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