Ocean life in peril: best interview I've heard on the topic - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #61 11-10-2007, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt SD300

No... not passing judgment...Fact....based on his past posts on moral issues...

You got nothing. You don't think, you judge.

cmac2012 · #62 11-10-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

The Navy and Coast guard do already indeed enforce Federal fishing laws, cmac. I agree that they ought to expand the off limits areas and ramp up enforcement. Where do I send your lobbying check

I'll have to admit that I'm probably dreaming big time on this one. Actually keeping people out of vast tracts of the ocean would be a serious challenge. And the conspiracy theories that would float around it would be non-stop, stuff like: "The evil rich in the US are using these areas to feed its own people, they're trying to starve the rest of us, etc." And this would likely be the scuttlebutt even if it was internationally sanctioned, operated, etc.

I'll check out the info you mentioned, I've read a bit about menhaden and the impact its serious depletion has likely had on reduced populations of the fish we want -- cod, swordfish, etc. -- as opposed to menhaden itself which I understand is almost inedible . . . . by people, anyway.

aklim · #63 11-10-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You sink vessels that violate your rule.

Wow! So simple. I never thought of that.

They will be so stupid too that they won't retaliate.

But lets say that is true. Where will you get sufficient resources?

Why don't you come to reality from Fantasyland? I realize it isn't as nice but such is life. We can't even do what we want in Iraq. To be blunt, we don't have the stones to do what it takes there when people are trying to kill us and worse. This is in a region where disruption of oil is a "now" problem. But you think that we will be able to shoot and kill others who are trying to earn a living because we feel that this exclusion zone MIGHT be a good idea? Now you want us to enforce a zone way larger than that with lethal force. Besides your pithy one liner answers, do you have specific answers to the 2 questions below?

1. Where will you find a country or countries with the stones to fire on unarmed fisherpeople?

2. Where will you find the resources to do this action?

aklim · #64 11-10-2007, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Could you be a little more vague please? Complaining about grammatical errors is a bit thin, I'll admit, but it does point to a certain lack of attention to scholarship, of which the good gentleman displays plenty.

I'm shocked. You don't know what 5150 is and you live in CA? Hell, even in WI I know what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)

It was a few months ago when Matt and I disagreed on his religion and that was the answer I got. Finally Benz-LGB mentioned that it was a CA code. It was my opinion that he (Matt) was using it to impress readers with his knowledge of legal codes that are meaningless to most people.

Matt SD300 · #65 11-11-2007, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Oh my. I hate God. It's all clear to me now.

Bro-man, you scoff and snear at what you consider to be green-ness, oblivious to the fact that the entire web of life that enabled your countless ancestors to raise up a family long enough to give rise to your very person subsisted, in total - physical bodies anyway, on a large network of green living things, all of them dependent on a semi-stable functioning of climate systems.

No matter what belief system one subscribes to, Theism, Deism, agnosticism, aetheism and everything in between, good reason to be grateful to healthy growing GREEN things ought to be a no-brainer.

If one adheres to a rigid and proud notion of your idea of who God is, it has to be recoginzed that God gave birth to all green things and at some point, surely must have noted and pronounced it "GOOD" that his creation, man, and all other animal creations depended directly or indirectly (carnivores) on green, growing things.

You don't have the barest clue about my morals or lack of. You jump to conclusions based on well worn ruts of snap judgement that comprise a large part of your mental activity, best I can tell. That's sometimes referred to as "weak $h!t."

Fact...By your standards ..."Your OK."...By Gods standards??? ...Have you ever told a lie?.....enough said!....

I reality....You don't know Jack $hit........... Only God knows all....

Matt SD300 · #66 11-11-2007, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm shocked. You don't know what 5150 is and you live in CA? Hell, even in WI I know what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)

It was a few months ago when Matt and I disagreed on his religion and that was the answer I got. Finally Benz-LGB mentioned that it was a CA code. It was my opinion that he was using it to impress readers with his knowledge of legal codes that are meaningless to most people.

5150....= CRAZY....

aklim · #67 11-11-2007, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt SD300

Fact...By your standards ..."Your OK."...By Gods standards??? ...Have you ever told a lie?.....enough said!....

I reality....You don't know Jack $hit........... Only God knows all....

Only holds true for those who do believe in this deity. Otherwise, not.

Matt SD300 · #68 11-11-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Only holds true for those who do believe in this deity. Otherwise, not.

Are you sure about that?.......

aklim · #69 11-11-2007, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt SD300

5150....= CRAZY....

How best can I say it? Hmmmm. I got it. NOT QUITE RIGHT.

Section 5150 is a section of California's Welfare and Institutions Code (specifically, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act or "LPS") which allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person deemed a danger to himself, herself, and/or others[1] and/or gravely disabled. A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician, can request the confinement after signing a written declaration. When used as a term, 5150 can informally refer to the person being confined or to the declaration itself.

On the 5150 application, the initiator is required to ..give sufficiently detailed information to support the belief that the person for whom the is in fact a danger to others, a danger to himself/herself and/or gravely disabled.

A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician,

Are you such a qualified person? I'll bet not. Care to prove me wrong?

Matt SD300 · #70 11-11-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

How best can I say it? Hmmmm. I got it. NOT QUITE RIGHT.

Section 5150 is a section of California's Welfare and Institutions Code (specifically, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act or "LPS") which allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person deemed a danger to himself, herself, and/or others[1] and/or gravely disabled. A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician, can request the confinement after signing a written declaration. When used as a term, 5150 can informally refer to the person being confined or to the declaration itself.

On the 5150 application, the initiator is required to ..give sufficiently detailed information to support the belief that the person for whom the is in fact a danger to others, a danger to himself/herself and/or gravely disabled.

A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician,

Are you such a qualified person? I'll bet not. Care to prove me wrong?

Let me translate it for you.....5150 is a

"CRAZY PERSON"....LOL...

aklim · #71 11-11-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt SD300

Are you sure about that!.......

Absolutely. If you don't believe in a diety, what meaning can an judgment from said deity have? Compare and contrast the value of a judgment of a deity you don't believe in vs the judgment of the man on the moon.

aklim · #72 11-11-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt SD300

Let me translate it for you.....5150 is a

"CRAZY PERSON"....LOL...

1. Keying it in big, bold and red letters doesn't make it true.

2. Are you the person mentioned in California's Welfare and Institutions Code that is QUALIFIED to make the decision? I think not. Care to prove me wrong?

Botnst · #73 11-11-2007, 08:17 AM

Invasion of the Body Snatchers: It's almost as if the spirit of Kamil has assumed the wasted husk of Matt.

Matt SD300 · #74 11-11-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Invasion of the Body Snatchers: It's almost as if the spirit of Kamil has assumed the wasted husk of Matt.

Dude....You got issues.........

BENZ-LGB · #75 11-11-2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I'm shocked. You don't know what 5150 is and you live in CA? Hell, even in WI I know what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)

It was a few months ago when Matt and I disagreed on his religion and that was the answer I got. Finally Benz-LGB mentioned that it was a CA code. It was my opinion that he was using it to impress readers with his knowledge of legal codes that are meaningless to most people.

Trying to impress???

If by now you are not already in awe of my boundless knowledge of legal codes then there is little else I can do to impress you.

Meaningless to most people???

Not if you've just been decalred 5150. I daresay that a huge percentage of the people here qualify for such designation.