I Approve of This
 

Tim wrote:
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

Excellent. Reminds me of a stunt show I saw over at Hollywood studios.

I Approve of This
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:11:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
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


What about Rule 17:

"When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed
finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of
the
give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to
avoid
collision."

I think the Somali pirates have been using that excuse for a long time.

When a boat is overtaking you and ramming your port side, it is hard
to evade.
In the first video we are talking about a boat with perhaps 3 times
the speed capability that has been harassing the Japs for a month (by
your account) so evading the collision is not even an issue.
At a certain point they just followed the strict rules of the road and
let Newton decide the fate.
If this was a SW Florida shrimper they would have sunk all the Sea
Shepard boats by now, one way or another. Since we nuked them the Japs
have become too docile for their own good.
I still say, if they want to stop the whalers, go after the Japanese
companies that send these ships put. The sailors on the ships are just
poor schmucks who are trying to make a living during hard times.


Ummm.... the WW boat that was damaged was not overtaking, which is obvious
from the vid., so I'm not sure where you're getting that.

I think you're ranting. The rules need to be followed even if you don't
agree with them.


--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:43:50 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


A say again, this foolishness will go on until somebody dies.

Not exactly the same situation, but someone already has. Remember the
sinking of the Rainbow Warrior?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking...ainbow_Warrior

I Approve of This
 

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:43:50 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


A say again, this foolishness will go on until somebody dies.

Not exactly the same situation, but someone already has. Remember the
sinking of the Rainbow Warrior?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking...ainbow_Warrior


A torpedo or a limpet mine...now that might stop or slow down Japan's
whaling industry.

I Approve of This
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:11:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
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

What about Rule 17:

"When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed
finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of
the
give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to
avoid
collision."

I think the Somali pirates have been using that excuse for a long time.
When a boat is overtaking you and ramming your port side, it is hard
to evade.
In the first video we are talking about a boat with perhaps 3 times
the speed capability that has been harassing the Japs for a month (by
your account) so evading the collision is not even an issue.
At a certain point they just followed the strict rules of the road and
let Newton decide the fate.
If this was a SW Florida shrimper they would have sunk all the Sea
Shepard boats by now, one way or another. Since we nuked them the Japs
have become too docile for their own good.
I still say, if they want to stop the whalers, go after the Japanese
companies that send these ships put. The sailors on the ships are just
poor schmucks who are trying to make a living during hard times.


Ummm.... the WW boat that was damaged was not overtaking, which is obvious
from the vid., so I'm not sure where you're getting that.

I think you're ranting. The rules need to be followed even if you don't
agree with them.


Watch this video. Notice the plastic boat holding position till the
moment it decides to gun its engines and ram the whaling vessel. The
collision never would have happened if the plastic boat had maintained
its position and let the whaling vessel safely pass. What rule could the
whaler have followed to avoid the collision once the plastic boat
started to make it's move to ram?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_5wEWaqe8

I Approve of This
 

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:31:58 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"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.


Loogy needs to read, "Run Silent, Run Deep". Although it's fiction, it
does give a decent accounting of the torpedo problems we had in the
Pacific against the Japanese. Torpedos without an explosion don't give
*nearly* the bang for the buck.


--

America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.

John H

I Approve of This
 

John H wrote:

Loogy needs to read, "Run Silent, Run Deep". Although it's fiction, it
does give a decent accounting of the torpedo problems we had in the
Pacific against the Japanese. Torpedos without an explosion don't give
*nearly* the bang for the buck.



Herring apparently is going to remind us on a daily basis that he read a
book that was popular in his youth and was made into a movie.

I Approve of This
 

On Jan 12, 8:24*am, John H wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:31:58 -0800, "Bill McKee"





wrote:

"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.

Loogy needs to read, "Run Silent, Run Deep". Although it's fiction, it
does give a decent accounting of the torpedo problems we had in the
Pacific against the Japanese. Torpedos without an explosion don't give
*nearly* the bang for the buck.

--

America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, are you really trying to say that the mass is the only factor
and that the velocity of that mass doesn't do anything??? Really?

I Approve of This
 

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:24 am, John H wrote:

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.
Loogy needs to read, "Run Silent, Run Deep". Although it's fiction, it
does give a decent accounting of the torpedo problems we had in the
Pacific against the Japanese. Torpedos without an explosion don't give
*nearly* the bang for the buck.

--


John, are you really trying to say that the mass is the only factor
and that the velocity of that mass doesn't do anything??? Really?


Oh boy...two of our best morons, herring and notnowloogy, locking antlers.

I Approve of This
 

On Jan 11, 8:31*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Velocity has a huge part in the equation, Bill! How do you think that
a bullet gets through a piece of steel weighing any number of times
more than the bullet??