Oil tanker rescues eco-failboat

[civ_king]

it is simply the law of the sea. You must render aid when required.

qft.......

 

[Death_Machine]

Some people who campaign for awareness of climate change are foolish. Ergo the whole climate change issue is foolish

Wow. You have a unique way of reading something, twisting it in your mind, and then finding your own hidden meaning in it. You should go help the evangelicals find some songs to play backwards & listen for messages from Satan. They would love a guy like you.

Books kill trees.

Do you catch much like that?

 

[aelf]

Wow. You have a unique way of reading something, twisting it in your mind, and then finding your own hidden meaning in it. You should go help the evangelicals find some songs to play backwards & listen for messages from Satan. They would love a guy like you.

That's funny coming from a guy who goes on to paint an extremely fantastic scenario.

 

[flyingchicken]

Perhaps it is irony, perhaps it is not; as I see it, it is the context – given, implied, or researched – that defines irony. An eco-boat, as its name might imply, is ideologically against oil tankers since oil tankers are movers of an industry that is defined as an enemy of environmentalism; one who is unaware of maritime law, tradition, and human compassion would likely be predisposed to think, perhaps jestingly (and jokes, as they say, are half-meant) that it is indeed ironic that the oil tanker did not just let the eco-boat's crew die out at sea, with a silent nod to the buccaneers who served big-organization interests in eras past ([wiki]privateers[/wiki] and [wiki]pirates[/wiki] of the [wiki]Age of Sail[/wiki] come to mind).

The complexity of the issue needs to be laid out clearly before them, and then a new obstacle is faced: the abolition of previous prejudices and, possibly, an irrational or rational (in the case of those who find pleasure in others' discomfort or annoyance; see [wiki]schadenfreude[/wiki]) want to hold onto these previous prejudices that do not do justice to the depth of the matter at hand.

Particularly enlightening is [wiki=irony]this interesting article on irony[/wiki], and should help all those who wish to expand their intellectual horizons.

 

[aelf]

Wow. You have a unique way of writing smart-sounding words, twisting the facts, and finding your own hidden meaning in them. You should go help the Commies find some slogans to say backwards & listen for messages from Bush. They would love a guy like you.

 

[flyingchicken]

Wow. You have a unique way of writing smart-sounding words, twisting the facts, and finding your own hidden meaning in them. You should go help the Commies find some slogans to say backwards & listen for messages from Bush. They would love a guy like you.

I was under the impression that I was clearing things up, and to clarify further I was simply noting why I think there is are the two camps of irony and non-irony, id est that those who see irony are those less informed of the matter or those who see it fitting to keep believing what they believe and there are those who are more informed of the matter – but, as I might add here, picking on a point as though to assert their superiority; it is, to use an analogy I so love to use, akin to scrotum-rubbing against a foe, which makes one feel big but ultimately leads to nothing but uncomfortable grating and even more uncomfortable overtones of homoeroticism.

Of course, except for the negative "vibes" I get from your post, you have said nothing that directly tries to contradict or contest anything that I have said, except perhaps "twisting the facts" and "finding your own meaning" in them; unless you have anything substantial to assert against my observation, there is no reason for you to be hostile; unless, of course, it is your natural course to be hostile, like a base animal lacking sapience. If so I must forgive your crass attitude in light of your partial inhumanity, though what little is left of your [wiki]sapience[/wiki] (or wisdom, as that article put it) must make it a priority to rectify your admittedly difficult-to-control misdemeanors.

In any case, I wish that you clear up what is that you find erroneous or offensive in my previous post, if you did find any, so that we may engage in stimulating conversation. Surely, you know that the greatest and most fruitful of discussions are made with even tempers and and cool heads, and that by participating in a discussion [wiki]forum[/wiki] (let that link show you where "forum" is derived from), you have sought out intelligent and fruitful discussions of matters of varying import?

 

[aelf]

I was under the impression that I was clearing things up, and to clarify further I was simply noting why I think there is are the two camps of irony and non-irony, id est that those who see irony are those less informed of the matter or those who see it fitting to keep believing what they believe and there are those who are more informed of the matter – but, as I might add here, picking on a point as though to assert their superiority; it is, to use an analogy I so love to use, akin to scrotum-rubbing against a foe, which makes one feel big but ultimately leads to nothing but uncomfortable grating and even more uncomfortable overtones of homoeroticism.

Of course, except for the negative "vibes" I get from your post, you have said nothing that directly tries to contradict or contest anything that I have said, except perhaps "twisting the facts" and "finding your own meaning" in them; unless you have anything substantial to assert against my observation, there is no reason for you to be hostile; unless, of course, it is your natural course to be hostile, like a base animal lacking sapience. If so I must forgive your crass attitude in light of your partial inhumanity, though what little is left of your [wiki]sapience[/wiki] (or wisdom, as that article put it) must make it a priority to rectify your admittedly difficult-to-control misdemeanors.

In any case, I wish that you clear up what is that you find erroneous or offensive in my previous post, if you did find any, so that we may engage in stimulating conversation. Surely, you know that the greatest and most fruitful of discussions are made with even tempers and and cool heads, and that by participating in a discussion [wiki]forum[/wiki] (let that link show you where "forum" is derived from), you have sought out intelligent and fruitful discussions of matters of varying import?

Oh yeah? Which part of your nick reads "Death" or "Machine"? Your obviously not awesome enough to argue with me. Only awesome people have macho, unfeeling and sadistic nicks like those.

 

[flyingchicken]

Oh yeah? Which part of your nick reads "Death" or "Machine"? Your obviously not awesome enough to argue with me. Only awesome people have macho, unfeeling and sadistic nicks like those.

If you would look closely at the posts prior and their ordering, there is no indication that you were referring to Mister Death_Machine in your last post, except perhaps your mirroring of his earlier statements which is ambiguous at best, given the context. You sir, as the crude internet populace puts it, [wiki]fail[/wiki] – at communicating clearly, at least.

 

[aelf]

If you would look closely at the posts prior and their ordering, there is no indication that you were referring to Mister Death_Machine in your last post, except perhaps your mirroring of his earlier statements which is ambiguous at best, given the context. You sir, as the crude internet populace puts it, [wiki]fail[/wiki] – at communicating clearly, at least.

You sir, as the kewl internet peeps put it, fail - at reading the page in front of you, at least.

 

[Rashiminos]

@Flyingchicken

Aelf's post 65 was mocking Death_Machine's post 62.

 

[aelf]

@Flyingchicken

Aelf's post 65 was mocking Death_Machine's post 62.

I think he got that, actually.

 

[Abaddon]

FC's gone Rogue!

 

[Rashiminos]

I think he got that, actually.

If he had to make a post about it, he did not...

 

[civ_king]

Perhaps it is irony, perhaps it is not; as I see it, it is the context – given, implied, or researched – that defines irony. An eco-boat, as its name might imply, is ideologically against oil tankers since oil tankers are movers of an industry that is defined as an enemy of environmentalism; one who is unaware of maritime law, tradition, and human compassion would likely be predisposed to think, perhaps jestingly (and jokes, as they say, are half-meant) that it is indeed ironic that the oil tanker did not just let the eco-boat's crew die out at sea, with a silent nod to the buccaneers who served big-organization interests in eras past ([wiki]privateers[/wiki] and [wiki]pirates[/wiki] of the [wiki]Age of Sail[/wiki] come to mind).

The complexity of the issue needs to be laid out clearly before them, and then a new obstacle is faced: the abolition of previous prejudices and, possibly, an irrational or rational (in the case of those who find pleasure in others' discomfort or annoyance; see [wiki]schadenfreude[/wiki]) want to hold onto these previous prejudices that do not do justice to the depth of the matter at hand.

Particularly enlightening is [wiki=irony]this interesting article on irony[/wiki], and should help all those who wish to expand their intellectual horizons.

I was under the impression that I was clearing things up, and to clarify further I was simply noting why I think there is are the two camps of irony and non-irony, id est that those who see irony are those less informed of the matter or those who see it fitting to keep believing what they believe and there are those who are more informed of the matter – but, as I might add here, picking on a point as though to assert their superiority; it is, to use an analogy I so love to use, akin to scrotum-rubbing against a foe, which makes one feel big but ultimately leads to nothing but uncomfortable grating and even more uncomfortable overtones of homoeroticism.

Of course, except for the negative "vibes" I get from your post, you have said nothing that directly tries to contradict or contest anything that I have said, except perhaps "twisting the facts" and "finding your own meaning" in them; unless you have anything substantial to assert against my observation, there is no reason for you to be hostile; unless, of course, it is your natural course to be hostile, like a base animal lacking sapience. If so I must forgive your crass attitude in light of your partial inhumanity, though what little is left of your [wiki]sapience[/wiki] (or wisdom, as that article put it) must make it a priority to rectify your admittedly difficult-to-control misdemeanors.

In any case, I wish that you clear up what is that you find erroneous or offensive in my previous post, if you did find any, so that we may engage in stimulating conversation. Surely, you know that the greatest and most fruitful of discussions are made with even tempers and and cool heads, and that by participating in a discussion [wiki]forum[/wiki] (let that link show you where "forum" is derived from), you have sought out intelligent and fruitful discussions of matters of varying import?

QFT, very well said

 

[Orange Seeds]

I expect somebody fixin' to set sail to have done their homework on the type of seas in which they will be operating.

normally on a trip like this the sailors will do one of two things: first look at past weather patterns and depart at a time of year where the probability of a storm is historically lowest, or second: ask a maritime weather station to give them a 'window' where geostrophic winds and other factors give them a good chance of making it through without too much adversity. The second is used predominantly for trans-Atlantic crossings where sophisticated forecasting tools are readily available.

Needless to say they hit the a, or the completement, and not the x and as such will have to go about it next year.

 

[Tekee]

Yeah, these stupid "eco" hippies made a crappy "eco" boat with solar panels...
Why didn't they just sail like the Vikings and made it to Greenland?
Because they wanted their laptops to have power and all the conveniences of electricity.
Jackasses
Good thing their smug little yacht got caught up in a storm.
If they wanted to raise awarness good job, I can now say that all enviornmentalists are hacks who are concerned about their image... Go Green!!!
.jackasses/.

 

[cardgame]

I can't tell if the above post is sarcasm or not.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Because they wanted their laptops to have power and all the conveniences of electricity.
Jackasses

there's no need for a radio or lights or any thing of that sort. Except that it would be illegal to sail without them. Navigation lights and communication are the only thing that stopped that tanker, and many others, from pasting the smaller craft to its hull.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

“Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.”
He who speaks Latin, speaks of Truth.

You don't speak of truth when you "translate" it like that. It just says "whatever be said in Latin appears deep"

 

[cardgame]

Spoiler :

I was under the impression that I was clearing things up, and to clarify further I was simply noting why I think there is are the two camps of irony and non-irony, id est that those who see irony are those less informed of the matter or those who see it fitting to keep believing what they believe and there are those who are more informed of the matter – but, as I might add here, picking on a point as though to assert their superiority; it is, to use an analogy I so love to use, akin to scrotum-rubbing against a foe, which makes one feel big but ultimately leads to nothing but uncomfortable grating and even more uncomfortable overtones of homoeroticism.

Of course, except for the negative "vibes" I get from your post, you have said nothing that directly tries to contradict or contest anything that I have said, except perhaps "twisting the facts" and "finding your own meaning" in them; unless you have anything substantial to assert against my observation, there is no reason for you to be hostile; unless, of course, it is your natural course to be hostile, like a base animal lacking sapience. If so I must forgive your crass attitude in light of your partial inhumanity, though what little is left of your [wiki]sapience[/wiki] (or wisdom, as that article put it) must make it a priority to rectify your admittedly difficult-to-control misdemeanors.

In any case, I wish that you clear up what is that you find erroneous or offensive in my previous post, if you did find any, so that we may engage in stimulating conversation. Surely, you know that the greatest and most fruitful of discussions are made with even tempers and and cool heads, and that by participating in a discussion [wiki]forum[/wiki] (let that link show you where "forum" is derived from), you have sought out intelligent and fruitful discussions of matters of varying import?

This is the Internet, not a college essay