I Approve of This
 

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?


This time there was a collision. Or didn't you see that part? Soooooo smart.

I Approve of This
 

Jim wrote:
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.

One question. Are you annoyed yet?

I Approve of This
 

John H wrote:
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.

I'm trying to muster the courage to follow her and see what she's really
up to when she leaves early and comes home late.

I Approve of This
 

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:10:07 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


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.

Except it's a convention, not a law. It's voluntary. What the
convention proposes is the taking of whales for scientific research.
What the Japanese are doing is commercial fishing, not within the
convention, but not illegal either. If we are going to start nuking,
Canada would also have to be on the list, along with some Inuit in
Alaska, amongst others.

I Approve of This
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:52:22 -0500, Harry
wrote:

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.

There are plenty of PETA people who think the same thing about
fishermen. Should they be able to ram anyone who is fishing?

Sea Kitten killers, PETA tried to change the name of fish to Sea
Kittens. The absurdity of the renaming effort fell flat on its face.

I Approve of This
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
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 think you're a very fearful little boy. Grow up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
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!

You are as well.


--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

"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
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

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.

No dispute on my part. I agree. But, the demonstration he's talking about
isn't valid in this situation.

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.

Also no dispute here. However, both sides in the situation are well aware of
the other.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I Approve of This
 

"Tim" wrote in message
...
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 agree, but it's still unclear who rammed whom, and it doesn't absolve
either of their duties to avoid a collision.

--
Nom=de=Plume