stuckincincy Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Do as I say, not as I do... http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2231439334 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I'd stand by Greenpeace any day of the week. The violated a law in order to protest/prevent logging. They've also been arrested for trying to prevent the slaughter of Harp Seals and no, I wont let the B@stards get me down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 You act like they got caught dumping nuclear waste into the ocean. It's a paperwork mix up. Big F'ing deal. But don't let common sense get in the way of your sensationalist headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 You act like they got caught dumping nuclear waste into the ocean. It's a paperwork mix up. Big F'ing deal. But don't let common sense get in the way of your sensationalist headline. 333567[/snapback] A 'mix-up'? A mix-up is when a secretary puts the wrong date on the form or something. Completely ignoring the law is not a 'mix-up'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 i thaught it was gunna say they illegaly destroyed some wetlands or something.. not simply take their ship where it isnt supposed to be.... but its is kinda stupid to take a ship with 70,000 gallons of "petroleum products" anywhere without an oil spill response plan. "flouted".... i had to look that one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 So why is Greenpeace carrying 70,000 gallons of "petroleum products?" Were they slapped for carrying their own fuel for the ship? My guess is that carrying "petroleum products" is much different than carrying oil, which would require a spill plan. The article could have done a better job explaining this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trilat Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Do as I say, not as I do... http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2231439334 333548[/snapback] Environmental crime? That's a stretch. Sounds more like an axe to grind over an administrative screw up to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trilat Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 So why is Greenpeace carrying 70,000 gallons of "petroleum products?" 333606[/snapback] Petroleum products=fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Petroleum products=fuel 333608[/snapback] if what they are talkin about is fuel, it would have to be common sence to have a spill plan for your freakin fuel. i guess they do not have common sence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 A 'mix-up'? A mix-up is when a secretary puts the wrong date on the form or something. Completely ignoring the law is not a 'mix-up'. 333595[/snapback] Someone forgetting to file or not knowing that you have to file the appropriate form would be what I would consider a mix up. If you really think this points to some kind of grand hypocrisy in the Greenpeace organization then you are really grasping at straws. But grasp away, don't let common sense get in the way of your good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Environmental crime? That's a stretch.Sounds more like an axe to grind over an administrative screw up to me... 333607[/snapback] The amusing thing will be if this sets a precedent for enforcement of the detail of the law against the big oil companies and large shippers that Greenpeace targets. It is one of the facts of life that often the case is easier to prove and the fines larger for failing to file the paperwork rather than ignoring the law. When I lived in NJ, we were actually approached by DC environmentalists to be the name plaintiffs in a nuisance common law suit against polluters who had admitted in their permit records that they were putting crap into the water in violation of the law. EPA simply did not have the resources to fine folks for polluting as the polluter would simply tie them up in court for years over the damage caused to public health from this pollution. However, they had simply admitted in permit filings that they did pollute because to fail to file the proper paperwork would have been a relatively open and shut case. They needed a local yokel to be the name plaintiff because we had clear standing under the law to file a suit. It took a couple of years as the polluter lawyers shucked and jived over legal issues such as standing, but eventually the polluters lost and agreed to settle the case with a donation to a local non-advocacy sream preservation group and to tighten valves and take other simple steps which reduced their pollution. (These types of suits were ultimately nipped in the bud by a Supreme Court finding which denied the lawyers on our side the ability to collect payment for their time as part of the damages. I think its too bad as the results ended up being the polluter stopped polluting, ironically many of them saved money in the long tun by stopping fugitive emissions of feedstocks they paid for, and the DC environmentalist collected nothing for their efforts, but did get a nice donation made to a local steam preservation group. Unfortunately when the cash incentive was taken a way from the trial lawyers to handled cases for the local yokels the cases stopped and polluters today keep right on polluting and simply reporting that they pollute). At any rate, there is the potential for this case to turn out the way that many have such as when McDonald's sued activists for product disparagement of their burgers in an attempt to force them to burn their dollars defending themselves. Ironically, the defendants had an airtight defense against a finding against them, they were poor and bankrupt. Who cares if Mikey D won as there was nothing to collect. Instead, they used the fact they were sued to lauch a fishing expedition in the discovery portion of their trial and got a ton of McDonald's documents where they admitted to a bunch of bad practices which dissed their own customers and destroyed the land. If the state applying the law aggressively against Greenpeace sets a precedent for applying the law aggressively against big polluters this will be a very good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Greenpeace/PETA/ELF are terrorist organizations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OBXBILLSFAN Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Greenpeace/PETA/ELF are terrorist organizations 333645[/snapback] So are CBS, the Democrat Party, any organization supported by George Soros, and the Committee to Elect Hildebeast Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace, but I don't regard this as such a big deal. Yes, they were stupid, and yes, in this day and age they should have known better, but they did not have the intention of harming the enviroment, nor in fact did they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 You act like they got caught dumping nuclear waste into the ocean. It's a paperwork mix up. Big F'ing deal. But don't let common sense get in the way of your sensationalist headline. 333567[/snapback] I take it that subtle jocularity is beyond your ken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovey1961 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I was in Baltimore one year with a group from working going to an O's game... Greenpeace had one of their boats docked at the Inner Harbor so our group decided to take a toru they were giving... So, anyway, this GP person was showing off the boat and they showed us the engine room, I looked at it turned to a female friend I was with and said "You know, they should replace that engine with a nuclear power plant" she slapped me! Beats me why she did, I thought it was a good idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace, but I don't regard this as such a big deal. Yes, they were stupid, and yes, in this day and age they should have known better, but they did not have the intention of harming the enviroment, nor in fact did they. 333701[/snapback] The Exxon Valdez also didn't intend on harming the environment - it just kinda happened. These laws exist because of the efforts of organizations like Greenpeace. It's amazingly hypocritical that there is an expectation for everyone else to follow the law but Greenpeace doesn't. They violated an order to stay in port - which is why they were cited in the first place. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation issued verbal and written requests that the ship remain at anchor in Tongass Narrows until the paperwork was cleared, prosecutors said, but it departed Ketchikan on July 14. Publicity More Important than Following the Law Typical hypocrisy. Had a business done the same thing, we'd be inundated by hippy rastafarians with their dirty hair and quilted beanies singing "kumbaya." ADN Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I was in Baltimore one year with a group from working going to an O'sgame... Greenpeace had one of their boats docked at the Inner Harbor so our group decided to take a toru they were giving... So, anyway, this GP person was showing off the boat and they showed us the engine room, I looked at it turned to a female friend I was with and said "You know, they should replace that engine with a nuclear power plant" she slapped me! Beats me why she did, I thought it was a good idea 333719[/snapback] LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 and no, I wont let the B@stards get me down 333564[/snapback] Thanks...now I gotta change it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLocke Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Environmentalists are some of the biggest hypocrites I have met not all but some. They talk about personal freedom and tolerance of different lifestyles, however many of them are not too tolerant if you drive a sport utility vehicle. that is why I refer to many of them as ecofascists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts