I Approve of This
 

On Jan 9, 9:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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 dont' know about "rammed" but at least bumped the larger boat pretty
hard. Fiberglass and composite hulls (even stat-of-the- art
construction) makes a poor bumper against heavy steel.

I Approve of This
 

On Jan 9, 11:53*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...





"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

I dont' think it has anything to do with int'l law. but a good law of
physics. the old "what happens when the easily crushable object
collides with the hard -to -stop object? type of thing.

I Approve of This
 

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?

Oh dear! Pass the popcorn. This volley should be short and sweet. Snerk

--
If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal.

I Approve of This
 

On 1/10/2010 8:39 AM, Harry wrote:
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?

Oh dear! Pass the popcorn. This volley should be short and sweet. Snerk



I have to admit, none of us righties are believable imitators of Harry's
posts, even when we spoof his ID here. Most of us can't write, spell, or
put together a decent sentence. But that's not our real purpose here.
What we are trying to do is so annoy those who don't agree with us
politically that they'll just leave and help us make this an all-white,
all-right newsgroup. SW Tom was helping out for a long time, but he says
he's stopped, so all we have left are me, aka flajim; Tosk, a couple of
others and our little liberal and mindless boytoy, loogy.

Your buddy,

Jim.

I Approve of This
 

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.


Then you shouldn't be posting stupid comments relating to something you
know nothing about. Why don't you tell us about international law as it
relates to this incident. Then look up maritime law and see what it says
about the circumstances of the incident. Then look up common sense and
see how it would apply to the situation. Then PLEASE go away and find a
sewing or knitting group to harangue.

--
If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal.

I Approve of This
 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 22:12:22 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Jan 9, 11:53*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...





"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

I dont' think it has anything to do with int'l law. but a good law of
physics. the old "what happens when the easily crushable object
collides with the hard -to -stop object? type of thing.

Vacuous?

I think she makes the definition.
--

John H

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government
results from too much government."

Thomas Jefferson

I Approve of This
 

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:05:38 -0500, Jim wrote:

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?

Harry does a good job of exposing himself when he's trying to spoof
someone. His fear of bright women must be racing when the Dr Dr goes
by the basement.
--

John H

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government
results from too much government."

Thomas Jefferson

I Approve of This
 

On Jan 9, 11:53*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...





"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.

I Approve of This
 

On Jan 10, 8:05*am, John H wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 22:12:22 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



On Jan 9, 11:53 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

om...

"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

I dont' think it has anything to do with int'l law. but a good law of
physics. *the old "what happens when the easily crushable object
collides with the hard -to -stop object? type of thing.

Vacuous?

I think she makes the definition.

Obviously!


John H

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government
results from too much government."

Thomas Jefferson

And quite true!

I Approve of This
 

John H wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 22:12:22 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

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
I dont' think it has anything to do with int'l law. but a good law of
physics. the old "what happens when the easily crushable object
collides with the hard -to -stop object? type of thing.

Vacuous?

I think she makes the definition.
Vacuum between the ears.