I Approve of This
 

Harry wrote:
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 hired thugs and union enforcers.

I Approve of This
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
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...


That's my interpretation of their behavior, certainly. How about hired
killers of whales?

--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
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've been watching the TV show. In any case, a small boat is no threat to a
big ship.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

"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

I Approve of This
 

On Jan 9, 7:49*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

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

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume. If your explanation holds true, then the smaller vessel
shouldn't be ramming the larger, should it? That is, unless it wishes
to spew propaganda about how the Sea Shepherd craft was "brutally
attacked " by the "unprovoked" Japanese "Man-o-War."

I really doubt the Sea Snappers thought the Japanese whaler was
recording the incident.

I Approve of This
 

"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

I Approve of This
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 7:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

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

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume. If your explanation holds true, then the smaller vessel
shouldn't be ramming the larger, should it? That is, unless it wishes
to spew propaganda about how the Sea Shepherd craft was "brutally
attacked " by the "unprovoked" Japanese "Man-o-War."

If it can be shown that they rammed the bigger boat, then it would clearly
be the WW boat's liability. However, the front was torn off. So, it seem
unlikely they were ramming the bigger boat. The small boat was designed for
speed not to inflict ship to ship damage.

I really doubt the Sea Snappers thought the Japanese whaler was
recording the incident.

Well, from my recollection they've filmed them many times. Why would this be
different?

--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

"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

I Approve of This
 

"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

I Approve of This
 

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.