Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >> Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >>>> While I think they have taken their tactics too far, I don't think the
> >>>> Japanese "researchers" are in the right either and there has to be
> >>>> another way to reach and agreement.
> >>> Japan is an internationally accepted sovereign nation last time I
> >>> checked, they are 100% in the right and are being attacked by foreign
> >>> terrorists supported by foreign terrorist financiers.
> >> The incident did not occur in Japanese waters.
> >
> > So terrorist attacks are now legal in international waters?
>
> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.

You see only what you want to see that matches your prejudices.

Pete C. wrote:

>> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
>> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
>> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
>> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
>> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
>> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
>> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
>> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
>
> You see only what you want to see that matches your prejudices.

My personal prejudices would be more likely to make me see it the other
way. Personally, I think most of those guys are weird. I watched both
videos several times and it appears to me to be very clear that the
Japanese ship turned toward the protester's boat, and that IMO is
evident in both videos. To make matters worse, they blasted the
protesters with water cannons while they were scrambling after the
collision.

Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> I have seen the video many times today. And others as well. The smaller
> boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the harpoon
> ship. That is their objective. I can see the harpoon vessel under full
> throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to port
> to ram the boat. Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on Whale
> Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
> collision from that distance.

So it was everybody's fault. Thus making this entire thing purely
entertainment.

Most of the world object to whaling for what reason? If they object
because in the past humans hunted many whale species nearly to
extinction and we might still end up pushing some of them to extinction,
these guys are hunting the high population Minke species. That's not
one in danger of extintion. If they object because whales are cute like
Bambi go have some venison and get over it. If they object because
certain whale species like Orcas are highly intelligent then I don't
need to be impressed by folks who can't tell the difference.

But whale meat tastes gross? Okay, I'll go with that one.

I bet there's a better reason. Minke's eat krill and fish eat krill.
Fewer Minkes mean more krill mean more fish. Fish are good for dancing
singing penguins and dancing singing penguins are cute. Oh wait.
Dancing singing penguins taste gross ...

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Most of the world object to whaling for what reason?

One reason is that animal advocates wish to limit the number of
mammal species used for food to a relatively small number.

The reasoning for this is that there is a per-species cost associated
with developing and enforcing humane standards for animal treament,
and so most advocates would say ban exotic meats entirely.
The world's need for meat can be satisfied with just a handful of
the most popular food species. It would be much cheaper to
have a total ban on whaling, than to expend the ongoing costs of
conferences, treaties, lawmaking, and enforcement; you could then direct
the resources you saved towards improving conditions for normal everyday
farm animals.

It would be very reasonable to establish a list of about a dozen mammalian
species that is it legal to raise or hunt for food use, and have
a worldwide ban on food use of all other mammal species. It would save
a ton of money and effort, and the vast majority of consumers would not
care that a few specialty meats are unavailable. Under the present
system we are all paying for a huge amount of overhead catering
to tiny special interests, such as whalers.

Steve

Stu wrote:
>
> Watch the video, the smaller boat accelerated at the last minute into the
> larger ships way, the bigger ship had no other option but hitting it, seems
> they deliberately wanted a confrontation.

The only reason they do this is that Sea Shepard
needs to raise funds. They need to show that
they are doing something. Staging a collision
is the most effective way of doing that.

It's sort of like the campaign against the
harvest of seals in Canada. A few decades ago,
an "environmentalist" group hired somebody to
skin a live baby harp seal on camera. This made
for massive propaganda against the seal harvest,
but more importantly was a major fundraiser for
the organization.

Different animal, different country, same tactic,
same motivation. Same level of honesty.

Mark Thorson > wrote:

>The only reason they do this is that Sea Shepard
>needs to raise funds. They need to show that
>they are doing something. Staging a collision
>is the most effective way of doing that.
>
>It's sort of like the campaign against the
>harvest of seals in Canada. A few decades ago,
>an "environmentalist" group hired somebody to
>skin a live baby harp seal on camera. This made
>for massive propaganda against the seal harvest,
>but more importantly was a major fundraiser for
>the organization.
>
>Different animal, different country, same tactic,
>same motivation. Same level of honesty.

I actually don't think you know what you're talking
about. Sea Shephard has never been remotely involved
in anything like skinning a baby seal for publicity.
Sure, they need to raise money just as any other
nonprofit does, but everything I've seen suggests that their
maritime interdictions are their main activity, not some
sort of sideshow.


Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> >The only reason they do this is that Sea Shepard
> >needs to raise funds. They need to show that
> >they are doing something. Staging a collision
> >is the most effective way of doing that.
> >
> >It's sort of like the campaign against the
> >harvest of seals in Canada. A few decades ago,
> >an "environmentalist" group hired somebody to
> >skin a live baby harp seal on camera. This made
> >for massive propaganda against the seal harvest,
> >but more importantly was a major fundraiser for
> >the organization.
> >
> >Different animal, different country, same tactic,
> >same motivation. Same level of honesty.
>
> I actually don't think you know what you're talking
> about. Sea Shephard has never been remotely involved
> in anything like skinning a baby seal for publicity.

Staging a collision is the same level of dishonesty.

> Sure, they need to raise money just as any other
> nonprofit does, but everything I've seen suggests that their
> maritime interdictions are their main activity, not some
> sort of sideshow.

Skinning a live harp seal was not a sideshow for
the "environmentalist" group that hired it.
It was a mainline moneymaker for them, as planned.

Mark Thorson > wrote:

>> I actually don't think you know what you're talking
>> about. Sea Shephard has never been remotely involved
>> in anything like skinning a baby seal for publicity.

>Staging a collision is the same level of dishonesty.

Okay, we fundamentally disagree on the meaning of the
word "dishonesty".

Steve

On 1/7/2010 12:33 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>> I have seen the video many times today. And others as well. The smaller
>> boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the harpoon
>> ship. That is their objective. I can see the harpoon vessel under full
>> throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to port
>> to ram the boat. Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on Whale
>> Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
>> collision from that distance.
>
> So it was everybody's fault. Thus making this entire thing purely
> entertainment.
>
> Most of the world object to whaling for what reason? If they object
> because in the past humans hunted many whale species nearly to
> extinction and we might still end up pushing some of them to extinction,
> these guys are hunting the high population Minke species. That's not
> one in danger of extintion. If they object because whales are cute like
> Bambi go have some venison and get over it. If they object because
> certain whale species like Orcas are highly intelligent then I don't
> need to be impressed by folks who can't tell the difference.
>
> But whale meat tastes gross? Okay, I'll go with that one.
>
> I bet there's a better reason. Minke's eat krill and fish eat krill.
> Fewer Minkes mean more krill mean more fish. Fish are good for dancing
> singing penguins and dancing singing penguins are cute. Oh wait.
> Dancing singing penguins taste gross ...

Killing animals for food is savage business. It would seem logical to
prefer animals that provide more product per kill than something like a
chicken that will have it's life taken to provide a single meal for a
few people. We illogically place more value on the life of whales
because we can identify with these friendly cuddly creatures. Of course
the main problem with this is that whale meat tastes like crap. No
sweat, scientists are, at this very moment are attempting to combine cow
DNA with that of the whale. In a few decades, we'll have whale sized rib
roasts that will make the ones seen on the Flintstones seem ridiculously
tiny. :-)

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>> I have seen the video many times today. And others as well. The smaller
>> boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the
>> harpoon
>> ship. That is their objective. I can see the harpoon vessel under full
>> throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to
>> port
>> to ram the boat. Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on Whale
>> Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
>> collision from that distance.
>
> So it was everybody's fault. Thus making this entire thing purely
> entertainment.
>
> Most of the world object to whaling for what reason? If they object
> because in the past humans hunted many whale species nearly to
> extinction and we might still end up pushing some of them to extinction,
> these guys are hunting the high population Minke species. That's not
> one in danger of extintion. If they object because whales are cute like
> Bambi go have some venison and get over it. If they object because
> certain whale species like Orcas are highly intelligent then I don't
> need to be impressed by folks who can't tell the difference.
>
> But whale meat tastes gross? Okay, I'll go with that one.
>
> I bet there's a better reason. Minke's eat krill and fish eat krill.
> Fewer Minkes mean more krill mean more fish. Fish are good for dancing
> singing penguins and dancing singing penguins are cute. Oh wait.
> Dancing singing penguins taste gross ...


Whales are still threatened species and not suitable for commercial hunting.
The Japanese use bogus population numbers to set their quotas. The Japanese
have resorted to violence against protestors many times in the past. This
fits their MO.

It is an obscenity that they engage in it merely to make a point. It exists
for no other reason.

Paul

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Stu wrote:
>>
>> Watch the video, the smaller boat accelerated at the last minute into the
>> larger ships way, the bigger ship had no other option but hitting it,
>> seems
>> they deliberately wanted a confrontation.
>
> The only reason they do this is that Sea Shepard
> needs to raise funds. They need to show that
> they are doing something. Staging a collision
> is the most effective way of doing that.
>

In 2009, the Sea Shepherd society deprived Japan of fully 1.3 of their
quota. That is not just talk, ti is real action. And those people really
do put their lives on the line for their cause.

> It's sort of like the campaign against the
> harvest of seals in Canada. A few decades ago,
> an "environmentalist" group hired somebody to
> skin a live baby harp seal on camera. This made
> for massive propaganda against the seal harvest,
> but more importantly was a major fundraiser for
> the organization.
>
> Different animal, different country, same tactic,
> same motivation. Same level of honesty.

Not hardly. You simply know nothing about what you speak.

Paul

On Jan 7, 11:17*pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> >> I have seen the video many times today. *And others as well. *The smaller
> >> boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the
> >> harpoon
> >> ship. *That is their objective. *I can see the harpoon vessel under full
> >> throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to
> >> port
> >> to ram the boat. *Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on Whale
> >> Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
> >> collision from that distance.
>
> > So it was everybody's fault. *Thus making this entire thing purely
> > entertainment.
>
> > Most of the world object to whaling for what reason? *If they object
> > because in the past humans hunted many whale species nearly to
> > extinction and we might still end up pushing some of them to extinction,
> > these guys are hunting the high population Minke species. *That's not
> > one in danger of extintion. *If they object because whales are cute like
> > Bambi go have some venison and get over it. *If they object because
> > certain whale species like Orcas are highly intelligent then I don't
> > need to be impressed by folks who can't tell the difference.
>
> > But whale meat tastes gross? *Okay, I'll go with that one.
>
> > I bet there's a better reason. *Minke's eat krill and fish eat krill.
> > Fewer Minkes mean more krill mean more fish. *Fish are good for dancing
> > singing penguins and dancing singing penguins are cute. * Oh wait.
> > Dancing singing penguins taste gross ...
>
> Whales are still threatened species and not suitable for commercial hunting.
> The Japanese use bogus population numbers to set their quotas. *The Japanese
> have resorted to violence against protestors many times in the past. *This
> fits their MO.
>
> It is an obscenity that they engage in it merely to make a point. *It exists
> for no other reason.

You are 100% correct. What's amazing is that almost everyone doesn't
know this. I don't consider those who oppose the Japanese whaling
ships to be terrorists, as they only target perpetrators, not
bystanders. If they were to kill the entire crew of a Japanese
whaling ship, I would think that was beautiful. Give their bodies to
the sea that they have about as much respect for as the WWII Japanese
military had for Korean sex slaves.
They sure do build good cars though.
>
> Paul

--Bryan

"--Bryan" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 7, 11:17 pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> >> I have seen the video many times today. And others as well. The smaller
> >> boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the
> >> harpoon
> >> ship. That is their objective. I can see the harpoon vessel under full
> >> throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to
> >> port
> >> to ram the boat. Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on
> >> Whale
> >> Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
> >> collision from that distance.
>
> > So it was everybody's fault. Thus making this entire thing purely
> > entertainment.
>
> > Most of the world object to whaling for what reason? If they object
> > because in the past humans hunted many whale species nearly to
> > extinction and we might still end up pushing some of them to extinction,
> > these guys are hunting the high population Minke species. That's not
> > one in danger of extintion. If they object because whales are cute like
> > Bambi go have some venison and get over it. If they object because
> > certain whale species like Orcas are highly intelligent then I don't
> > need to be impressed by folks who can't tell the difference.
>
> > But whale meat tastes gross? Okay, I'll go with that one.
>
> > I bet there's a better reason. Minke's eat krill and fish eat krill.
> > Fewer Minkes mean more krill mean more fish. Fish are good for dancing
> > singing penguins and dancing singing penguins are cute. Oh wait.
> > Dancing singing penguins taste gross ...
>
> Whales are still threatened species and not suitable for commercial
> hunting.
> The Japanese use bogus population numbers to set their quotas. The
> Japanese
> have resorted to violence against protestors many times in the past. This
> fits their MO.
>
> It is an obscenity that they engage in it merely to make a point. It
> exists
> for no other reason.

You are 100% correct. What's amazing is that almost everyone doesn't
know this. I don't consider those who oppose the Japanese whaling
ships to be terrorists, as they only target perpetrators, not
bystanders. If they were to kill the entire crew of a Japanese
whaling ship, I would think that was beautiful. Give their bodies to
the sea that they have about as much respect for as the WWII Japanese
military had for Korean sex slaves.
They sure do build good cars though.
=


And damned good cameras.

Paul

On Jan 8, 12:04*am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "--Bryan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jan 7, 11:17 pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> > >> I have seen the video many times today. And others as well. The smaller
> > >> boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the
> > >> harpoon
> > >> ship. That is their objective. I can see the harpoon vessel under full
> > >> throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to
> > >> port
> > >> to ram the boat. Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on
> > >> Whale
> > >> Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
> > >> collision from that distance.
>
> > > So it was everybody's fault. Thus making this entire thing purely
> > > entertainment.
>
> > > Most of the world object to whaling for what reason? If they object
> > > because in the past humans hunted many whale species nearly to
> > > extinction and we might still end up pushing some of them to extinction,
> > > these guys are hunting the high population Minke species. That's not
> > > one in danger of extintion. If they object because whales are cute like
> > > Bambi go have some venison and get over it. If they object because
> > > certain whale species like Orcas are highly intelligent then I don't
> > > need to be impressed by folks who can't tell the difference.
>
> > > But whale meat tastes gross? Okay, I'll go with that one.
>
> > > I bet there's a better reason. Minke's eat krill and fish eat krill.
> > > Fewer Minkes mean more krill mean more fish. Fish are good for dancing
> > > singing penguins and dancing singing penguins are cute. Oh wait.
> > > Dancing singing penguins taste gross ...
>
> > Whales are still threatened species and not suitable for commercial
> > hunting.
> > The Japanese use bogus population numbers to set their quotas. The
> > Japanese
> > have resorted to violence against protestors many times in the past. This
> > fits their MO.
>
> > It is an obscenity that they engage in it merely to make a point. It
> > exists
> > for no other reason.
>
> You are 100% correct. *What's amazing is that almost everyone doesn't
> know this. *I don't consider those who oppose the Japanese whaling
> ships to be terrorists, as they only target perpetrators, not
> bystanders. *If they were to kill the entire crew of a Japanese
> whaling ship, I would think that was beautiful. *Give their bodies to
> the sea that they have about as much respect for as the WWII Japanese
> military had for Korean sex slaves.
> They sure do build good cars though.
> =
>
> And damned good cameras.

And I really like those Miyazaki movies.
>
> Paul

--Bryan

In article
>,
--Bryan > wrote:


> They sure do build good cars though.

Of course, many Japanese cars sold in the US are made in the US. Not
all, though. My Nissan Sentra was made in Mexico.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stu wrote:
>>>
>>> Watch the video, the smaller boat accelerated at the last minute into
>>> the
>>> larger ships way, the bigger ship had no other option but hitting it,
>>> seems
>>> they deliberately wanted a confrontation.

i would like to know what happens to all this whale meat in japan. I'm told
its almost never for sale in the big fish departments of major stores or
anywhere else in tokyo. i'm told japanese are not overly fond of whale meat
anyway. guess it goes into cat food or something...anyone know for sure?

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:40:07 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article
>,
> --Bryan > wrote:
>
>
>> They sure do build good cars though.
>
>Of course, many Japanese cars sold in the US are made in the US. Not
>all, though. My Nissan Sentra was made in Mexico.


Probably made in the old VW plant that I picked up my Bug from before they
closed the plant.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:33:11 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>> I have seen the video many times today. And others as well. The smaller
>> boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the harpoon
>> ship. That is their objective. I can see the harpoon vessel under full
>> throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to port
>> to ram the boat. Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on Whale
>> Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
>> collision from that distance.
>
> So it was everybody's fault. Thus making this entire thing purely
> entertainment.
>
> Most of the world object to whaling for what reason? If they object
> because in the past humans hunted many whale species nearly to
> extinction and we might still end up pushing some of them to extinction,
> these guys are hunting the high population Minke species. That's not
> one in danger of extintion. If they object because whales are cute like
> Bambi go have some venison and get over it. If they object because
> certain whale species like Orcas are highly intelligent then I don't
> need to be impressed by folks who can't tell the difference.
>
> But whale meat tastes gross? Okay, I'll go with that one.
>
> I bet there's a better reason. Minke's eat krill and fish eat krill.
> Fewer Minkes mean more krill mean more fish. Fish are good for dancing
> singing penguins and dancing singing penguins are cute. Oh wait.
> Dancing singing penguins taste gross ...

you haven't had dancing singing penguins the way *i* make them...

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 22:04:24 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "--Bryan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> You are 100% correct. What's amazing is that almost everyone doesn't
> know this. I don't consider those who oppose the Japanese whaling
> ships to be terrorists, as they only target perpetrators, not
> bystanders. If they were to kill the entire crew of a Japanese
> whaling ship, I would think that was beautiful. Give their bodies to
> the sea that they have about as much respect for as the WWII Japanese
> military had for Korean sex slaves.
> They sure do build good cars though.
> =
>
> And damned good cameras.
>
> Paul

General Jack D. Ripper: Were you ever a prisoner of war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Well, yes I was, matter of fact, Jack, I was.
General Jack D. Ripper: Did they torture you?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, yes they did. I was tortured by the
Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story.
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, what happened?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Oh, well, I don't know, Jack, difficult to
think of under these conditions; but, well, what happened was they got me
on the old Rangoon-Ichinawa railway. I was laying train lines for the
bloody Japanese puff-puff's.
General Jack D. Ripper: No, I mean when they tortured you did you talk?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Ah, oh, no... well, I don't think they wanted
me to talk really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was
just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they
make such bloody good cameras.

your pal,
muffley

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>Most of the world object to whaling for what reason?
>
> One reason is that animal advocates wish to limit the number of
> mammal species used for food to a relatively small number.

Ah. The movement to wipe out all hunting as a denial of the reality of
actual human nature. Check. I've seen societal pressure like that as
far back as I can remember. On a different front the pressure against
hunting has resulted in a population exposion among deer and a lot more
cars colliding with deer. Local versus global of the same issue.

So it ends up being a question of what is extreme and what isn't.
Limiting to a small number of mammal species is a very different and
much more extreme version of the discussion than asking if Minke's
really are endangered and if commercial hunting really is to get
government sponsorship.

> The reasoning for this is that there is a per-species cost associated
> with developing and enforcing humane standards for animal treament,
> and so most advocates would say ban exotic meats entirely.

They can range from pressure to not kill endangered species, which
Minke's might or might not be, all the way through pressure to not eat
goat meat because goats didn't make the cut on the list. As such it's a
matter of perspective and judgement and motivation.

I don't want to support something just because the PETA folks oppose it
because that's too simple minded. But one person's exotic meats are the
ones on endangered species lists and another person's exotic meats are
the kind cut off of any animal.

I need to contribute to Ducks Unlimited. They favor sustainable hunting
of sustained populations of more species than just the one in their
name.

Then again Ducks Unlimited is not interested in commercial hunting and
fishing, which is what the whalers are.

> The world's need for meat can be satisfied with just a handful of
> the most popular food species.

If you view humans as ranchers not as hunters. Humans are the top
predator on the planet. We're hunters. To carefully limit the range
and bag of hunting to make sure the prey species thrive and last forever
- That's the goal of every hunter preservationist club I've ever heard
of with Ducks Unlimited as the best known example. To deny the hunter
nature of onmivorous humanity and point us away from hunting - That's a
baby step on the way to PITA enforcing veganism on everyone.

There's more to meat than the nutitrional needs. And again I end up
asking myself if I'm favoring the whalers just because PITA stands
against them or if I'm opposing the whalers because I don't believe the
Japanese population numbers are accurate. There are native tribes who
get whale hunting waivers for spiritual and heritage reasons and I can't
justify a commercial whaling ship in turns of Shinto spirituality.
Interesting how the topic shines light brightly on the extreme ends
without much illuminating the moderate middle ground.

> It would be much cheaper to
> have a total ban on whaling, than to expend the ongoing costs of
> conferences, treaties, lawmaking, and enforcement; you could then direct
> the resources you saved towards improving conditions for normal everyday
> farm animals.

If you believe banning whaling will have any effect on the lives of
cows, you've never had any dealings with an actual polictian. I get
the concept of "think globally, act locally" but that's not how it
works. If you want better lives for cows work on that topic. Try to
make the commercials about California that as "Happy cows make better
cheese" actually be a discussion of how cows are treated on real farms.

> It would be very reasonable to establish a list of about a dozen mammalian
> species that is it legal to raise or hunt for food use, and have
> a worldwide ban on food use of all other mammal species.

This is a step in the direction of PITA's plan to impose veganism by
force. Count me out on any support down that path. Next you'll want to
ban all commercial and sports fishing and only allow farmed fish. Then
work on banning even farmed meat.

> It would save
> a ton of money and effort, and the vast majority of consumers would not
> care that a few specialty meats are unavailable.

Most consumers wouldn't notice if duck, goose, goat and lamb would go
missing in the stores. Fortunately on RFC the regulars are foodies who
would notice.

> Under the present
> system we are all paying for a huge amount of overhead catering
> to tiny special interests, such as whalers.

Sport hunters pay their way and end up slightly profitable to
governments. Commercial hunters generate both tax revenues and
licensing overhead that's much closer to revenue neutral. I'd be
interested in seeing stats that commercial fishing is revenue neutral to
governments.

Doug Freyburger > wrote in
:

>
> Most consumers wouldn't notice if duck, goose, goat and lamb would go
> missing in the stores. Fortunately on RFC the regulars are foodies
> who would notice.

If you're talking globally, that's not actually true. Who misses what will
differ from country to country, and even sometimes regions within
countries. I can tell you that if lamb disappeared from shops here there'd
be an almight outcry.


--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.
My Country, Dorothea MacKellar, 1904

Rhonda Anderson > wrote in
.5:

> Doug Freyburger > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> Most consumers wouldn't notice if duck, goose, goat and lamb would go
>> missing in the stores. Fortunately on RFC the regulars are foodies
>> who would notice.
>
> If you're talking globally, that's not actually true. Who misses what
will
> differ from country to country, and even sometimes regions within
> countries. I can tell you that if lamb disappeared from shops here
there'd
> be an almight outcry.
>
>


And we'd look around at all the damn Kiwis, and blame them!!


Nahhhhhhh, they'd just give it love bites, leave it behind in the frisge,
and steal your thongs ;-P



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


Mary had a little lamb
her father shot it dead.
Now it goes to school with her
between two chunks of bread.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:03:31 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> Pete C. wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> While I think they have taken their tactics too far, I don't think
>>>>> the Japanese "researchers" are in the right either and there has to
>>>>> be another way to reach and agreement.
>>>> Japan is an internationally accepted sovereign nation last time I
>>>> checked, they are 100% in the right and are being attacked by foreign
>>>> terrorists supported by foreign terrorist financiers.
>>> The incident did not occur in Japanese waters.
>>
>> So terrorist attacks are now legal in international waters?
>
> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.

The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
water spouts, amongst others. The ecos needed publicity. What is better
than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
view.
Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all can
see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat in
position to be rammed.

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

On Jan 10, 6:00*pm, Wim van Bemmel > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:03:31 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
> >>> Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>>>> While I think they have taken their tactics too far, I don't think
> >>>>> the Japanese "researchers" are in the right either and there has to
> >>>>> be another way to reach and agreement.
> >>>> Japan is an internationally accepted sovereign nation last time I
> >>>> checked, they are 100% in the right and are being attacked by foreign
> >>>> terrorists supported by foreign terrorist financiers.
> >>> The incident did not occur in Japanese waters.
>
> >> So terrorist attacks are now legal in international waters?
>
> > No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
> > accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
> > incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. *I don't consider
> > obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
> > moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
> > large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
> > both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that *the whaling ship
> > intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
>
> The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
> rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
> water spouts, amongst others. The ecos needed publicity. What is better
> than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
> got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
> view.

It would have been better if they hadn't survived because their boat
was loaded with explosives that blew both boats to smithereens.
>
> --
> Groet, salut, Wim.

--Bryan

Wim van Bemmel wrote:
>
>> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
>> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
>> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
>> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
>> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
>> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
>> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
>> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
>
> The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
> rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
> water spouts, amongst others.

I don't think so. I have seen the video taken from the ship and by the
anti-whalers, and it sure looks to me like the whaling sheep changed
direction and intentionally rammed the bat boat. I trust that you also
noted that after ramming and shearing the bow off the bat boat that they
proceeded to use the water canons on the people on the smaller boat. It
is one thing to use water cannons to scare someone off, but is something
completely different to use high pressure water canons to assault the
survivors of a marine collision.






> The ecos needed publicity. What is better
> than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
> got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
> view.
> Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all can
> see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat in
> position to be rammed.

The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Wim van Bemmel wrote:
>>
>>> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
>>> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
>>> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't
>>> consider obstructing the progress of ship contravening an
>>> international whaling moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do
>>> I condone the use of a large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat
>>> to be acceptable. Having seen both videos, there is no doubt in my
>>> mind that the whaling ship intentionally rammed the anti whaler's
>>> boat.
>>
>> The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be
>> inevitably rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the
>> eco-terrorists, by using water spouts, amongst others.
>
> I don't think so. I have seen the video taken from the ship and by the
> anti-whalers, and it sure looks to me like the whaling sheep changed
> direction and intentionally rammed the bat boat. I trust that you also
> noted that after ramming and shearing the bow off the bat boat that
> they proceeded to use the water canons on the people on the smaller
> boat. It is one thing to use water cannons to scare someone off, but
> is something completely different to use high pressure water canons
> to assault the survivors of a marine collision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The ecos needed publicity. What is better
>> than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it
>> well, got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their
>> publicity point of view.
>> Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all
>> can see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat
>> in position to be rammed.
>
> The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
> steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
> Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.

If you've ever handled a ship at sea you'll know that "maneuverable" is a
very relative thing. No matter how "maneuverable" it may look in a video it
still takes time and distance to turn. A small fast powerboat should have
little difficulty avoiding a collision if the coxswain wants to do so.

In article > ,
says...
>
> Wim van Bemmel wrote:
> >
> >> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
> >> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
> >> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
> >> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
> >> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
> >> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
> >> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
> >> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
> >
> > The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
> > rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
> > water spouts, amongst others.
>
> I don't think so. I have seen the video taken from the ship and by the
> anti-whalers, and it sure looks to me like the whaling sheep changed
> direction and intentionally rammed the bat boat. I trust that you also
> noted that after ramming and shearing the bow off the bat boat that they
> proceeded to use the water canons on the people on the smaller boat. It
> is one thing to use water cannons to scare someone off, but is something
> completely different to use high pressure water canons to assault the
> survivors of a marine collision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The ecos needed publicity. What is better
> > than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
> > got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
> > view.
> > Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all can
> > see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat in
> > position to be rammed.
>
> The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
> steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
> Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.

The bat boat went looking for a collision and got it... So the captain
of the Niponese boat swerved the wrong way trying to avoid, what's the
issue?

Scotty

In article > ,
says...
>
> Wim van Bemmel wrote:
> >
> >> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
> >> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
> >> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
> >> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
> >> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
> >> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
> >> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
> >> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
> >
> > The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
> > rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
> > water spouts, amongst others.
>
> I don't think so. I have seen the video taken from the ship and by the
> anti-whalers, and it sure looks to me like the whaling sheep changed
> direction and intentionally rammed the bat boat. I trust that you also
> noted that after ramming and shearing the bow off the bat boat that they
> proceeded to use the water canons on the people on the smaller boat. It
> is one thing to use water cannons to scare someone off, but is something
> completely different to use high pressure water canons to assault the
> survivors of a marine collision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The ecos needed publicity. What is better
> > than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
> > got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
> > view.
> > Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all can
> > see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat in
> > position to be rammed.
>
> The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
> steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
> Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.

We have been talking about this on my boating group and it is clear. The
Bat ship had been harassing this boat for nearly a month. Finally
somebody made a mistake... Either way, as a boater and boat builder, and
assuming the Whaler was not breaking any laws, technically they did
nothing wrong by holding their line and speed. All of the rules of
maritime navigation place the blame squarely on the bat boat...
Period...

In article > ,
says...
>
> Wim van Bemmel wrote:
> >
> >> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
> >> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
> >> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
> >> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
> >> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
> >> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
> >> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
> >> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
> >
> > The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
> > rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
> > water spouts, amongst others.
>
> I don't think so. I have seen the video taken from the ship and by the
> anti-whalers, and it sure looks to me like the whaling sheep changed
> direction and intentionally rammed the bat boat. I trust that you also
> noted that after ramming and shearing the bow off the bat boat that they
> proceeded to use the water canons on the people on the smaller boat. It
> is one thing to use water cannons to scare someone off, but is something
> completely different to use high pressure water canons to assault the
> survivors of a marine collision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The ecos needed publicity. What is better
> > than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
> > got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
> > view.
> > Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all can
> > see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat in
> > position to be rammed.
>
> The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
> steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
> Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.

You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
buddies had been hounding this ship for nearly a month. When two vessels
are meeting on the water there are a lot more variables than on land. On
land you can steer and count on certain laws of physics for gaining or
reducing speed. If the batboat was moving quickly before the crash and
then slowed down, the ships captain may have thought the batboat was
passing in front (yet again) and turned right to miss behind it (the
batboat). Now if the skipper of the batboat cut his power all of a
sudden a boat of that configuration would slow very quickly (I will have
to look at the video to see if the bow dives) and then he could apply
power as he did and hit the side of the ship, as he did... As to
stopping, remember, most ships of this configuration can only steer and
maneuver while under power. No Captain is going to go dead in the water
while he is being attacked, period.

Either way, in open water the smaller more maneuverable ship has the
responsibility to avoid that collision. The fact is, the batboat and his
friends have been playing chicken with the ship for a long time and
finally somebody made a wrong decision. Another fact to remember is that
this is all done for pure publicity (remember the balloon boy hoax?)
that's why they used the exotic boat instead of a solid skiff which
would be a much better tool for the job...

Scotty.... Former boat builder

On Jan 12, 10:56*am, I am Tosk >
wrote:
> In article > ,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wim van Bemmel wrote:
>
> > >> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
> > >> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
> > >> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. *I don't consider
> > >> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
> > >> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
> > >> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
> > >> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that *the whaling ship
> > >> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
>
> > > The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
> > > rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
> > > water spouts, amongst others.
>
> > I don't think so. I have seen the video taken from the ship and by the
> > anti-whalers, and it sure looks to me like the whaling sheep changed
> > direction and intentionally rammed the bat boat. I trust that you also
> > noted that after ramming and shearing the bow off the bat boat that they
> > proceeded to use the water canons on the people on the smaller boat. It
> > is one thing to use water cannons to scare someone off, but is something
> > completely different to use high pressure water canons to assault the
> > survivors of a marine collision.
>
> > *> The ecos needed publicity. What is better
> > > than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
> > > got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
> > > view.
> > > Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all can
> > > see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat in
> > > position to be rammed.
>
> > The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
> > steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
> > Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.
>
> We have been talking about this on my boating group and it is clear. The
> Bat ship had been harassing this boat for nearly a month.

Too bad it was just ineffectual harassment. It would have been nice
to litter the ocean with dismembered bits of Japanese whalers.

--Bryan

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:59:35 -0800 (PST), --Bryan >
wrote:

>Too bad it was just ineffectual harassment. It would have been nice
>to litter the ocean with dismembered bits of Japanese whalers.
>
One again, you've taken a decent discussion to the wrong level. There
is no reason to bring anything like that into this thread. Put a lid
on it.


--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Jan 12, 12:47*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:59:35 -0800 (PST), --Bryan >
> wrote:
>
> >Too bad it was just ineffectual harassment. *It would have been nice
> >to litter the ocean with dismembered bits of Japanese whalers.
>
> One again, you've taken a decent discussion to the wrong level. *There
> is no reason to bring anything like that into this thread. *Put a lid
> on it.
>
There is nothing decent about what the Japanese are doing in this.
They are hunting endangered species of cetaceans, which are generally
agreed to be the most intelligent, sentient non-apes. Just like with
WWII, maybe the only way to get them to agree to stop is to kill them
en masse.

--Bryan

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:55:04 -0800 (PST), --Bryan >
wrote:

>On Jan 12, 12:47*pm, sf > wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:59:35 -0800 (PST), --Bryan >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Too bad it was just ineffectual harassment. *It would have been nice
>> >to litter the ocean with dismembered bits of Japanese whalers.
>>
>> One again, you've taken a decent discussion to the wrong level. *There
>> is no reason to bring anything like that into this thread. *Put a lid
>> on it.
>>
>There is nothing decent about what the Japanese are doing in this.
>They are hunting endangered species of cetaceans, which are generally
>agreed to be the most intelligent, sentient non-apes. Just like with
>WWII, maybe the only way to get them to agree to stop is to kill them
>en masse.
>
You're way to violent for me. Time to put you where you belong
because you've gone off the deep end again.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I am Tosk wrote:
>
> You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
> buddies had been hounding this ship for nearly a month ...

So either of the ships could probably have avoided the collision and
neither did. Both sides agreed to the collision.

So is this about Japanese folks who love whales or about whales that
hold Japanese passports having relationship issues?

> Either way, in open water the smaller more maneuverable ship has the
> responsibility to avoid that collision. The fact is, the batboat and his
> friends have been playing chicken with the ship for a long time and
> finally somebody made a wrong decision.

If both sides agreed to the collision it's not a wrong decision. If
both sides want publicity it's not a wrong decision. It's a crazy
decision which isn't quite the same as wrong. ;^)

> Another fact to remember is that
> this is all done for pure publicity (remember the balloon boy hoax?)
> that's why they used the exotic boat instead of a solid skiff which
> would be a much better tool for the job...

Exotic looking boats are better publicity than solid looking boats. The
bat boat was a good tool for what the job was. If the goal had been to
ram and sink the whaler a very different boat would have been better.
If the goal had been to stop the harassment a harpon would have been
used to sink it not a water hose to **** off its crew.

The entire situation is some sort of publicity stunt "reality TV" game
to make all of the participants look like idiots. That's the most real
part of the whole thing.

I am Tosk wrote:
>
>> The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
>> steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
>> Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.
>
> You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
> buddies had been hounding this ship for nearly a month.


Okay, we can add motive to the circumstances surrounding the accidental
collision.



> When two vessels
> are meeting on the water there are a lot more variables than on land. On
> land you can steer and count on certain laws of physics for gaining or
> reducing speed. If the batboat was moving quickly before the crash and
> then slowed down, the ships captain may have thought the batboat was
> passing in front (yet again) and turned right to miss behind it (the
> batboat).


Based on what I saw in the video taken from the whaler, the bat boat was
all but stopped, and it sure looked to me like the whaler had turned to
starboard, toward the smaller craft, and immediately after the collision
it turned very quickly to port. Accident or not, there is no excuse for
them hitting the survivors with a water canon.

Dave Smith wrote:
> I am Tosk wrote:
>>
>>> The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
>>> steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
>>> Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.
>>
>> You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
>> buddies had been hounding this ship for nearly a month.
>
>
> Okay, we can add motive to the circumstances surrounding the
> accidental collision.
>
>
>
>> When two vessels
>> are meeting on the water there are a lot more variables than on
>> land. On land you can steer and count on certain laws of physics for
>> gaining or reducing speed. If the batboat was moving quickly before
>> the crash and then slowed down, the ships captain may have thought
>> the batboat was passing in front (yet again) and turned right to
>> miss behind it (the batboat).
>
>
> Based on what I saw in the video taken from the whaler, the bat boat
> was all but stopped, and it sure looked to me like the whaler had
> turned to starboard, toward the smaller craft, and immediately after
> the collision it turned very quickly to port. Accident or not, there
> is no excuse for them hitting the survivors with a water canon.

Of course there is. They thought it was on fire. Works for me anyway.

In article >,
says...
>
> I am Tosk wrote:
> >
> > You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
> > buddies had been hounding this ship for nearly a month ...
>
> So either of the ships could probably have avoided the collision and
> neither did. Both sides agreed to the collision.
>
> So is this about Japanese folks who love whales or about whales that
> hold Japanese passports having relationship issues?
>
> > Either way, in open water the smaller more maneuverable ship has the
> > responsibility to avoid that collision. The fact is, the batboat and his
> > friends have been playing chicken with the ship for a long time and
> > finally somebody made a wrong decision.
>
> If both sides agreed to the collision it's not a wrong decision. If
> both sides want publicity it's not a wrong decision. It's a crazy
> decision which isn't quite the same as wrong. ;^)
>
> > Another fact to remember is that
> > this is all done for pure publicity (remember the balloon boy hoax?)
> > that's why they used the exotic boat instead of a solid skiff which
> > would be a much better tool for the job...
>
> Exotic looking boats are better publicity than solid looking boats. The
> bat boat was a good tool for what the job was. If the goal had been to
> ram and sink the whaler a very different boat would have been better.
> If the goal had been to stop the harassment a harpon would have been
> used to sink it not a water hose to **** off its crew.
>
> The entire situation is some sort of publicity stunt "reality TV" game
> to make all of the participants look like idiots. That's the most real
> part of the whole thing.

I still say the Whaler captain might have turned in one direction or
another trying to anticipate where the bat boat would be, and that could
be based on continuous action by the batboat for the last month. It
would not be hard for the batboat to "condition" the captain of the
whaler to react one way then change the gameplan, mid game and force the
collision. I can not see any way possible a Japanese Whaler that far
from home would want to risk collision or damage. The batboat probably
had support ships near by, I still say the Whaler ship was innocent. As
to using a harpoon instead of a water hose, I just doubt the captain of
the Whaler has clearance to use deadly force which a harpoon would/could
be. And besides, why would he want to kill some pimple faced punk out
there with daddys money trying to impress girls?

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:30:07 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> I am Tosk wrote:
>>
>>> The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
>>> steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
>>> Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.
>>
>> You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
>> buddies had been hounding this ship for nearly a month.
>
> Okay, we can add motive to the circumstances surrounding the accidental
> collision.
>
>> When two vessels
>> are meeting on the water there are a lot more variables than on land. On
>> land you can steer and count on certain laws of physics for gaining or
>> reducing speed. If the batboat was moving quickly before the crash and
>> then slowed down, the ships captain may have thought the batboat was
>> passing in front (yet again) and turned right to miss behind it (the
>> batboat).
>
> Based on what I saw in the video taken from the whaler, the bat boat was
> all but stopped, and it sure looked to me like the whaler had turned to
> starboard, toward the smaller craft, and immediately after the collision
> it turned very quickly to port. Accident or not, there is no excuse for
> them hitting the survivors with a water canon.

i think the water cannon part tells the story.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:45:05 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Based on what I saw in the video taken from the whaler, the bat boat
>> was all but stopped, and it sure looked to me like the whaler had
>> turned to starboard, toward the smaller craft, and immediately after
>> the collision it turned very quickly to port. Accident or not, there
>> is no excuse for them hitting the survivors with a water canon.
>
> Of course there is. They thought it was on fire. Works for me anyway.

just like bull connor.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:45:05 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Based on what I saw in the video taken from the whaler, the bat boat
>>> was all but stopped, and it sure looked to me like the whaler had
>>> turned to starboard, toward the smaller craft, and immediately after
>>> the collision it turned very quickly to port. Accident or not, there
>>> is no excuse for them hitting the survivors with a water canon.
>>
>> Of course there is. They thought it was on fire. Works for me
>> anyway.
>
> just like bull connor.

Yeah, right, animal rights loons are equivalent to civil rights protestors.

Foam, mouth, napkin. And get some cortisone in that knee while you're about
it.