavement, and using their brakes too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiByN...eature=related |
I Approve of This
"Loogypicker" wrote in message ... On Jan 11, 2:44 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... wrote in message . .. On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:17:01 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: By the way, try this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDsZcLVXyn8 At least they are not a perpetrating false flag attack. They are flying the Jolly Roger. Clearly they know they are pirates. Also note the angle of approach on the attack and tell me who has the right of way when SS rams the whaler. I think it's the boat on the right, which would be the Japanese. In any case, they could have made an attempt to avoid the collision, which is required by international rules (see other post). I hope you don't actually operate your boat What is the significance of the area from dead ahead to 135 degrees off your starboard beam? *hint* If you drive a car it is the same You can't really cite nav rules when one boat is intentionally hitting the other. It was clear the SS pirates pursued the whalers. BUT In this video the SS pirate rammed the whaler on the port side. Quick question, what color is your port running light? That is a tip about who is the give way vessel and who is the stand on vessel. Red says STOP before you hit me. The ONLY obligation the whaler had was to maintain course and speed. When the overtaking vessel, that is faster than you, rams you in the port beam it is not easy to evade that. They seem to take great pains to avoid hitting people with their stink bombs. They've never come close to hurting someone as far as I recall. They may be backed by some in Hollywood, but since I don't have any "buddies" there, your comment is out of order. I apologize You are right that was not necessary. Actually, I do have a friend who lives in Hollywood. She's in a band. :) A band of pirates? :-) Also they forgot Newton's 3rd law. All that conservation of momentum stuff. A right wing freak out? I think the first two are more applicable. Also, I think the First Law of Thermo is also applicable. -- Nom=de=Plume They forgot the law of more mass wins the crash.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not necessarily! Speed is an integral part in the equation, too. I don't think torpedos are the same or greater mass than their intended targets!! Explosions are a factor not in the equation. But large mass wins in most every crash. My favorite professor in engineering school always had great questions on his tests. One of the test quesstions in Dynamics, as far as I can remember the question, was a 3500# VW microbus loaded with hippies doing 75 mph gets in a non-elastic collision and no parts are lost with an 80,000# semi doing 35. What is the final speed, and the velocity changes. The VW has a 105 mph change in velocity and the truck loses 5 mph. |
I Approve of This
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:57:07 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:24:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:10:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The J boat took action, just not the correct one for the idiots of the WW. What action? It seems to at a minimum kept going in the same direction. Just because the other boat acted foolishly doesn't justify inaction by the other. The regs say his obligation is to maintain course and speed, which they did, on film. That was the point of the video I suppose. BTW the Somali pirates are jumping on the SS bandwagon, saying their piracy is protecting the fishing in their area from foreign exploitation. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-68761347.html Oh for Christ's sake, enough is enough. You and I both know that there were many things the whaling ship could have done besides maintain course and speed when he was being intentionally rammed. That Japanese captain could have: Swerved into the other lane... Dropped his anchors... Applied the brakes... Pulled up his emergency brake... Put the boat in reverse and raised rpm as high as it would go... Applied his reverse thrust air brakes... And any number of other things besides that which is required by the regs. After all, he was driving a Camray, no? ??? You have to have really been following the story closely, Scotty. Otherwise my comments wouldn't make sense. Da Plum is 'pretty smart' (according to herself) so she'll surely catch the irony. -- America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com