|
I Approve of This
wrote in message
... On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:03:03 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: I really doubt the Sea Snappers thought the Japanese whaler was recording the incident. A Jap without a camera? Impossible. That's funny... a bit racist, but funny. Reminds me of Caddy Shack. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I Approve of This
wrote in message
... On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:33:49 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:02:36 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Four seconds??? Where did that number come from? The WW boat has been around the Japanese fleet for weeks/months. Please, please filter me! You're just too odd. The point is the ship was not chasing the little boat. The little boat was harassing the ship and simply got too close. They deserve what they got. These pirates have a history of ramming the whaling ships in an effort to damage equipment and perhaps hurt the whalers. They were clearly the aggressors and the victims have the right to defend their ship, their property and their lives. Nope.. not good enough. Harassment and threatening life and limb are two different things. Feel free to keep defending the Japanese mercenaries, when it's clear that both parties were at fault in the collision. Perhaps you have not really followed the activities of Sea Shepherd. The other method they use is to scrape equipment off the side of whaling vessels with their larger ships. Any time you are intentionally hitting another ship you are endangering everyone. I've watched the entire series and never saw anything like what you describe. I think you should point us to a vid that shows such a deliberate move. The little boat had the means to avoid the collision and they didn't do it. case closed. The big ship's only obligation, as the one with reduced maneuvering capability, was to maintain course and speed. Case isn't closed, except perhaps in your mind. It's unclear what happened. It's being investigated, but you're not willing to wait for that, right? There is an international Whaling Commission, that the Japanese participate in. What they are doing is legal. If you and your Hollywood buddies don't like it, change the law. The US and the UN will not do anything to stop them. I suppose we could nuke the *******s again, I'm OK with that but we would have to nuke Iceland and Norway too. (They also kill whales) Also unclear if it's legal or not. I don't have any "Hollywood buddies." That's just right-wing bs. Suddenly, the US and the UN should intrude in other countries' affairs? Doesn't jibe with your previous isolationist comments. Yes, nuke em and let God sort it out. That sure is a pat answer isn't it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I Approve of This
wrote in message
... On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:04:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Perhaps you have not really followed the activities of Sea Shepherd. The other method they use is to scrape equipment off the side of whaling vessels with their larger ships. Any time you are intentionally hitting another ship you are endangering everyone. I've watched the entire series and never saw anything like what you describe. I think you should point us to a vid that shows such a deliberate move. Why was the small boat in front of the ship? It is clearly defined that in cases of that much disparity in maneuvering capability the more maneuverable boat is the burdened vessel. The ship only has to maintain course and speed. That is what I saw in the video. The little boat had the means to avoid the collision and they didn't do it. case closed. The big ship's only obligation, as the one with reduced maneuvering capability, was to maintain course and speed. Case isn't closed, except perhaps in your mind. It's unclear what happened. It's being investigated, but you're not willing to wait for that, right? see above See above what? Has the investigation been concluded? There is an international Whaling Commission, that the Japanese participate in. What they are doing is legal. If you and your Hollywood buddies don't like it, change the law. The US and the UN will not do anything to stop them. I suppose we could nuke the *******s again, I'm OK with that but we would have to nuke Iceland and Norway too. (They also kill whales) Also unclear if it's legal or not. I don't have any "Hollywood buddies." That's just right-wing bs. Suddenly, the US and the UN should intrude in other countries' affairs? Doesn't jibe with your previous isolationist comments. Yes, nuke em and let God sort it out. That sure is a pat answer isn't it. Eco-terrorism is terrorism as much as ethno terrorism. It is quite apparent that these pirates are not willing to work through legal means so they go out and endanger anyone who they disagree with. The Japanese would be within their rights to send a destroyer out there to escort their whalers, the same as they do with their freighters off Somalia.. This piracy has been going on for years and there is plenty of video out there of them bragging about damaging equipment and trying to disable a whaling ship. They show a clear disregard for the lives of the crews. If you think they are justified killing someone engaged in an activity you disagree with you are no better than those who justify a clinic bomber. I am not a big fan of whaling either and I would like to see it stop but piracy is not the answer. Sea shepherds is a hollywood backed group in case you are not aware of that It's not clear it's eco-terrorism. That's what the Japanese call it. Others call it saving endangered or threatened species. If the Japanese want to send a destroyer, I'd say go for it. They certainly have the capability, yet they don't. I wonder why. Perhaps they don't want to be embarassed further. Please show where they've endangered Japanese crew by attempting to disable a Japanese ship. Every attempt has mostly failed. 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I Approve of This
"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. |
I Approve of This
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." |
I Approve of This
"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 |
I Approve of This
"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 |
I Approve of This
wrote in message
... On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:27:33 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I am not a big fan of whaling either and I would like to see it stop but piracy is not the answer. Sea shepherds is a hollywood backed group in case you are not aware of that It's not clear it's eco-terrorism. That's what the Japanese call it. Others call it saving endangered or threatened species. That's what the ELF says when they burn a ski lodge too. Most terrorists have some kind of high minded excuse for their illegal acts. There has to be a better way to protest the Japanese whaling than piracy. If the Japanese want to send a destroyer, I'd say go for it. They certainly have the capability, yet they don't. I wonder why. Perhaps they don't want to be embarassed further. Please show where they've endangered Japanese crew by attempting to disable a Japanese ship. Every attempt has mostly failed. How do you disable a ship and destroy equipment without risking the crew? It is just going to be a matter of time until someone gets killed out there. At that point I hope the whole SS gang gets charged with murder. 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). 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. :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
I Approve of This
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. |
I Approve of This
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 |
I Approve of This
"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 Approve of This
"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 |
I Approve of This
"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 |
I Approve of This
"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 |
I Approve of This
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. |
I Approve of This
"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. |
I Approve of This
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. |
I Approve of This
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. |
I Approve of This
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? |
I Approve of This (FOR NOM)
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. |
I Approve of This
nom=de=plume wrote:
"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. Maam, I see you dusted off the books and started to look at the rules. Find some that you like and with your best attourney skills, make them fit your argument. Way to go girl. I'm in your corner. H |
I Approve of This
Harry wrote:
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? I do recall seeing a picture you posted of a sixties vintage emaciated looking woman with dirty blonde or light brown hair, who seemed to be having trouble holding her liquor. She was kind of pathetic looking hanging on to that archway trying to maintain her dignity. Is she a recovering alcaholic? Is that why you don't keep liquor in the house? |
I Approve of This
Harry wrote:
Harry wrote: 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? I do recall seeing a picture you posted of a sixties vintage emaciated looking woman with dirty blonde or light brown hair, who seemed to be having trouble holding her liquor. She was kind of pathetic looking hanging on to that archway trying to maintain her dignity. Is she a recovering alcaholic? Is that why you don't keep liquor in the house? One wonders just how much LSD flajim needs each day to maintain his delusions. |
I Approve of This
On Jan 11, 9:44*am, Harry wrote:
Harry wrote: Harry wrote: 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? I do recall seeing a picture you posted of a sixties vintage emaciated looking woman with dirty blonde or light brown hair, who seemed to be having trouble holding her liquor. She was kind of pathetic looking hanging on to that archway trying to maintain her dignity. Is she a recovering alcaholic? Is that why you don't keep liquor in the house? One wonders just how much LSD flajim needs each day to maintain his delusions. He doesn't. It's called permanent Brain Damage..... |
I Approve of This
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. |
I Approve of This
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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I Approve of This
"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. |
I Approve of This
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "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. Certainly true... -- Nom=de=Plume |
I Approve of This
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!! |
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!! Don't they explode? -- Nom=de=Plume |
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 02:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com