home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.environment:13811 sci.energy:6381
- Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!ux1!mica.inel.gov!dpe@inel.gov
- From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
- Subject: Re: Yet Another Anti-Greenpeace Scenario From Thin Air
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.235934.17756@inel.gov>
- Sender: news@inel.gov
- Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
- References: <29721@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Dec18.145351.19736@inel.gov> <Jym.22Dec1992.1516@naughty-peahen>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 23:59:34 GMT
- Lines: 65
-
- In article <Jym.22Dec1992.1516@naughty-peahen>, Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
- >
- > > Now add in the fact that a clearly hostile ship (don't go and
- > > tell me that the GreenPeace ship was out there to protect the
- > > Japanese ship) . . .
- >
- > =+= The Greenpeace ship was out there to (1) draw attention to
- > the shipment and (2) find out the route that the shipment was
- > taking (since such was being kept from the public).
- >
- > =+= This isn't being there "to protect the Japanese ship" (not
- > that anyone ever claimed it was), but neither is it "clearly
- > hostile" to do so.
- >
- > > The bottom line . . . is that GreenPeace was testing the
- > > Japanese escort ship much like the old Soviet Union naval
- > > ships would test the US Navy's carrier defenses by trying
- > > to purposely get their ships in our carrier's way.
- >
- > =+= As I said before, this is a scenario pulled from thin air.
- > Repeating it over and over doesn't add substance to it.
- > <_Jym_>
- >
- >
-
- Boy, talk about pulling things from thin air! Jym, you conveniently leave out
- all of the revalent items from my original posting.
-
- THE BOTTOM LINE WAS THAT THE GREENPEACE SHIP HAD NO BUSINESS BEING 3 NM FROM
- THE JAPANESE PU-CARRIER!!! IF IT WAS TO CARRY OUT YOUR ITEMS 1 AND 2 ABOVE
- IT COULD HAVE DONE IT AT A DISTANCE OF OVER 8 NM!!!
-
- AS I SAID BEFORE (AND YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN SINCE IT IS NOT IN YOUR REPLY) THAT
- BY ANY ACCEPTED STANDARDS FOR OPERATING LARGE SHIPS, BEING WITHIN 3 NM WITH
- KNOWN INTEND OF CAUSING TROUBLE PLACES THE BLAME SOLELY ON GREENPEACE!
-
- One more time: what I have stated is based on several years experience of
- being involved in the day-to-day operation of a large ship. Needless to say,
- Jym does not like to beleive anybody who is more knowledgeable about
- a subject than he is. I stand on my experience and knowledge, and THAT is
- not pulling anything from thin air.
-
- Remember experience and knowledge win out over you just saying "not so, not
- so".
-
- My, my, next thing you will probably state is that you were actually on the
- GreenPeace ship. So my last comment is: OFFER SOME PROOF OR SHUT UP!
-
- Don Palmrose
-
-
-
-
- ========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
-
- Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
- Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
- implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
- information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
- privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
- endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
- Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
- opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
- United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
- and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
-