hey what's a "spiv"?

a small time crook.

"Scoop" Lasswell strikes again.

But how has that changed anything for the rest of us? Okay, so now we know about it. Great, what next? Nothing. Everyone forgets about it in a week. Same goes for PETA's antics. This kind of action is rarely worth the energy put into it, and it just makes the opposition more inclined to spit on them and continue doing whatever it is they were doing.

I feel at a loss, because I support action for social change, but what these people are doing seems to be hurting more than helping.

I totally want that job.

Oil Thug.

Oh goody. I never got my chance to say it on the thread that got closed down: ha ha ha ha ha!
As well intentioned as greenpeace is, they do have a tendency to shit the bed, and when that happens, the people involved deserve what they get. Anyone remember the norwegian whaling boat debacle? Those dipshits. Expect to get your ass kicked when you go picking fights.

edited because I'm evidently incapable of spelling.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 by hopey]

that's a funny damn story. the problem whit idealists and their just causes is that we don't live in an ideal. people are generally aggressive and territorial. when you mess with some one who is paid to out muscle and out yell some one for very large deals you will get fucked up.
no shit, " i've never seen anyone less amenable". god that's funny!! what an idiot! you were talking to the buisiness equivilent of a pissed off tank. heh!

Wow. Well, after reading this thread I can't help but observe a few things.

1) The protestors accomplished confronting the oil workers and the oil workers came off looking like "thugs" in the press. Plus there's exposure for the aims of Greenpeace.

2) Unfortunately, when you look at where donation money goes in the "not-for-profit" organization of Greenpeace, it goes to lining the pockets of those in charge of the org, not into peaceful demonstrations, television ads, newsprint, or even funding private research into alternate fuel and energy methods. Nope. It make an elite few relatively wealthy while their lackeys go out and get beat up by "oil thugs" who are attacked for supporting their families.

3) You are FAR more reliant and dependent upon oil and petroleum than you realize. The computer you type your words on are a petroleum product. So is the insulation on the electric wire you rely upon to keep a fire from starting. So is your phone, the tires on your bicycle, the bottle for your water, your non-leather shoes, and most anything made of plastic or rubber. That includes many medical supplies, most modern equipment, and plenty of storage containers for chemicals that sit side by side but should never be mixed. No oil market means most of modern technology is gone, not just fuel for cars.

4) I don't believe anyone suggested that cessation of product use ALONE would solve the problem, but rather that it should be your starting point. You have no right to protest a product that you enjoy using (and comparison to meth, crack, or any other addictive substance is an extremist analogy designed only to be argumentative and caustic.) It's rather hollow to say "Animals should never be used for clothing" while sporting a leather jacket and shoes. You lose credibility.

5) Cheering real-life violence, even if you feel it is justified, really stinks.

Delays on the news wire are not necessarily the fault of the author.

*claps*

In May 1997, John Browne, the chief executive of BP, famously said in a speech at Stanford University (California) that "The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven ... but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part".
REF

Despite attempting to prove otherwise, it is now proven

So please explain why so many of you (and folk in general) enjoy seeing the little guy beaten up? The psychology of this is fascinating.

Greenpeace is not extreme it is a way that folk can give guilt money to avoid taking personal responsibility. Perhaps it does have a use in highlighting that which would go unnoticed, I think it does this quite well, it got noticed by you.

I don't think one thing has anything to do with the other. In addition when Greenpeace makes such an ass that the undecided start ignoring or laughing at them, then the hurt those same issues.

Whether one is for or against Green Peace, this is HI-FUCKING-LARIOUS!!

That was one of the most intelligent responses this article received. I especially liked point #2, which has seemingly become an entirely too common problem among many "not for profit" organizations whose aims began as altruistic.

Perhaps if there were more money put into things like research for alternative energy sources and methods of refinement, people would take organizations like Greenpeace more seriously.

And maybe if they were taken more seriously, people wouldn't feel so inclined to laugh at them for getting beat up.

Sad, really.

.

[Edited on Feb 22, 2005 4:33PM]