Comments below.


--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Steve Verdon:
> >Greenpeace is NOT the public ...(but) a subset of the public.
> 
> So what do you mean by a 'subset'? What is the difference between the
> "Salvation Army" and "Greenpeace" for that matter?

I am part of the public therefore the public is me.

For crying out loud John your making little sense on this one.  How about
we just drop it.



> Your obvious fallacy is that you have not indicated why  people make
> donations in kind or monetary form in the first place? So you have not
> made
> a logical statement here. 
> 
> >According to what we have seen posted here, they are about
> >effecting radical change.  There seems to be little interest in whether
> or
> >not this radical change is for the better or worse.  That is, they seem
> to
> >be stuck in a mindset of
> >
> >1. We need to scare people to increase contributions
> >2. We can scare people about topic X.
> >   a. Who cares if what we tell them is wrong, so long as it scares
> them
> >3. Once our policy recommendations are adopted we need to create a new
> >scare.
> 
> I am not so sure that they are out to scare anyone at all except
> polluters.

Not according to that press release.  They are about effecting radical
change.  Usually to do this you'd have to scare people.



> In fact with their presence in the world, the world is a lot less scary.

Uh...okay if you say so.



> The
> industries that spew TCDD, for example, into drinking water and cause
> fish
> to disappear are more scary than Greenpeace. In fact they assist
> government
> in carrying out required and necessary work in protecting the
> environment. 

Geeze, can we say shifting sands here.  I thought the discussion was the
actions of Greenpeace.  How come I am starting to suspect you don't want
to talk about them and are trying to shift the focus to something else?




> 
> 1.      They put a stop to much of the atmospheric bomb testing in the
> seventies;

Yeah, kinda like Patrick Moore said, alot of the reasonable positions have
been adopted so now Greenpeace is becoming more and more radical to
jusitify their existence.



 
> 2.      They also did a lot to put pressure on governments to stop
> nuclear
> bomb testing underground, uranium mining, and in Europe the operation of
> unsafe nuclear reactors which spew wastes into the sea;
> 
> 3.      They brought to attention the major issue of chlorinated
> hydrocarbons in the Sulfate-Chlorine bleaching process (See "No Safe
> Margins");
> 
> 4.      Fought destruction of rainforests, etc; and,
> 
> 5.      Many other important public evironmental issues. 
> 
> I find that living downstream (or downwind) is more scary without
> Greenpeace. 

How come some list members disagree with them on GMOs?  Are these people
stupid?  Or is Greenpeace playing fast and loose to effect radical change?


 
> The word radical is latin for root. So you are correct where 'radical
> change' is needed, they fulfill an important public function. They are
> the
> public or in your own words a 'subset' of the public, that is a people
> with
> a conscience for change that goes to the roots. 

'A conscience for change that goes tot he roots'?  John, you have yet to
show that the change they are talking about is for the better.  Are GMOs a
legitimate are of study?  You posted something by Monsanto indicating that
going slower was a good idea.  My impression with Greenpeace is any
research into GMOs is bad.



 
> >Greenpeace appears to be acting like lots of government beauracracies. 
> >They never cease to exist, even if the problem they were created to
> solve
> >is solved!  They just look for a new problem and move on, and grow, and
> >such up more tax dollars.
> 
> Ah ha. Now we have the real issue that you want to raise. It is not the
> NGOs
> per se which you have gripes about, it is governement, which also
> includes
> the people or citizenry that elect representatives and politicians. 

No, my gripe is about a bloated, debt laden organization that is doing
questionable things to save itself financially.  You know, kinda like
those big bad corporations.



 
> What about Corporate Governance? You dislike private bureacracies too I
> take
> it? Or you just don't like rules and laws?

Now if that isn't a whopper of a strawman.




 
> >> onto big objects of great commercial success and pragmatic usefulness
> >> and
> >> only get noticed by people that way. Greenpeace does not have slots
> >> during
> >> prime time TV each week. They do - as principled actions always do -
> >> operate
> >> in our heads and hearts though.
> >
> >Not quite, instead they do things to get free airtime on the news.
> >
> >
> >> Greenpeace is not a public relations firm because they do not need to
> >> restore their reputation nor do they pollute or clearcut.
> >
> >Well, if you get right down to it, most of the members and the people
> >working for them are probably just as polluting as me.  At another site
> I
> >participate at, someone noted that Greenpeace activits were using
> >snowmobiles at an Ice Camp up north while monitoring construction of a
> >pipeline (IIRC).  Snowmobiles?  Snowmobiles?!?!  Why not dog sleads,
> snow
> >shoes and skis?
> 
> If this is an argument, then where is the argument? What is it that you
> saying? 

Claim:  Greenpeace members are just as polluting as Steve.

Proof:  The snowmobiles at their Ice Camp.  That they fly around in jets,
drive in cars, etc.  Many of the members (at least in the U.S.) probably
live alot like I do, with electricity, gas, cars, televisions, houses,
etc.


 
> What is more polluting: a pipeline that is 35 years old and has been
> know to
> leak, or a snowmobile?

Don't know, perhaps the pipeline.  But this brings up the question of
trade offs, which of course are all too often ignored.  And instead of
doing something rational like discussing trade offs lets just keep on
ignoring them.


 
> Most people who are environmentalists actually do ski and use snowshoes.
> They also use snowmobiles on occassion to go a few kilometers up the
> logging
> road, rather than climb that way. Whether they pay donations to
> Greenpeace
> or to The Nature Federation is mute in my opinion. 

Thanks for verifying my claim above.

Steve

=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come." 
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%