I Approve of This
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 1:12 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Jan 9, 1:24 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:22:01 -0800, JR North
wrote:
Mebbe you would change your mind if somone shot a harpoon into you.
JR
Mebbe YOU would change your mind if someone rammed your boat because
you were fishing.
There are plenty of PETA folks who think that is cruel to the fish,
deplete the seas and whatever
From what I heard, the Whale Wars boat boat was not moving. It was
rammed.
Are you really trying to defend the Japanese whaling industry??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/...rctica_whaling
Even if the WW boat was still moving isn't it at a minimum _both_
boats'
fault? That's how I read the laws involved.
--
Nom=de=Plume
This vid looks to me like it was moving right along the side of the
Japanese fisherman then decided to cut across the bow and got
clipped:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/17481983
A couple of things... First, this vid is from the Japanese
perspective, so
it can't be considered definitive. Second, the WW mother ship probably
has
contradictory vid that we haven't seen - I read they have five camera
angles. Third, both sides are obligated to avoid a collision, and
since the
Japanese and the WW boat could take action to do that, both should be
at
fault.

--
Nom=de=Plume
What a dip. Have you ever heard of 'maneuverability'? Your knowledge
of maritime law is eclipsed only by...
Yes, but there's no indication that the Japanese boat even tried. It's
not like it was heavy fog or they didn't know the other boat was
around.

Can't think of anything.
Pretty much sums up your "thinking."

--
Nom=de=Plume

~~ Snerk ~~ You tell him sister!

And, I'm not a maritime attorney even...


yeah, but you are one sexy moma

Jim...control yourself.

I Approve of This
 

On 1/9/2010 2:28 PM, John H wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:09:54 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 1:12 pm, wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 9, 1:24 am, wrote:



wrote in message

...

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:22:01 -0800, JR North
wrote:

Mebbe you would change your mind if somone shot a harpoon into you.
JR

Mebbe YOU would change your mind if someone rammed your boat because
you were fishing.
There are plenty of PETA folks who think that is cruel to the fish,
deplete the seas and whatever

From what I heard, the Whale Wars boat boat was not moving. It was
rammed.
Are you really trying to defend the Japanese whaling industry??

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/...rctica_whaling

Even if the WW boat was still moving isn't it at a minimum _both_ boats'
fault? That's how I read the laws involved.

--
Nom=de=Plume
This vid looks to me like it was moving right along the side of the
Japanese fisherman then decided to cut across the bow and got clipped:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/17481983

A couple of things... First, this vid is from the Japanese perspective, so
it can't be considered definitive. Second, the WW mother ship probably has
contradictory vid that we haven't seen - I read they have five camera
angles. Third, both sides are obligated to avoid a collision, and since
the
Japanese and the WW boat could take action to do that, both should be at
fault.

--
Nom=de=Plume

What a dip. Have you ever heard of 'maneuverability'? Your knowledge
of maritime law is eclipsed only by...

Yes, but there's no indication that the Japanese boat even tried. It's not
like it was heavy fog or they didn't know the other boat was around.

Can't think of anything.

Pretty much sums up your "thinking."

What 'signs' are you looking for? Do you expect a ship that big to
show 'signs' in about 4 seconds?

I knew I had you filtered for a reason.

We boys on the right are afraid of women smarter than us.

I Approve of This
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:42:55 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Four seconds was about the reaction time the whaler had when the
little boat turned into his path.

Dense? I guess so.


BS.. they had weeks to figure out how to avoid the other boats.

Dense, you betcha you are.
--

How does a ship avoid a boat that can do 50 kts?
Are you saying they should abandon their chosen career and go build
Toyotas?

You sound like the people who blow up abortion clinics and then blame
the doctor .


Hey Doctor... the WW boat was barely moving, even by the Japanese vid.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

On Jan 9, 6:33*pm, "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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

mercenaries/

i thought they were whalers, not hired thugs for somebody...

I Approve of This
 

Tim wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:33 pm, "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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

mercenaries/

i thought they were whalers, not hired thugs for somebody...



There's not much difference between whalers and hired thugs.

I Approve of This
 

On Jan 9, 6:33*pm, "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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Sea Shepherd likes to ram people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDsZc...&feature=email

I Approve of This
 

Jim wrote:
On 1/9/2010 2:28 PM, John H wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:09:54 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...

On Jan 9, 1:12 pm, wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Jan 9, 1:24 am, wrote:



wrote in message

...

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:22:01 -0800, JR North
wrote:

Mebbe you would change your mind if somone shot a harpoon into you.
JR

Mebbe YOU would change your mind if someone rammed your boat because
you were fishing.
There are plenty of PETA folks who think that is cruel to the fish,
deplete the seas and whatever

From what I heard, the Whale Wars boat boat was not moving. It was
rammed.
Are you really trying to defend the Japanese whaling industry??

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/...rctica_whaling

Even if the WW boat was still moving isn't it at a minimum _both_
boats'
fault? That's how I read the laws involved.

--
Nom=de=Plume
This vid looks to me like it was moving right along the side of the
Japanese fisherman then decided to cut across the bow and got clipped:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/17481983

A couple of things... First, this vid is from the Japanese
perspective, so
it can't be considered definitive. Second, the WW mother ship
probably has
contradictory vid that we haven't seen - I read they have five camera
angles. Third, both sides are obligated to avoid a collision, and since
the
Japanese and the WW boat could take action to do that, both should
be at
fault.

--
Nom=de=Plume

What a dip. Have you ever heard of 'maneuverability'? Your knowledge
of maritime law is eclipsed only by...

Yes, but there's no indication that the Japanese boat even tried.
It's not
like it was heavy fog or they didn't know the other boat was around.

Can't think of anything.

Pretty much sums up your "thinking."

What 'signs' are you looking for? Do you expect a ship that big to
show 'signs' in about 4 seconds?

I knew I had you filtered for a reason.

We boys on the right are afraid of women smarter than us.

Only if they have our family jewels in their hands. But there is nothing
for you dickless lefties to worry, right Harriet?

I Approve of This
 

Smart lady said

Please, please filter me! You're just too odd.

And then smart lady said this


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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Harry, If you think she is smart, then you are dumber than a fence post.

And you probably thought your wife was charitable when she said to you
"I gave at the office"

I Approve of This
 

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.

You are soooo smart. Even smarter than the little woman who is about to
throw me out of my basement apartment.