I do not agree with you,[ and some of the other comments made against Greenpeace]. Most great things happen because of militant activity. The USA was found by militants after the seeking a partnership angle didn't work out.
First, Apple was a fair target by Greenpeace. Apple's campaign was Think Different, and Al Gore sits on Apple's Board. Greenpeace exercised it's first Amendment rights to express it's desire that Apple become more a leader in environmental efforts. Second, Apple seemed to spring into action highlighting Apple's environmental efforts in response to Greenpeace's attacks. In fact, we know that is true because Jobs letter to the public indirectly refers to Greenpeace. Third, the problem with forming partnerships is companies interests are seldomly aligned with doing the right thing. I doubt profit driven companies without the proper motivation are going to produce environmentally responsible policies. If corporations are open to that, then sure partnerships would be great. Fifth, it is hard to find fault with an organization that merely wants corporations to remove toxic materials from the products they manufacturer. I certainly am glad Greenpeace is spending it's time trying to put pressure on corporations. I do not have the time to do it.
With all that said, Greenpeace's initial ranking system was flawed. It was based on corporations ranking on statements of what corporations intended to do in the future. That system worked against Apple because it is more of a take action company as opposed to let us discuss what our future plans may be sort of company. In Greenpeace's defense it probably initially approached companies asking them to disclose their efforts to reduce the toxic materials it uses in their products, and the companies wouldn't cooperate. Accordingly, Greenpeace had to create a system that allowed companies to start thinking about such efforts without making legally binding commitments to actually do anything.
Well said. Steve laid out a plan and program to deal with criticisms and this is the result. Whatever ones feelings towards Greenpeace, this is typical of Apple's ability to plan and act, a great result!
Did you hear that their ship got rammed by Japanese whaling ships and sunk the other day just off of New Zealand?
Now I'm not one for whaling so I'm not in any support of Japan's whaling crap but ...
So, if you are not in support of whaling, what are you doing about it - besides criticising those who are putting themselves between the harpoons and the whales? That is what the boat that was sunk was for specifically, with people on board.
I agree with you, and they ARE terrorists, in the sense that they cause disturbance, fear and hostile acts.
Which is a definition of a terrorist, one who commits terror. They are much like pirates, which is illegal too.
If a bunch of hostile crazies boarded my boat with my little daughter aboard, I certainly would be afraid and so would she.
I would most likely kill them, dump their bodies over board and sink their boat in self defense.
So what if I rot in jail, my daughter would be safe.
My sentiments exactly. They may claim to be pacifists, but when the end result is violence, and they specifically hope for that with their constant video taping, it becomes a bit laughable when they claim such innocence. Their police records speaks differently.
Nonviolent protests have their place, but these folks specifically get in someone's face inciting violence. For instance, sitting in a street with arms linked or whatnot, waiting for the police to come pick them up for disturbing the peace is what I would consider peaceful protest. Breaking into a ship to sabotage equipment and then complaining when the ship crew hits them with rubber hoses while defending their ship is not.
They are responsible for their members, yet don't seem to take proper action other than lip service to reign that sort activity in or they actively encourage it in the hopes that it will evoke violence.
Wow. I thought Apple users were supposed to be a bit more on the ball. Have Greenpeace crossed legal lines? Yes, many times and so I guess that that technically that makes them actual rather than "borderline" criminals. But so have lots of people who want to challenge laws, from Gandhi to MLK to the lone Chinese guy who stood in front of PLA tanks in Tienanman Square to the Fathers of the American Revolution. So what? And dude, seriously, grab the nearest dictionary and look up "pacifist". The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh. I've lived in Saudi Arabia and have worked in the Arabian Gulf; these posters?no offense? don't have a clue what they're talking about. Apostasy is NOT a capital crime in Greenpeace.
There is a difference between harmless pacifist interference to protest and criminal acts of interference, terrorism, trespassing, property damage and violence.
If your going to overthrow a government or start a war over territory, you better win before firing the first shot and that includes the support of the people involved.
All Greenpeace is doing is acting like terrorists.
My sentiments exactly. They may claim to be pacifists, but when the end result is violence, and they specifically hope for that with their constant video taping, it becomes a bit laughable when they claim such innocence. Their police records speaks differently.
Nonviolent protests have their place, but these folks specifically get in someone's face inciting violence. For instance, sitting in a street with arms linked or whatnot, waiting for the police to come pick them up for disturbing the peace is what I would consider peaceful protest. Breaking into a ship to sabotage equipment and then complaining when the ship crew hits them with rubber hoses while defending their ship is not.
They are responsible for their members, yet don't seem to take proper action other than lip service to reign that sort activity in or they actively encourage it in the hopes that it will evoke violence.
My thoughts exactly.
Except I wouldn't use rubber hoses, I would teach them a lesson and dump their asses overboard.
Greenpeace only survives with these sort of tactics upon the good graces of those they attack.
The open sea is a wild place, anything can happen and dead men tell no tales.
I don't believe I ever called them jihadist terrorists. Please point out the relevant post. I called them borderline criminals. They have been arrested numerous times, and put lives at risk.
They could pursue their goals without inciting violence.
DJRumpy, seriously man, you're your own worst enemy. Again, you either a) have trouble reading or b) let emotion get in the way of a good fact.
What I said was "The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh." Read up the page to MacTripper's 7:40 comment and you'll see it.
Care to cite your original source for where Greenpeace have incited violence against people?
DJRumpy, seriously man, you're your own worst enemy. Again, you either a) have trouble reading or b) let emotion get in the way of a good fact.
What I said was "The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh." Read up the page to MacTripper's 7:40 comment and you'll see it.
Care to cite your original source for where Greenpeace have incited violence against people?
I already posted the links. Feel free to read. As to the Jihadist comment, you should have quoted who you were replying to rather than throwing it in a general response to me.
The past decade of weather is more typical of a "nuclear winter" effect from Saddam burning all those Kuwait oil fields that took years to extinguish. Getting rather cold now isn't it?
I already posted the links. Feel free to read. As to the Jihadist comment, you should have quoted who you were replying to rather than throwing it in a general response to me.
NO, DJRumpy, you should put on your big boy pants and read what people actually write, rather than imagining what isn't there in the first place. I can point you to a good book on personal pronouns, if you like.
Well said. Steve laid out a plan and program to deal with criticisms and this is the result. Whatever ones feelings towards Greenpeace, this is typical of Apple's ability to plan and act, a great result!
Naw, Steve was afraid Greenpeace would do something radical and derail Apple's public image.
Greenpeace went after Apple because Apple is vulnerable to bad press.
Lets see them take on the PC makers and Microsoft who purposely create disposable PC's by using cheap materials and shoddy programing.
They won't because Microsoft and the PC makers like HP and Dell just don't give a dam what people think of them. Greenpeace knows this, so they don't even bother trying.
That makes Greenpeace bullies. Preying on the weak.
I already posted the links. Feel free to read. As to the Jihadist comment, you should have quoted who you were replying to rather than throwing it in a general response to me.
Is that al you have? Damn, I though I was in for a vivid page-turning account of Violent Greenpeace "Terrorists" stabbing or even shooting a few whalers, or at least doling out a decent roundhouse to the upper cranium. All I got was some reading about these Norwegian whalers who regret that THEY have to resort to violence AGAINST Greenpeace activists in order to stop the latter boarding their boats or trying to cut their lines. And something about a little scuffle ensuing when the Greenpeace guys tried to get past the whaler guys. Not even a single punch thrown, it seems. Again, you imagine what you want to see, not what is actually written. I'm like, man. If any American considers that constitutes terrorism or violence, Osama must be laughing his wacked-out head off about what a nation of girly-men we've become.
So, again DJRumpy, try to cite an original source that shows Greenpeace advocating or doing violence against people. I suggest you try some old Rush Limbaugh webpage.
NO, DJRumpy, you should put on your big boy pants and read what people actually write, rather than imagining what isn't there in the first place. I can point you to a good book on personal pronouns, if you like.
You mean about the general statement from you claiming that the 'posters on this board" are saying that Greenpeace are Jihadist Terrorists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt21
The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh.
You made such a statement while replying to my post. Perhaps you should take the initiative and indicate WHO you are replying to when making such inflammatory comments, rather than just labeling everyone who posts as making such comments?
You did so well with your last comment to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt21
DJRumpy, you should put on your big boy pants
Is is really that difficult to at least be consistent?
Is that al you have? Damn, I though I was in for a vivid page-turning account of Violent Greenpeace "Terrorists" stabbing or even shooting a few whalers, or at least doling out a decent roundhouse to the upper cranium. All I got was some reading about these Norwegian whalers who regret that THEY have to resort to violence AGAINST Greenpeace activists in order to stop the latter boarding their boats or trying to cut their lines. And something about a little scuffle ensuing when the Greenpeace guys tried to get past the whaler guys. Not even a single punch thrown, it seems. Again, you imagine what you want to see, not what is actually written. I'm like, man. If any American considers that constitutes terrorism or violence, Osama must be laughing his wacked-out head off about what a nation of girly-men we've become.
So, again DJRumpy, try to cite an original source that shows Greenpeace advocating or doing violence against people. I suggest you try some old Rush Limbaugh webpage.
You must have conveniently missed the first paragraph of the second link:
Quote:
"Although Greenpeace professes policies of non-violence, their members were in Seattle to protest World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings. Violence played a major role in the protests, which saw looting, burning and more than 500 arrested. Police had to employ tear gas and pepper spray to maintain public safety and the National Guard had to be called in.
Greenpeace Canada's Toxic Campaigner Morag Simpson was spotted by journalists toasting the end of the WTO meetings with a bottle of wine."
Naw, Steve was afraid Greenpeace would do something radical and derail Apple's public image.
Greenpeace went after Apple because Apple is vulnerable to bad press.
Lets see them take on the PC makers and Microsoft who purposely create disposable PC's by using cheap materials and shoddy programing.
They won't because Microsoft and the PC makers like HP and Dell just don't give a dam what people think of them. Greenpeace knows this, so they don't even bother trying.
That makes Greenpeace bullies. Preying on the weak.
Incredible what some people actually think is a step back. This is a win-win situation, people. Less pollution in your environment and great publicity and sales for Apple. So what if a few neo-hippies got their way? I'm amazed that some of you let them get to you at all.
Incredible what some people actually think is a step back. This is a win-win situation, people. Less pollution in your environment and great publicity and sales for Apple. So what if a few neo-hippies got their way? I'm amazed that some of you let them get to you at all.
Actually I DO think this is a step forward for Apple, and they should be applauded for their efforts. I just disagree with Greenpeace's methods.
You must have conveniently missed the first paragraph of the second link:You must have conveniently missed the first paragraph of the second link:
Quote:
"Although Greenpeace professes policies of non-violence, their members were in Seattle to protest World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings. Violence played a major role in the protests, which saw looting, burning and more than 500 arrested. Police had to employ tear gas and pepper spray to maintain public safety and the National Guard had to be called in.
Greenpeace Canada's Toxic Campaigner Morag Simpson was spotted by journalists toasting the end of the WTO meetings with a bottle of wine."
No, what is says is that 1) Greenpeace were at the WTO protests and that there was violence at the protest. Where, exactly, does it say that Greenpeace incited or were involved in dishing out this violence themselves? All I see there is a lame attempt to link two separate facts by putting them in the same sentence. Yet again, you see what you want to see, not what is actually written. And certainly not anything based on fact.
There were likely hundreds of organizations and individuals at the WTO protests. Some were violent, most were not, and it's not impossible that some of the people inciting violence were law enforcement agents themselves (it wouldn't be the first time). And so what if the guy had a bottle of wine? Damn, I'd be in big trouble if that was a crime. Try harder. Schooling you is a) too easy and b) getting boring.
Comments
I do not agree with you,[ and some of the other comments made against Greenpeace]. Most great things happen because of militant activity. The USA was found by militants after the seeking a partnership angle didn't work out.
First, Apple was a fair target by Greenpeace. Apple's campaign was Think Different, and Al Gore sits on Apple's Board. Greenpeace exercised it's first Amendment rights to express it's desire that Apple become more a leader in environmental efforts. Second, Apple seemed to spring into action highlighting Apple's environmental efforts in response to Greenpeace's attacks. In fact, we know that is true because Jobs letter to the public indirectly refers to Greenpeace. Third, the problem with forming partnerships is companies interests are seldomly aligned with doing the right thing. I doubt profit driven companies without the proper motivation are going to produce environmentally responsible policies. If corporations are open to that, then sure partnerships would be great. Fifth, it is hard to find fault with an organization that merely wants corporations to remove toxic materials from the products they manufacturer. I certainly am glad Greenpeace is spending it's time trying to put pressure on corporations. I do not have the time to do it.
With all that said, Greenpeace's initial ranking system was flawed. It was based on corporations ranking on statements of what corporations intended to do in the future. That system worked against Apple because it is more of a take action company as opposed to let us discuss what our future plans may be sort of company. In Greenpeace's defense it probably initially approached companies asking them to disclose their efforts to reduce the toxic materials it uses in their products, and the companies wouldn't cooperate. Accordingly, Greenpeace had to create a system that allowed companies to start thinking about such efforts without making legally binding commitments to actually do anything.
Well said.
Did you hear that their ship got rammed by Japanese whaling ships and sunk the other day just off of New Zealand?
Now I'm not one for whaling so I'm not in any support of Japan's whaling crap but ...
So, if you are not in support of whaling, what are you doing about it - besides criticising those who are putting themselves between the harpoons and the whales? That is what the boat that was sunk was for specifically, with people on board.
I agree with you, and they ARE terrorists, in the sense that they cause disturbance, fear and hostile acts.
Which is a definition of a terrorist, one who commits terror. They are much like pirates, which is illegal too.
If a bunch of hostile crazies boarded my boat with my little daughter aboard, I certainly would be afraid and so would she.
I would most likely kill them, dump their bodies over board and sink their boat in self defense.
So what if I rot in jail, my daughter would be safe.
My sentiments exactly. They may claim to be pacifists, but when the end result is violence, and they specifically hope for that with their constant video taping, it becomes a bit laughable when they claim such innocence. Their police records speaks differently.
Nonviolent protests have their place, but these folks specifically get in someone's face inciting violence. For instance, sitting in a street with arms linked or whatnot, waiting for the police to come pick them up for disturbing the peace is what I would consider peaceful protest. Breaking into a ship to sabotage equipment and then complaining when the ship crew hits them with rubber hoses while defending their ship is not.
They are responsible for their members, yet don't seem to take proper action other than lip service to reign that sort activity in or they actively encourage it in the hopes that it will evoke violence.
Wow. I thought Apple users were supposed to be a bit more on the ball. Have Greenpeace crossed legal lines? Yes, many times and so I guess that that technically that makes them actual rather than "borderline" criminals. But so have lots of people who want to challenge laws, from Gandhi to MLK to the lone Chinese guy who stood in front of PLA tanks in Tienanman Square to the Fathers of the American Revolution. So what? And dude, seriously, grab the nearest dictionary and look up "pacifist". The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh. I've lived in Saudi Arabia and have worked in the Arabian Gulf; these posters?no offense? don't have a clue what they're talking about. Apostasy is NOT a capital crime in Greenpeace.
There is a difference between harmless pacifist interference to protest and criminal acts of interference, terrorism, trespassing, property damage and violence.
If your going to overthrow a government or start a war over territory, you better win before firing the first shot and that includes the support of the people involved.
All Greenpeace is doing is acting like terrorists.
My sentiments exactly. They may claim to be pacifists, but when the end result is violence, and they specifically hope for that with their constant video taping, it becomes a bit laughable when they claim such innocence. Their police records speaks differently.
Nonviolent protests have their place, but these folks specifically get in someone's face inciting violence. For instance, sitting in a street with arms linked or whatnot, waiting for the police to come pick them up for disturbing the peace is what I would consider peaceful protest. Breaking into a ship to sabotage equipment and then complaining when the ship crew hits them with rubber hoses while defending their ship is not.
They are responsible for their members, yet don't seem to take proper action other than lip service to reign that sort activity in or they actively encourage it in the hopes that it will evoke violence.
My thoughts exactly.
Except I wouldn't use rubber hoses, I would teach them a lesson and dump their asses overboard.
Greenpeace only survives with these sort of tactics upon the good graces of those they attack.
The open sea is a wild place, anything can happen and dead men tell no tales.
I don't believe I ever called them jihadist terrorists. Please point out the relevant post. I called them borderline criminals. They have been arrested numerous times, and put lives at risk.
They could pursue their goals without inciting violence.
DJRumpy, seriously man, you're your own worst enemy. Again, you either a) have trouble reading or b) let emotion get in the way of a good fact.
What I said was "The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh." Read up the page to MacTripper's 7:40 comment and you'll see it.
Care to cite your original source for where Greenpeace have incited violence against people?
I guess they weren't looking at the plastic waste in packaging in the Magic Mouse.
I'm curious about this one. It was bundled with my mac, but I'm hearing a lot of horror stories about the packaging when you bought it in the store.
Was it that bad?
DJRumpy, seriously man, you're your own worst enemy. Again, you either a) have trouble reading or b) let emotion get in the way of a good fact.
What I said was "The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh." Read up the page to MacTripper's 7:40 comment and you'll see it.
Care to cite your original source for where Greenpeace have incited violence against people?
I already posted the links. Feel free to read. As to the Jihadist comment, you should have quoted who you were replying to rather than throwing it in a general response to me.
I agree with you, and they ARE terrorists, in the sense that they cause disturbance, fear and hostile acts.
Which is a definition of a terrorist, one who commits terror. They are much like pirates, which is illegal too.
If a bunch of hostile crazies boarded my boat with my little daughter aboard, I certainly would be afraid and so would she.
I would most likely kill them, dump their bodies over board and sink their boat in self defense.
So what if I rot in jail, my daughter would be safe.
Dude, waaay too many Rambo movies. Chill pill, fast.
...Al Gore sits on Apple's Board.
Al Gore is the biggest environmental blowhard hypocrite the world has ever seen.
He went through all this baloney about global warming and yet his walk doesn't match his talk.
Just look at the facts:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
And look at his THREE 30" monitors!
http://www.stefandidak.com/pics/pers...goreoffice.jpg
The past decade of weather is more typical of a "nuclear winter" effect from Saddam burning all those Kuwait oil fields that took years to extinguish. Getting rather cold now isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
I already posted the links. Feel free to read. As to the Jihadist comment, you should have quoted who you were replying to rather than throwing it in a general response to me.
NO, DJRumpy, you should put on your big boy pants and read what people actually write, rather than imagining what isn't there in the first place. I can point you to a good book on personal pronouns, if you like.
Well said.
Naw, Steve was afraid Greenpeace would do something radical and derail Apple's public image.
Greenpeace went after Apple because Apple is vulnerable to bad press.
Lets see them take on the PC makers and Microsoft who purposely create disposable PC's by using cheap materials and shoddy programing.
They won't because Microsoft and the PC makers like HP and Dell just don't give a dam what people think of them. Greenpeace knows this, so they don't even bother trying.
That makes Greenpeace bullies. Preying on the weak.
I already posted the links. Feel free to read. As to the Jihadist comment, you should have quoted who you were replying to rather than throwing it in a general response to me.
Is that al you have? Damn, I though I was in for a vivid page-turning account of Violent Greenpeace "Terrorists" stabbing or even shooting a few whalers, or at least doling out a decent roundhouse to the upper cranium. All I got was some reading about these Norwegian whalers who regret that THEY have to resort to violence AGAINST Greenpeace activists in order to stop the latter boarding their boats or trying to cut their lines. And something about a little scuffle ensuing when the Greenpeace guys tried to get past the whaler guys. Not even a single punch thrown, it seems. Again, you imagine what you want to see, not what is actually written. I'm like, man. If any American considers that constitutes terrorism or violence, Osama must be laughing his wacked-out head off about what a nation of girly-men we've become.
So, again DJRumpy, try to cite an original source that shows Greenpeace advocating or doing violence against people. I suggest you try some old Rush Limbaugh webpage.
NO, DJRumpy, you should put on your big boy pants and read what people actually write, rather than imagining what isn't there in the first place. I can point you to a good book on personal pronouns, if you like.
You mean about the general statement from you claiming that the 'posters on this board" are saying that Greenpeace are Jihadist Terrorists?
The comparisons on this board with Islamic "Jihadist terrorists" just make me f'n laugh.
You made such a statement while replying to my post. Perhaps you should take the initiative and indicate WHO you are replying to when making such inflammatory comments, rather than just labeling everyone who posts as making such comments?
You did so well with your last comment to me:
DJRumpy, you should put on your big boy pants
Is is really that difficult to at least be consistent?
Is that al you have? Damn, I though I was in for a vivid page-turning account of Violent Greenpeace "Terrorists" stabbing or even shooting a few whalers, or at least doling out a decent roundhouse to the upper cranium. All I got was some reading about these Norwegian whalers who regret that THEY have to resort to violence AGAINST Greenpeace activists in order to stop the latter boarding their boats or trying to cut their lines. And something about a little scuffle ensuing when the Greenpeace guys tried to get past the whaler guys. Not even a single punch thrown, it seems. Again, you imagine what you want to see, not what is actually written. I'm like, man. If any American considers that constitutes terrorism or violence, Osama must be laughing his wacked-out head off about what a nation of girly-men we've become.
So, again DJRumpy, try to cite an original source that shows Greenpeace advocating or doing violence against people. I suggest you try some old Rush Limbaugh webpage.
You must have conveniently missed the first paragraph of the second link:
"Although Greenpeace professes policies of non-violence, their members were in Seattle to protest World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings. Violence played a major role in the protests, which saw looting, burning and more than 500 arrested. Police had to employ tear gas and pepper spray to maintain public safety and the National Guard had to be called in.
Greenpeace Canada's Toxic Campaigner Morag Simpson was spotted by journalists toasting the end of the WTO meetings with a bottle of wine."
Naw, Steve was afraid Greenpeace would do something radical and derail Apple's public image.
Greenpeace went after Apple because Apple is vulnerable to bad press.
Lets see them take on the PC makers and Microsoft who purposely create disposable PC's by using cheap materials and shoddy programing.
They won't because Microsoft and the PC makers like HP and Dell just don't give a dam what people think of them. Greenpeace knows this, so they don't even bother trying.
That makes Greenpeace bullies. Preying on the weak.
Incredible what some people actually think is a step back. This is a win-win situation, people. Less pollution in your environment and great publicity and sales for Apple. So what if a few neo-hippies got their way? I'm amazed that some of you let them get to you at all.
Incredible what some people actually think is a step back. This is a win-win situation, people. Less pollution in your environment and great publicity and sales for Apple. So what if a few neo-hippies got their way? I'm amazed that some of you let them get to you at all.
Actually I DO think this is a step forward for Apple, and they should be applauded for their efforts. I just disagree with Greenpeace's methods.
You must have conveniently missed the first paragraph of the second link:You must have conveniently missed the first paragraph of the second link:
Quote:
"Although Greenpeace professes policies of non-violence, their members were in Seattle to protest World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings. Violence played a major role in the protests, which saw looting, burning and more than 500 arrested. Police had to employ tear gas and pepper spray to maintain public safety and the National Guard had to be called in.
Greenpeace Canada's Toxic Campaigner Morag Simpson was spotted by journalists toasting the end of the WTO meetings with a bottle of wine."
No, what is says is that 1) Greenpeace were at the WTO protests and
There were likely hundreds of organizations and individuals at the WTO protests. Some were violent, most were not, and it's not impossible that some of the people inciting violence were law enforcement agents themselves (it wouldn't be the first time). And so what if the guy had a bottle of wine? Damn, I'd be in big trouble if that was a crime. Try harder. Schooling you is a) too easy and b) getting boring.
Actually I DO think this is a step forward for Apple, and they should be applauded for their efforts. I just disagree with Greenpeace's methods.
Fair 'nuff. Point taken.