therefore killing whales is necessary

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DGF4PJOJA1.DTL
or
http://tinyurl.com/2ocms4

--
See return address to reply by email

sf wrote:
>
> therefore killing whales is necessary

That is interesting. Most whales, especially the big guys that the Japanese
like to kill, are baleen whales and eat krill, not fish.

Dave Smith wrote:
> sf wrote:
>> therefore killing whales is necessary
>
> That is interesting. Most whales, especially the big guys that the Japanese
> like to kill, are baleen whales and eat krill, not fish.


Do you think, maybe, that JAPANESE are eating too much fish?

gloria p

On May 4, 2:10 pm, Puester > wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > sf wrote:
> >> therefore killing whales is necessary
>
> > That is interesting. Most whales, especially the big guys that the Japanese
> > like to kill, are baleen whales and eat krill, not fish.
>
> Do you think, maybe, that JAPANESE are eating too much fish?
>
> gloria p

Who will the Japanese (and the Norwegians and the Icelanders) blame
when all the whales AND all the fish are gone? I just don't see how
anyone can be so short-sighted.

N.

Nancy2 wrote:
>
>
> Who will the Japanese (and the Norwegians and the Icelanders) blame
> when all the whales AND all the fish are gone? I just don't see how
> anyone can be so short-sighted.


I was wondering about a similar problem last night when I watched an
American news report out of Detroit about the latest (ongoing) gasoline
shortage. They were interviewing a guy who was commuting 4 miles by bicycle
to work because of the price of gas. He was pedalling down a street lines
with parked SUVs, like you really need an SUV when you live in the city and
need to commute. Then they interviewed a woman who was whining because they
have 3 cars they have to keep going. One for her working husband, one for
her and one for their teenage high school student daughter. Wonder how she
and her daughter will get to the mall when the gasoline runs out.

One time on Usenet, Dave Smith > said:
> Nancy2 wrote:
> >
> >
> > Who will the Japanese (and the Norwegians and the Icelanders) blame
> > when all the whales AND all the fish are gone? I just don't see how
> > anyone can be so short-sighted.
>
>
> I was wondering about a similar problem last night when I watched an
> American news report out of Detroit about the latest (ongoing) gasoline
> shortage. They were interviewing a guy who was commuting 4 miles by bicycle
> to work because of the price of gas. He was pedalling down a street lines
> with parked SUVs, like you really need an SUV when you live in the city and
> need to commute. Then they interviewed a woman who was whining because they
> have 3 cars they have to keep going. One for her working husband, one for
> her and one for their teenage high school student daughter. Wonder how she
> and her daughter will get to the mall when the gasoline runs out.

Maybe she and the daughter both work too?

--
Jani in WA

Dave Smith wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> > therefore killing whales is necessary
>
> That is interesting. Most whales, especially the big guys that the Japanese
> like to kill, are baleen whales and eat krill, not fish.

Exactly.


Sheldon

On May 4, 12:45 pm, Nancy2 > wrote:
> Who will the Japanese (and the Norwegians and the Icelanders) blame
> when all the whales AND all the fish are gone? I just don't see how
> anyone can be so short-sighted.

If what the researchers show is true, then whale population control
would help the ecosystem for everyone.

We control deer, salmon, duck, elk, etc., because of this research,
why not whales?

Who will be blamed when the fish are gone? It's not just the Japanese,
Norwegians, Icelanders, who are raping the oceans.

Karen

On May 4, 6:40 am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> That is interesting. Most whales, especially the big guys that the Japanese
> like to kill, are baleen whales and eat krill, not fish.

The minke whale is mentioned, if you read the article.

Karen

On May 4, 2:55 pm, Sheldon > wrote:
> Exactly.

Exactly that you are wrong. It's the minke whale that is mentioned.

Karen

Nancy2 wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> > therefore killing whales is necessary
>
> >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...le/archive/200....
> > orhttp://tinyurl.com/2ocms4
>
> > --
> > See return address to reply by email
>
> It's unbelievable how short-sighted the Japanese, Norwegians and
> Icelanders are. *Who are they going to blame when all the whales AND
> the fish are gone?

They'll probably blame Imus. Won't be too very long "imus" will be a
dictionary word, so the losers can ascribe blame for their plight, as
in I was imused/we were imused/they were imused... us nappy headed
hoes we be imused. LOL

Sheldon

Karen wrote:
>
> On May 4, 6:40 am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> > That is interesting. Most whales, especially the big guys that the Japanese
> > like to kill, are baleen whales and eat krill, not fish.
>
> The minke whale is mentioned, if you read the article.

the Minke is a baleen whale

Karen wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2:55 pm, Sheldon > wrote:
> > Exactly.
>
> Exactly that you are wrong. It's the minke whale that is mentioned.

Fish make up part of their diet, but not enough to endanger fish stocks.
The Japanese OTOH, have over fished and put fish stocks at risk around the
world.

Karen wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > Exactly.
>
> Exactly that you are wrong. It's the minke whale that is mentioned.
>
> Karen

Karen, you epitomize dumb ****. The article lied by the sin of
ommission and you're just plain stupid.

Minke whales (there are two types) very occasionally feed on eel and
small fish but the vast majority of their diet consists of krill...
they are in no way a threat to the fishing industry... in fact they
filter the ocean water to such a degree that sea life of all kinds can
better flourish, and in turn that clearer water permits a greater
degree of sunlight to greater depths which promotes greater
photosynthesis thereby keeping a check on the so-called global warming
theories... the ocean's plants are far more instrumental than the land
forests in keeping the nature of this planet in balance. Baleen
whales are the Dysons of the seas.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...es/Minke.shtml

On May 4, 3:23 pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Fish make up part of their diet, but not enough to endanger fish stocks.
> The Japanese OTOH, have over fished and put fish stocks at risk around the
> world.

If research is based on science, how could you know that whales don't
eat that much fish?

Karen

On May 4, 3:32 pm, Sheldon > wrote:
> Minke whales (there are two types) very occasionally feed on eel and
> small fish but the vast majority of their diet consists of krill...
> they are in no way a threat to the fishing industry... in fact they
> filter the ocean water to such a degree that sea life of all kinds can
> better flourish, and in turn that clearer water permits a greater
> degree of sunlight to greater depths which promotes greater
> photosynthesis thereby keeping a check on the so-called global warming
> theories... the ocean's plants are far more instrumental than the land
> forests in keeping the nature of this planet in balance. Baleen
> whales are the Dysons of the seas.

Minke whale eat fish and krill.

Karen

Karen wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > Fish make up part of their diet, but not enough to endanger fish stocks.
> > The Japanese OTOH, have over fished and put fish stocks at risk around the
> > world.
>
> If research is based on science, how could you know that whales don't
> eat that much fish?
>
> Karen

Science is research based. IF!
You're getting dumber, and your comma is superfluous.

On 4 May 2007 07:31:53 -0700, Nancy2 > wrote:

>On May 3, 11:24 pm, sf wrote:
>> therefore killing whales is necessary
>>
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...le/archive/200...
>> orhttp://tinyurl.com/2ocms4
>>
>> --
>> See return address to reply by email
>
>It's unbelievable how short-sighted the Japanese, Norwegians and
>Icelanders are. Who are they going to blame when all the whales AND
>the fish are gone?
>
Bingo!


--
See return address to reply by email

On May 4, 3:44 pm, Sheldon > wrote:
> Science is research based. IF!
> You're getting dumber, and your comma is superfluous.

A comma is not superfluous, rhetorically-speaking, as I was.

iow, if the research is scientifically-based, as if the science proves
it to be true, then how can you argue that whales are eating too much
fish? How can you discredit the findings?

Karen