"Sea Shepherd" sliced in two !
frank miller

United States

#143 Jan 13, 2010
Yeah right idiot 'mr Giblets Lianelli, UK # 142' if you can't tell the difference between practical, and your flagrantly unreasonable syntax claims of yours, then get off this Topix forum!
Your simple, and pretentious 2 liners insult everybody's intelligence, who sincerely want to lean something, without being ad. nausea distracted
with your obtuse satire mental damaged persona gymnastics! If you want to hurt others, to make yourself feel better, go to a local pub and see how far youl'l get!!
F.M.
Pragmatist

Columbus, OH

#144 Jan 13, 2010
mr Giblets wrote:
do you have some form of communication problem? If you used correct paragraphing it might make you writings decipherable. I am not "on the dole", I am retired and quite well off. I haven't noticed it getting any warmer here either.
Figures, another old fart holding on to the past and unable to come to terms with the fact that his views are no longer important.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#145 Jan 14, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Spamming the group with material already detailed is not useful.
In other words, you're unable to quote the applicable 72 COLREGS.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The video clearly shows it was not maneuvering (moving with steering control).
Entirely the fault of Ady Gil's skipper, Pete Bethune.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
And you have no evidence that the engines were 'at operating temperature'.
And you have have no evidence that the engines were not at operating temperature.
Idling engines are at operating temperature and can be powered up instantly
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
This is a speedboat. At no time in the video did it move beyond 'idle'.
Once again, the skipper's fault.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The fact remains that the collision was casued by the Shonan Maru, and it will have to face a marine court for the deliberate ramming of another vessel.
Ady Gil was deliberately put in danger by its skipper, therefore the collision was, "casued" by it's skipper.

See you in court.

NB: I'm seeing this from an unbiased point of view, I don't have strong views on whaling or eco terrorism.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#146 Jan 14, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>
See you in court.
The only factual statement in the entire post.
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>
NB: I'm seeing this from an unbiased point of view, I don't have strong views on whaling or eco terrorism.
Mr. Dirtling. You are NEVER an 'unbiased observer'. You are always biased towards bullshit and bafflegab and provocation. i.e you are a 'contrarian' and a troll. You post a lot because you are a troll. You post crap opposing the science because you have to.. It is a compulsion to you. That you can deny the video evidence is just one example of your condition..
Mr Giblets

Birmingham, UK

#147 Jan 14, 2010
doesn't he get cross? just because an eco-hero got his flashy polluting speedboat cut in two. perhaps they can get Batman to help out?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#148 Jan 14, 2010
Mr Giblets wrote:
doesn't he get cross? just because an eco-hero got his flashy polluting speedboat cut in two. perhaps they can get Batman to help out?
Sure. Dirtling is very even tempered. Mad all the time. And bored. He retired too soon, but it was probably 'involuntary'.

But who cares about Dirtlings opinion?

As noted, the court will decide and the Shonan Maru's captain will have no legal defense. The facts are too obvious and the courts don't go into irrelevant 'he said, she said' or political arenas.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#149 Jan 14, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
COLREGS do not take 'harassment' of a boat NOT under power into effect, certainly. A boat with no 'maneuverability' is, by definition, to be avoided by the ship that IS under power.
And a boat, sitting idle in the water isn't harassing anyone, nor is that a matter for marine law. Marine law deals with ship handling, NOT politics.
The fact was that the Gil is a poer vessel. She moves via mechanical means. If she stopped in front of the trawler in question for anything other than an engine failure then she was still at fault.

By every legal definition the Gil was harassing the trawler. The only ones who have yet to acknowledge this simple fact are those who if they do will have to admit that the Gil and her consorts were in the wrong the entire time.

Care to give up or do you still want to drown since your way out of your depth.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#150 Jan 14, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Spamming the group with material already detailed is not useful.
<quoted text>
The video clearly shows it was not maneuvering (moving with steering control).
And you have no evidence that the engines were 'at operating temperature'. This is a speedboat. At no time in the video did it move beyond 'idle'.
The fact remains that the collision was casued by the Shonan Maru, and it will have to face a marine court for the deliberate ramming of another vessel.
The report from both sides had mentioned that that Gil and the rest of the boats had deployed from a support vessel and had been in the process of trying to stop the trawlers. There was even mention of the trawler chaising the Gil which implys that the engines had been running and running for a while. From what my husband told me about those engine they should of been able to get underway at a moments notice. Those engines were hot and more than ready to run. While they are not exactly like the engines in your normal sedan those are not like commercial engines which do require a few minutes to get up to operating temperature.

Of course you don't wnat to discuss anything that would prove you wrong. That is why you "detail" anything that does as "spam" and "not useful". Or at least "not useful" to you.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#151 Jan 14, 2010
Tina. Look up 'maneuvering'. It has nothing to do with whether you HAVE an engine.

And the political protesting is a non-relevant issue.

The point is that the Maru deliberately steered into or VERY close to a stationary boat ( to try to get close enough to hit them with water cannon) and this caused a collision for which THEY must take responsibility.

'Playing Chicken' at sea is NO excuse. The collision is entirely dependent on the maneuvering of the Shonan Maru and so IT is the ship that will have to face the charges.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#152 Jan 15, 2010
Don't worry folks, the Royal Canadian Navy will easily sort the problem out, especially now that they have a boat:
http://www.pointmanspage.com/gallery/main.php...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#153 Jan 15, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Tina. Look up 'maneuvering'. It has nothing to do with whether you HAVE an engine.
And the political protesting is a non-relevant issue.
The point is that the Maru deliberately steered into or VERY close to a stationary boat ( to try to get close enough to hit them with water cannon) and this caused a collision for which THEY must take responsibility.
'Playing Chicken' at sea is NO excuse. The collision is entirely dependent on the maneuvering of the Shonan Maru and so IT is the ship that will have to face the charges.
You should look it up as well. What the Gil was by Coast Guard Definition was a "Vessel Underway, not making way". She had the ability to manuver and could of decided to stop anywhere but chose to stop in from of the trawler. The fact that the trawler used a water cannon as you call it (I still call it fire fighting equiptment since that is what it is ment for) tells me that they were the ones being harassed.

Your right about playing chicken but the Gil forgot the most important part is when to flinch. The assumed the trawler would and forgot that it isn't anywhere easy to manuver or even stop as something like the Gil.

The Gil was deployed from the Barker with the express intent of conducting a protest. Take away that reason had you have no reason for the Gil to be anywhere near the trawler in question. Which makes even more guilty of not providing for proper sea room.

The Gil was guilty of breaking so many international laws that any case they tried to bring against the trawler would be tossed out of court.

The issue is the Gil was there to harass a trawler in international waters and was breaking so many rules of the sea while conducting a protest against something that was inside the letter of the law. They wer hit while delibertly stopping in front of the trawler who was the stand on vessel and placing the vessel in danger. It's captain should have his papers pulled and toss in a cell to think about the errors of his ways.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#154 Jan 15, 2010
Tina, Lessy may be along shortly to advise you that the Shonan Maru 2 isn't a, "trawler," he claims it's a, "patrol boat," perhaps disguised as a whaling ship??

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#155 Jan 15, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Tina, Lessy may be along shortly to advise you that the Shonan Maru 2 isn't a, "trawler," he claims it's a, "patrol boat," perhaps disguised as a whaling ship??
Or a whaling ship disguised as a patrol boat. Actually she is listed as a research vessel. Although with a top speed of only twelve knots I find it funny that he thinks it would of been able to catch a vessel like the Ady Gil.

I also been looking for data on MV Bob Barker and only found out she was an ice breaker and several stories about it using some sort of laser to disrupt the other ships bridges which is another crime in it's own right. If that is the case then the japanese have an air tight defense on everythng that happened.

http://www.researchvessels.org/country/Japan/...

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/12/23/confirmed-...
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#156 Jan 15, 2010
This is too easy, one last time folks, check Ady Gil's wake just before impact.
Were it's motors running or not?
Was it underway at the time?
Did its skipper mistake forward for reverse?
&fe ature=related

Freeze the video at 18 seconds in, the proof is there.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#157 Jan 15, 2010
Earthling wrote:
This is too easy,
You mean 'simple' as in 'simple minded'. According to YOUR theory, no car can be charged with hitting a pedestrian unless the pedestrian is already dead or too crippled to move.

Try again, bozo. Look up the terms 'maneuvering' and the COLREGS requirements. By 'playing chicken' with a boat that was 'dead in the water', the Maru's captain took responsiblity for the resulting collision, even if the Gil tried at the last moment to get out of the way. No amount of 'bs and bafflegab' will affect the courts.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#158 Jan 16, 2010
FYI, Lessy dear, no, "car" can be charged with hitting a pedestrian or anything else, cars are inanimate objects.

The nautical term, "Dead in the water" applies to a motorised vessel unable to power its engines due to a malfunction.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#159 Jan 16, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean 'simple' as in 'simple minded'. According to YOUR theory, no car can be charged with hitting a pedestrian unless the pedestrian is already dead or too crippled to move.
Try again, bozo. Look up the terms 'maneuvering' and the COLREGS requirements. By 'playing chicken' with a boat that was 'dead in the water', the Maru's captain took responsiblity for the resulting collision, even if the Gil tried at the last moment to get out of the way. No amount of 'bs and bafflegab' will affect the courts.
The Ady Gil wasn't dead in the water but Underway not making way by Cost Guard Standards. The only one who seems to be using large amounts of BS and bafflegab is you and your friends on the Bob Barker. Of course the Gil had not tried to get out of the way. The whole purpose was to try to get the Maru to change course.
frank miller

United States

#160 Jan 16, 2010
Please give it up! What, is this going to be annother 2398 posts revolving door absurd arguments, when you don't even know what you're doing? For God's sake go to a law library, research, research, research if any such actions, irrespective of Maritime rules were decided, for one party or another'! This is just like the equivalent of a chain reaction auto accident, and the Court/Insurance companies mediation/arbitration/juries award damages in term of at-fault percentages! Some of you people just can't seem to directly conceptualize!
F.M.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#161 Jan 17, 2010
Frankie, what problem do you have with a few people laughing at a rear admiral of the Canadian Navy?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#162 Jan 17, 2010
frank miller wrote:
Please give it up! What, is this going to be annother 2398 posts revolving door absurd arguments, when you don't even know what you're doing? For God's sake go to a law library, research, research, research if any such actions, irrespective of Maritime rules were decided, for one party or another'! This is just like the equivalent of a chain reaction auto accident, and the Court/Insurance companies mediation/arbitration/juries award damages in term of at-fault percentages! Some of you people just can't seem to directly conceptualize!
F.M.
Mr Miller
I unlike LHMF have served on the investigation group for a couple of incidents involving the US Navy and a well known eco group ship where there was an incident at sea. In every case it turned out the eco types in some form of protest had placed thier vessel in harms way. Of course they do not just protest against military or trawlers but other shipping like supertankers. Of course parking under the bow of a supertanker who was at a point of either drop anchor or run agound was quite funny. In that case the crew of the small boat ended up hanging on the anchor chain while the USCG came to rescue them was ironic since the same cutter had spent most of the day trying to keep them away.

In the end I will refuse to be silent just to make someone feel better since that could also imply that LHMF just might have a small bit of truth in his posts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 1,224
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 4,815
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr Talkin to daStupid 35,840
News Prominent climate-denying politician gets schoo... 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 67
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 10,655
News Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says g... 6 hr WarmerIsBetter Th... 6
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Brian_G 62,878
More from around the web