or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › greenpeace sucks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

greenpeace sucks

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
Even if you are not a sailor yourself, most of you here know the America cup.

The french team has a brand new boat sponsorized by a nuclear company. Greenpeace was much worried by the fact that the sponsor deals with nuclear, so they decide to stop the boat : as a result they destroy a part of it : now the boat have to be repair : it will take two days.

I have nothing agains the respect of environnement, but the mediatic way of protesting of Greenpeace is annoying.
post #2 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>Even if you are not a sailor yourself, most of you here know the America cup.

The french team has a brand new boat sponsorized by a nuclear company. Greenpeace was much worried by the fact that the sponsor deals with nuclear, so they decide to stop the boat : as a result they destroy a part of it : now the boat have to be repair : it will take two days.

I have nothing agains the respect of environnement, but the mediatic way of protesting of Greenpeace is annoying. </strong><hr></blockquote>

If thats is true I'd give them all a year in jail...

did they ram it or tie it up?

that's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard...

they attacked the it because is was sponsored by a nuclear related company...

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
post #3 of 54
Greenpeace needs to take "peace" out of their name. Maybe it should be "Greennuisance" or "Greenyuppyselloutsgiveusmoneytomakeyoufeelbetterf orbuyinganSUV'causeyouaretheonlypeopledumbenoughto fundus"
post #4 of 54
Thuggish behavior. And it's gotten away with because it's cloaked in what it's cloaked in (enviromentalism or whatever).

If that would've been some prankster teenagers, their asses would all be in the clink right now. And I think the sailors and owners of the boat should be given time alone with them in a locked room.

Greenpeace my ass. Peace? Greenterror. Greensabotage. Was the boat itself nuclear-powered?

No? Then they're wrong. They did nothing but break someone else's property. And for no significant results or outcome. They didn't change anything or eliminate nuclear power.
post #5 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by FERRO:
<strong>

If thats is true I'd give them all a year in jail...

did they ram it or tie it up?

that's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard...

they attacked the it because is was sponsored by a nuclear related company...

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
They ram, they said that they did not do it in purpose but they did it. I have eard that many of them where catch by the police. An judge instruction is on the way.
post #6 of 54
I used to race Lightnings and Lasers in North Carolina every summer (was the state champ two years in a row ) and we had collisions, and repairing them didn't take too much time in the sail loft with some fiberglass... but an Americas Cup boat, god, that's a pretty expensive boat to be ramming...
post #7 of 54
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020518/ap_on_sp_ot/america_s_cup_france_1" target="_blank">An AP article</a>:
[quote] LORIENT, France (AP) - Greenpeace activists rammed a boat into the French challenger for the 2003 America's Cup on Saturday, denting the yacht's carbon hull.

The 82-foot Defi Areva, which is sponsored by a leading nuclear energy company sustained "serious damage," the syndicate running the French challenge said in a statement.

LCI television showed the Greenpeace dinghy speeding toward the yacht, which was moored at its training base in this northwestern French port, but didn't show the impact.

"It's an act of terrorism," Defi Areva's sports director Pierre Mas told LCI.

It was not immediately possible to contact Greenpeace for comment.

Defi Areva is sponsored by Areva, a French industrial holding company specialized in nuclear plant building and nuclear fuels.

The boat is expected to take part in the Louis Vuitton Cup starting Oct. 1. The winner takes on Team New Zealand for the America's Cup from Feb. 2003.
<hr></blockquote>
post #8 of 54
Seems more like an act of vandalism rather than an act of terrorism.
post #9 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by scott_h_phd:
<strong>Seems more like an act of vandalism rather than an act of terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well they could have killed or hurt somebody...

You dont go around ramming people because you dont like their bumper stickers on their cars do you?

If you see the car in front of you has a "Osama Rules" on his bumper you may get pissed off and give him the finger or call him a name, but the minute you "ram him" or try to cause harm to him or his property you have crossed the line...

whats the difference? They could have endangered the lives of several people... protesting is one thing... they could have just sit out there and annoyed the team or group at the event by verbal protest... but this is too far...

pscates is right... and what did this accomplish? nothing...

This irresponsible act may well have risked the lives of several innocent people to protest the sponsor that they dont like???

how detached is that?

like I said I'd jail them all! and demand a huge fine... or alot of community service
post #10 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by scott_h_phd:
<strong>Seems more like an act of vandalism rather than an act of terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Indeed. Stupid to be throwing that word around, trivializing something a lot more important. Having said that, it is vandalism or sabotage which doesn't make it anywhere near OK either.
post #11 of 54
Yes, to ram a boat belonging to anyone, no matter what kind of organization sponsors them is a supremely dumb and stupid thing to do. It just puts Greenpeace in the same "ethical boat" as those against whom they are protesting.

Of course, the actions of a few idiots within Greenpeace will now sully the entire organization, which will naturally appeal to the black'n'white world outlook and cheap-shot mentality of so many of those who regard Greenpeace as "liberal", "environmentalist", "pinko", "tree-huggers", "hippies", "communist" etc.

If there was a repeat of, for example, the bombing of a Greenpeace ship by French commandos (off the New Zealand coast) back in the 1970s, or the arrest and incarceration (without charge or due cause) of the Greenpeace activists who, while in international waters off the California coast in 2001 relayed a video feed and re-broadcast by satellite of a missile test which caught the USAF and Bush Adminstration red-handed, deliberately violating an international treaty, then I imagine there would be a similar thread started in here which would basically state: "yeah, about time, go stomp these leftist scum".

What is it that so many folk in this country have against action and organizations dedicated to prevent the environment getting trashed? Perhaps it's a fashion statement, reflecting the nature of the times we are in? Perhaps enviros are looked at as "wimps"? Perhaps its the perception of "leftwing ties to enviros, and the entrenched paranoia of anything "socialist"? Perhaps people feel that any regulations to bring polluters and environmentally irresponsible organizations to order is fundamentally "un-American" because it costs corporations money to clean things up after them and maintain a clean operation, and those $$$ would be better off going into the pockets of the owners and stockholders. Anyone?

The pulling power and lobbying access of big business (big business employs nearly 1000 professional lobbyists in Washington DC, that exceeds the total number of senators and congresspersons by a factor of some 2 to 1) that pollutes so far exceeds that available to "eco" organizations (which have been by default excluded from the festivities in the last 2 years) and occasionally a few of the more gung-ho activists will do something stupid, in frustration. Of course the media will now jump on this opportunity to tar Greenpeace, in the same way that the behavior of a few hundred hired, anonymous black-clad and masked riot-inciters (who were never charged or identified by the police) were blanket associated with the behavior and motives of the 55000 peaceful demonstrators at the WTO in Seattle in 1999.

It is so easy to trash the "green" organizations. It requires no courage, no principle and lots of knee-jerking. After all, the ecos are underdogs, protesters, and muck-rakers. Worst of all, they may even be the dreaded leftwing tree-huggers, "the proverbial monsters your parents warned you against". Yes, many have their faults and double standards, like, for example driving beat-up smoking VW jallopies and buses, or SUVs. But give me those over the corporate criminals and parasites of Enron others far too numerous to list who are allowed and encouraged to hijack what little is left of US democracy with absolute impunity.
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #12 of 54
Well, no, it's not just Greenpeace and others that I'd say the same thing about.

I'd get just as mad and snippy at any organization resorting to terrorism (or at the very least, vandalism) to further their cause.

I'm not a big fan of anyone destroying the property and endangering the lives of others, regardless of their political leanings and beliefs.

This just happened to be Greenpeace acting like idiots this time, hence the comments in this thread.

I don't like it when right-wing nutjobs blow up abortion clinics either, in the interest of "saving innocent lives".

post #13 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

If there was a repeat of, for example, the bombing of a Greenpeace ship by French commandos (off the New Zealand coast) back in the 1970s, .</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes it's was a shame for France, but i was rather in the 1980s. This bombing was stupid, worse there was an innocent people killed (not on purpose), it was a major scandal in France. The two secret agent went in prison in new zealand or australia (i miss that point ) and France was obliged to pay an huge amount of money to greenpeace . Of course as usual the politician who was supposed to have given the order, was never sued. However it stop his politic ascension for a while. At this time Mitterand was president, and of course do not knew a clue about this at all.
post #14 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by FERRO:
<strong>

Well they could have killed or hurt somebody...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea you're right. 3000 people could have been killed. What was I thinking?
post #15 of 54
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

[or the arrest and incarceration (without charge or due cause) of the Greenpeace activists who, while in international waters off the California coast in 2001 relayed a video feed and re-broadcast by satellite of a missile test which caught the USAF and Bush Adminstration red-handed, deliberately violating an international treaty,

This isn't accurate. Clipped from the August 12, 2001 New York Times:

"A federal grand jury has charged 15 Greenpeace activists and two foreign journalists arrested in a protest of the Star Wars program last month with felonies in the disruption of the Pentagon's antimissile defense test at the Vandenberg Air Force Base near Lompoc, Calif. Their arraignment is scheduled for Monday in a Los Angeles federal court.

The defendants are six Americans, two Germans, two Britons, two Australians, one Indian, one Canadian and one Swede. They are charged with conspiracy to violate a safety zone. A lesser count of trespassing and one count of failure to obey an order have also been brought against most of the defendants.

A Spanish videographer with a United States green card and a British photographer, both freelance journalists, face similar charges.

The charges, made recently, carry a maximum sentence of more than 11 years in prison and fines totaling $505,000 and are among the stiffest ever handed down to nonviolent protesters arrested in conjunction with antimissile defense rallies at the air base, antimissile defense campaigners said.

Greenpeace has not disputed the presence of protesters in restricted areas during last month's test, when activists delayed the launching by 40 minutes after riding inflatable rafts into the test site's safety zone in the Pacific Ocean beneath the rocket's flight path. But the group contends the charges are unduly harsh.

"This is the first time that people engaging in nonviolent protest have been charged with a felony for simply bearing witness at Vandenberg Air Force Base," said Katya Komisaruk, a lawyer representing the defendants.

In recent years, the military has conducted many missile defense operations at the base to test its ability to shoot down an intercontinental missile, including a similar missile launching in July 2000.

In response, protesters have increased their activities. As a result, more than 50 arrests were made at protests at the base from October 2000 through May of this year, said Carah Ong, the director of research and publication at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which tracks protests at Vandenberg.

But in previous cases, charges amounted to little more than misdemeanor trespassing, which carries a maximum sentence of six months, Ms. Ong said.

Prosecutors maintain the recent charges reflect the severity of the crimes.

"This is a safety issue," said Tom Mrozek, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office in Los Angeles, which is prosecuting the case. "The grand jury made a determination using a probable cause standard that these were the appropriate charges to be made in this case," Mr. Mrozek said.

No plea arrangement has been considered, Mr. Mrozek said."


And now my two cents:

1. Greenpeace's actions had nothing to do with the environment - they were strictly political in nature.
2. Greenpeace is free to protest, but when they break the law they should be punished. Their arrests were clearly justified.
3. The test itself was not a violation of the ABM Treaty. And what activities are permitted under the ABM Treaty is subject to interpretation.
4. The Bush administration was hardly "caught red-handed." Such tests are announced far in advance to the public. Greenpeace knew of this test because it read about it on the front page of the New York Times.
20" iMac G5, 2 GB Ram, OS X 10.4.11, .Mac
Reply
20" iMac G5, 2 GB Ram, OS X 10.4.11, .Mac
Reply
post #16 of 54
"But give me those over the corporate criminals and parasites of Enron others far too numerous to list who are allowed and encouraged to hijack what little is left of US democracy with absolute impunity." --SJO


I don't recall electing Greenpeace activists in any election.
20" iMac G5, 2 GB Ram, OS X 10.4.11, .Mac
Reply
20" iMac G5, 2 GB Ram, OS X 10.4.11, .Mac
Reply
post #17 of 54
That New York Times story (naturally and predictably) ignores those people who were arrested and imprisoned without charge, some of them being international observers who happened to be in the same area as the Greenpeace protesters, but outside of of the exclusion zone. And behaving and acting totally within the law.

And this other, related story was reported by Reuters and Agence France Presse...but also was (naturally and predictably) ignored by the US corporate media.
Yet another instance of the freedom to legally protest being routinely stomped simply because it doesn't quite fit the accepted mold. I can cite hundreds of similar occurrences within the last two years......but "Gobble Gobble" one would imagine that these curtailings of normal freedom of expression are outside of what is deemed acceptable opinion by this authoritarian administration and are of no interest to you.

[quote]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION ORDERS ARREST OF ONE MAN IN A TENT PROTESTING STAR WARS TEST

13 July 2001

Vandenberg Airforce Base, Lompoc, California: Just 48 hours before George Bush's Star Wars missile test, the full might of the US military has been brought to bear on a single Greenpeace activist,
camped out on a tiny Pacific island close to the launch pad of the "kill vehicle" of the Star Wars system.

In a desperate attempt to suppress legitimate protest over the development of the missile programme, US officials have pressured the Marshall Island authorities to issue an arrest warrant and deportation
order for Australian Richard "Alice" Leney. US and Marshallese officials have acknowledged that Leney has not been breaking any laws by camping out on the island with the permission of local
landowners, but will hold him in jail until Monday when he will be taken to court. He has spent two months on his own and has been observing the preparations for the test on nearby Meck Island,
where the interceptor missile is due to be launched on Saturday.

"George Bush has already made it obvious he is not interested in consulting with friends and allies over the implementation of the Star Wars programme. Now he is sending a clear signal that he also
wants to suppress peaceful and legitimate protest of the test on Saturday," said Greenpeace International disarmament campaigner William Peden. "Alice Leney has done nothing wrong - even the US
authorities admit that. George Bush wants to shut down any opposition to Star Wars - from his political allies right down to one man in a tent," Peden added. On Saturday evening the sixth Star Wars missile test is due. Kwajalien atoll in Marshall Islands is the US base from which the interceptor missile is launched following the launch of a rocket from Vandenberg airbase in California.

The Marshall Islands authorities have come under increasing pressure from the US government to arrest Leney since his camp was established following the departure of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow
Warrior two months ago.

"The implementation of Star Wars will prompt a new nuclear arms race. If George Bush thinks we will be deterred from our opposition to the programme simply because he has adopted bully boy tactics
against one peaceful protestor he is mistaken. We will continue to oppose his plan until Star Wars is stopped, " Peden added

Greenpeace activists from around the world will be gathering at Vandenberg Airforce Base in California on Friday to begin a protest against the test which is due on Saturday evening (PDT). The protest
will continue throughout the weekend.<hr></blockquote>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #18 of 54
SJO, That is all well and good, But your sources are no better than his sources and there is nothing backing up either. Just hearsay. I an not going to take greenpeace's word over law enforcement or miltary. They have an agenda that they want put forth as does the government. The government is trying to test a Nuclear Defence Mechanism. In other words, it shoots down nukes before they can kill the greenpeace folks and others in the US. What does greenpeace want with star wars? Why stop it if it saves lives in a non-nuclear way? What am I missing?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #19 of 54
correct me if i'm wrong sam... but uh, shooting down ICBM's is a good thing right? and practicing is all a part of it.... and sailboating... that's pretty green right?

i don't get it, yer pal...

cuss

p.s. card-carryin' Sahara clubber....think Sierra Clubber... only on a dirtbike, with cigarettes and beer.
post #20 of 54
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by little cuss:
<strong>correct me if i'm wrong sam... but uh, shooting down ICBM's is a good thing right? and practicing is all a part of it.... and sailboating... that's pretty green right?

i don't get it, yer pal...

cuss

p.s. card-carryin' Sahara clubber....think Sierra Clubber... only on a dirtbike, with cigarettes and beer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and ram a sailboat with a enginereed boat named greenpeace seems paradoxal either.
post #21 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>SJO, That is all well and good, But your sources are no better than his sources and there is nothing backing up either. Just hearsay. I an not going to take greenpeace's word over law enforcement or miltary. They have an agenda that they want put forth as does the government. The government is trying to test a Nuclear Defence Mechanism. In other words, it shoots down nukes before they can kill the greenpeace folks and others in the US. What does greenpeace want with star wars? Why stop it if it saves lives in a non-nuclear way? What am I missing?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, it's a little something called M.A.D. you dimwit. Mutually Assured Destruction. If any country fires an ICBM with a nuclear payload at us, they know that they we will simply launch back and everyone dies. That's what got us through the cold war you ninny. Yes, I said ninny. Now, take away M.A.D. with the star wars defense system. All of a sudden we no longer have a stand off. We have a wounded animal backed into a corner with the big bad US hovering over them. You know what happens when you corner a wounded animal, right? They lash out with ridiculous bible quotes. But seriously folks, M.A.D. is very important to our safety and bushikins doesn't seem to get that.
post #22 of 54
umm,

that's cold war thinking... and the cold war is over. we'll share the technology and there's nothing MAD about shooting down missiles.

death to all hippies,

cuss

p.s. most of the MAD stuff is in mothballs anyway. what corner? what rat?
post #23 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>

Well, it's a little something called M.A.D. you dimwit. Mutually Assured Destruction. If any country fires an ICBM with a nuclear payload at us, they know that they we will simply launch back and everyone dies. That's what got us through the cold war you ninny. Yes, I said ninny. Now, take away M.A.D. with the star wars defense system. All of a sudden we no longer have a stand off. We have a wounded animal backed into a corner with the big bad US hovering over them. You know what happens when you corner a wounded animal, right? They lash out with ridiculous bible quotes. But seriously folks, M.A.D. is very important to our safety and bushikins doesn't seem to get that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Waahhh, you hurt my poor feelings.

I understand M.A.D. as well as anyone else. However, what I do not understand is why the US should be content to know that if someone were to launch a first strike on us that we could do the same to them. I would be much happier if I knew that they struck first, we eliminated the first strike and dealt with them thorugh the use of fighter jets, ground troops, and a judicious amount of retaliatory carpet boming of the conventional sort. If they continued with the nuclear assault then we nuke em. However, you seem content that if you are glowing int he dark, at least they are too. Seems that they would be even less likely to attack if their atacks had little if any chance of success. Besides, we offered the system to Russia and our allies. So the balance of power is not shifted on that one. Let's try it again, this time without the personal digs, hmmm?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #24 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Waahhh, you hurt my poor feelings.

I understand M.A.D. as well as anyone else. However, what I do not understand is why the US should be content to know that if someone were to launch a first strike on us that we could do the same to them. I would be much happier if I knew that they struck first, we eliminated the first strike and dealt with them thorugh the use of fighter jets, ground troops, and a judicious amount of retaliatory carpet boming of the conventional sort. If they continued with the nuclear assault then we nuke em. However, you seem content that if you are glowing int he dark, at least they are too. Seems that they would be even less likely to attack if their atacks had little if any chance of success. Besides, we offered the system to Russia and our allies. So the balance of power is not shifted on that one. Let's try it again, this time without the personal digs, hmmm?</strong><hr></blockquote>

They don't fire the goddamn missiles because they will be destroyed as well. If ditch m.a.d. they will definitely try something more desperate. Of course the fearful reactionary side of me wants the system. However, we can't let our fears control our actions. Star wars is not the answer. I don't claim to know what the long term solution is, but I can definitely say that star wars is not. *cough* we don't know what happens after we die so quit making up stories because you are scared *cough*

Anyway, it's not our allies (russia mainly) we are worried about. We need to worry about North Korea, China, and if any of those middle eastern tyrannical dictaroships if they get a hold of ICMBs.

[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: Exercise in Frivolity ]</p>
post #25 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>They don't fire the goddamn missiles because they will be destroyed as well. If ditch m.a.d. they will definitely try something more desperate. Of course the fearful reactionary side of me wants the system. However, we can't let our fears control our actions. Star wars is not the answer. I don't claim to know what the long term solution is, but I can definitely say that star wars is not.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Once more. I understand M.A.D., you don't have to repeat yourself. What could be more desperate than nuking the USA? The WTC attacks? Sorry, but no. We're talking millions of lives compared to thousands. Bio-Warfare? Maybe, but if it comes in on a missile it can be shot down in space. Another bonus of Star Wars. I am not seeing the drawbacks here for the US.

[quote]<strong> *cough* we don't know what happens after we die so quit making up stories because you are scared *cough*</strong><hr></blockquote>

And you were doing so well staying on topic. Where did I bring up the afterlife here? This obsession with me is getting a bit tiring. If you want to stalk me around the forums that is your own deal. However, you don't see me following you around do you? No.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #26 of 54
i don't know of one single historian or global-political analyst that thinks in terms of MAD anymore. it's a very outmoded justification fer not mothballing the rest of the ICBM subfleet. Star Wars is unworkable fer a lot of reasons... but not on the grounds of disrupting some fantasy balance of terror that's nigh on 50 years old.

that's just plain silliness,

cuss

p.s. how does MAD hold any sway over the North Koreans?
post #27 of 54
Surely Star Wars is obsolete because... when the nuclear device arrives its more likely to turn up in a truck, or as cargo than it is to fly thousands of miles across continents.

Now the cold war is over its the nutters with its remnants that we should fear and they have neither the technology or the patience to bother with product development. They'll go route one first chance they get.
post #28 of 54
[quote]

p.s. how does MAD hold any sway over the North Koreans?<hr></blockquote>

Believe it or not...they want to kill us and *gasp* NOT DIE THEMSELVES!
post #29 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
blah blah blah what could be more desperate than a nuke blah blah blah<hr></blockquote>
Like whatever his name is said earlier...if ICBMs won't strike, then we are looking at nukes delivered in other ways. That's what we need to focus on. Keep MAD alive. Focus on shoring up our security in other areas.

[quote]blah blah blah you're going off topic blah blah blah<hr></blockquote>
I don't believe the topic was "Discuss how Exercise in Frivolity goes off topic." Dotard.
post #30 of 54
Speaking of wacko groups....
Have you ever heard of PETA...
People Eating Tastey Animals?
post #31 of 54
they do? i was pretty sure they were busy staying alive... like us. oh well, i'll admit it when i'm wrong...

bloodthirsty bastards! let's nuke 'em first!

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #32 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>Like whatever his name is said earlier...if ICBMs won't strike, then we are looking at nukes delivered in other ways. That's what we need to focus on. Keep MAD alive. Focus on shoring up our security in other areas. </strong><hr></blockquote>

We are looking at that anyhow. Why make it easy for it to happen both ways? The point is to defend against one in such a way that you can better focus on the other. You decide which is which. It is not like they are mutually exclusive.

[quote]<strong>I don't believe the topic was "Discuss how Exercise in Frivolity goes off topic." Dotard.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They why do you keep going there?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #33 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

They why do you keep going there?</strong><hr></blockquote>

God you're a moron. You bitch about me going off topic but that bitching itself is off topic. You are nothing but an evolutionary mistake and a whiny hypocrite.
post #34 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>

God you're a moron. You bitch about me going off topic but that bitching itself is off topic. You are nothing but an evolutionary mistake and a whiny hypocrite.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #35 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

:stupid no smiley: </strong><hr></blockquote>

No? Sorry. Yes.
post #36 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>

No? Sorry. [unintended affirmative word]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apology accepted.

I am done taking you seriously. In fact, I am done posting replies to you in general. If it makes you feel better to slam me in topics then I won't ruin your fun. I have turned quite a few cheeks here and have decided you are not worth the effort of trying to hold a converstaion with. Any replies will be ignored. I will not respond to anything you have to say in any religious threads. It is a waste of my time and serves no purpose. When you grow up and learn that everyone is worth respecting, even if you disagree with them, then you might find that they are more willing to listen to what you have to say. As for me I have better things to do than argue with you anymore, hope that does not ruin your plans for the rest of the week.

So please, have fun. God bless you, and go in peace.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #37 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Apology accepted.

I am done taking you seriously. In fact, I am done posting replies to you in general. If it makes you feel better to slam me in topics then I won't ruin your fun. I have turned quite a few cheeks here and have decided you are not worth the effort of trying to hold a converstaion with. Any replies will be ignored. I will not respond to anything you have to say in any religious threads. It is a waste of my time and serves no purpose. When you grow up and learn that everyone is worth respecting, even if you disagree with them, then you might find that they are more willing to listen to what you have to say. As for me I have better things to do than argue with you anymore, hope that does not ruin your plans for the rest of the week.

So please, have fun. God bless you, and go in peace.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This kind of attitude that "everyone deserves respect" is what's wrong with America today. Everyone does NOT deserve respect. Respect is earned. You haven't earned my respect. You've earned my disdain. It's not because we disagree. I have a great deal of respect for many people I disagree with. I disrespect you for your hypocrisy. You claim the moral high ground yet sling mud in less obvious ways that the average moron wouldn't understand. I'm surprised that you are even capable of such deft insults. If you didn't want to reply to me anymore, you could simply *gasp* NOT REPLY. This kind of formal announcement is just for show. You are nothing more than the average attention whore.
post #38 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Exercise in Frivolity:
<strong>You claim the moral high ground yet sling mud in less obvious ways that the average moron wouldn't understand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm here! An average moron. The only mud that I can see NoahJ slinging in this thread is a minor jibe about "growing up", and frankly I'm a little disappointed in him for lowering his standards.

However, it's not a patch on the personal attacks you've racked up in this thread.

Please try to show some dignity and post responses to his arguments rather than immature insults.
<strong> [quote]This kind of formal announcement is just for show. You are nothing more than the average attention whore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just thought this warranted repeating in the light of <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001254" target="_blank">this</a> thread.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #39 of 54
shut up you power-drunk slut. if we need any sh!t out of you we'll squeeze yer thick head.


freedom!

cuss
post #40 of 54
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Just thought this warranted repeating in the light of <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001254" target="_blank">this</a> thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What's wrong with the thread? Are you *gasp* offended??? Well, if you are...good.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › greenpeace sucks