Fish fingers (Japanese style)

[Tiger74]

The Japanese aren't just evaluating stock though. They are making a deliberate attempt to deceive Australia regarding their true intentions. The Japanese have said all along that their whaling is for scientific purposes which they have so far refused to expand upon.


Even if the Japanese are just checking stock numbers, where are the results?

You can actually access the research on their website, no idea what it is though (no mood for reading bs)

 

[1eyedtiger]

At least you admit it's bs.

 

[Tiger74]

At least you admit it's bs.

what do you mean "at least"? you think I support these guys?

my argument is this whole "you is bad, go away" strategy is not working. use their "scientific research" argument against them, and hit them for one of the most important crops they import. Whale meat is about ego, but Southern Bluefin Tuna is prized in Japan. Stop them getting access to that and then you will have tears, and most likely a willingness to talk.

 

[Rosy]

Nice of you to pick one line from Greenpeace out of the whole article and ignore the rest of it following:


Nice try Rosy....but no cigar!

Just as you ignored her word and focused on the word of a disgruntled ex-Gp activist. I was really just pointing out we can make the articles mean what we want them to, something some around here have a habit of doing.

You have a penchant for links. How about posting one that shows the 2 men you refer to are from Greenpeace as your highlighted heading indicates. I can find plenty that say they're from a different organisation.

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, I'd prefer that than to think your credibility had plummeted so low that you'd deliberately mislead people by posting inaccurate info.

Pity I don't like cigars. :blah

 

[Willo]

Apparently Monica does/did

 

[1eyedtiger]

what do you mean "at least"? you think I support these guys?

my argument is this whole "you is bad, go away" strategy is not working. use their "scientific research" argument against them, and hit them for one of the most important crops they import. Whale meat is about ego, but Southern Bluefin Tuna is prized in Japan. Stop them getting access to that and then you will have tears, and most likely a willingness to talk.

I think I took your previous post the wrong way 74. I don't know much about Japanese eating habits and your previous post now makes sense to me.

Cheers.

 

[Liverpool]

Just as you ignored her word and focused on the word of a disgruntled ex-Gp activist. I was really just pointing out we can make the articles mean what we want them to, something some around here have a habit of doing.
You have a penchant for links. How about posting one that shows the 2 men you refer to are from Greenpeace as your highlighted heading indicates. I can find plenty that say they're from a different organisation.
I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, I'd prefer that than to think your credibility had plummeted so low that you'd deliberately mislead people by posting inaccurate info.
Pity I don't like cigars. :blah

FFS Rosy....that "disgruntled ex Greenpeace activist" is the founder of Sea Shepherd, who says himself that his group and Greenpeace are intimately linked.
I know they are from different organisations and I clearly said that to you earlier in this thread:

They're not from Greenpeace.

I know, I know...but Sea Shepherd, Greenpace, etc...they are all on the same team...they just come under different labels.

I don't know what you are arguing about to be honest? ???
Who cares whether these 2 blokes came from Sea Shepeherd or Greenpeace...as both Sea Shepherd (made up of ex-Greenpeace personnel) and Greenpeace themselves are all for the same cause and do the same things, but just wear a different logo on their shirts.
I think you are being quite pedantic to be honest.

Yes, you are lucky you don't like cigars because you still ain't got one! ;D

 

[Rosy]

I don't know what you are arguing about to be honest? ???

"To be honest" isn't your strong point Livers. If you can't see that your claim on the post about members of Sea Shepherd under a highlighed "Greenpeace" heading is inaccurate and misleads people, and you refuse to alter it to be more accurate, it speaks volumes about you.

 

[Disco08]

I doubt Liverpool has ever admitted a mistake.

 

[Liverpool]

"To be honest" isn't your strong point Livers. If you can't see that your claim on the post about members of Sea Shepherd under a highlighed "Greenpeace" heading is inaccurate and misleads people, and you refuse to alter it to be more accurate, it speaks volumes about you.

I have already acknowledged on this thread that I know they are not from Greenpeace:

They're not from Greenpeace.

I know, I know...but Sea Shepherd, Greenpace, etc...they are all on the same team...they just come under different labels.

However, I will NOT alter my original post, because the Sea Shepherd's founding member acknowledges that they are intimately linked and serve the same purpose with the same aim, but it is just behind the scenes differences that separate one group from the other.
Greenpeace are also in these waters with the Esperanza.

I doubt Liverpool has ever admitted a mistake.

I'l think about it when I make one... ;D

 

[Tiger74]

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are hardly "mates" on this one Liv.

Greenpeace found the whalers first, but refused to give the location to Sea Shepherd because they hate their tactics that much.

No fan of Greenpeace myself, but they are not fond at all of Sea Shepherd.

 

[Rosy]

However, I will NOT alter my original post, because the Sea Shepherd's founding member acknowledges that they are intimately linked and serve the same purpose with the same aim,

The article you linked to is a few years old so obviously has no relevance to the Sea Shepherd incident this year. It's as handy as an ashtray on a motor bike in regard to your refusal to modify your post to make it accurate. There's nothing but your post that links the 2 men and the incident with Greenpeace , as you have, rather than Sea Shepherd.

The only reason I suggested you change your heading is because I pride myself that PRE is usually a source of accurate information. Disappointing you don't seem to have the same standards. Such is life.

 

[Liverpool]

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are hardly "mates" on this one Liv.
Greenpeace found the whalers first, but refused to give the location to Sea Shepherd because they hate their tactics that much.
No fan of Greenpeace myself, but they are not fond at all of Sea Shepherd.

I never said they were mates, Tiger74...in fact, I think they are quite the opposite.
But I don't think they hate Sea Shepherd due to their 'tactics' when Greenpeace themselves have used similar tactics throughout their existence.
I think any 'hatred' towards each other is simply down to $$$.

Here you have two groups....both in the same market of 'saving whales' and both relying on donations and $$$ from sponsors and the public to keep going. It is competitive like any other business.
You also have Greenpeace who has grown into a multi-billion $$$ industry and now you have Sea Shepherd, a group started by ex-Greenpeace personnel who claim that Greenpeace has gone away from what they originally set out to do.

The main way to keep the public supporting and throwing their $$$ at them is to keep in the mainstream media and to do that is to come up with sensational video footage (boarding whaling ships in dinghys, ramming boats, throwing stink bombs, using red paint, etc).
Of course to get this footage, then one has to actually do these stunts.

Greenpeace can bemoan Sea Shepherd all they like about their tactics but they reek of hypocrisy in this respect and are just shitty because they now have a competitor in the same market as them and hence why they are witholding information from Sea Shepherd regarding the position of the Japanese fleet.
Greenpeace in the past more or less had a monopoly on gaining public money for conservation stunts and now this has changed somewhat regarding Sea Shepherd and this whaling fiasco.

You really wonder if both of thse groups have gone away from the actual cause and whether it is more of a personal/company vendetta against one another to see who can top the $$$ pile.

The thing that annoys me is that all this could have been halted (and could still be halted) if the Australian Government kicked the whole lot of them out of our waters...whalers, Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, and anyone else trying to get on the bandwagon.

 

[Tiger74]

I never said they were mates, Tiger74...in fact, I think they are quite the opposite.
But I don't think they hate Sea Shepherd due to their 'tactics' when Greenpeace themselves have used similar tactics throughout their existence.
I think any 'hatred' towards each other is simply down to $$$.

Here you have two groups....both in the same market of 'saving whales' and both relying on donations and $$$ from sponsors and the public to keep going. It is competitive like any other business.
You also have Greenpeace who has grown into a multi-billion $$$ industry and now you have Sea Shepherd, a group started by ex-Greenpeace personnel who claim that Greenpeace has gone away from what they originally set out to do.

The main way to keep the public supporting and throwing their $$$ at them is to keep in the mainstream media and to do that is to come up with sensational video footage (boarding whaling ships in dinghys, ramming boats, throwing stink bombs, using red paint, etc).
Of course to get this footage, then one has to actually do these stunts.

Greenpeace can bemoan Sea Shepherd all they like about their tactics but they reek of hypocrisy in this respect and are just shitty because they now have a competitor in the same market as them and hence why they are witholding information from Sea Shepherd regarding the position of the Japanese fleet.
Greenpeace in the past more or less had a monopoly on gaining public money for conservation stunts and now this has changed somewhat regarding Sea Shepherd and this whaling fiasco.

You really wonder if both of thse groups have gone away from the actual cause and whether it is more of a personal/company vendetta against one another to see who can top the $$$ pile.

The thing that annoys me is that all this could have been halted (and could still be halted) if the Australian Government kicked the whole lot of them out of our waters...whalers, Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, and anyone else trying to get on the bandwagon.

Don't think its the dollars, its about cred.

Greenpeace like to block drains and hang signs from power plants and so on, but they have never rammed and sunk vessels on the high seas. If they do this stuff, which is effectively piracy on the high seas, they lose the cred and political force they desperately want.

Sea Shepherd on the otherhand are a "outcome by any means" group, so sinking a few boats is not going to ruffle any of their feathers or those of their supporters. There is a price for this however, and the recent example of this is how hard it is now to get a country to allow them to fly their flag (they were stuck in Melbourne last summer until they could find a country because their last nation renounced their flag rights due to their activities).

 

[Liverpool]

Don't think its the dollars, its about cred.
Greenpeace like to block drains and hang signs from power plants and so on, but they have never rammed and sunk vessels on the high seas. If they do this stuff, which is effectively piracy on the high seas, they lose the cred and political force they desperately want.
Sea Shepherd on the otherhand are a "outcome by any means" group, so sinking a few boats is not going to ruffle any of their feathers or those of their supporters. There is a price for this however, and the recent example of this is how hard it is now to get a country to allow them to fly their flag (they were stuck in Melbourne last summer until they could find a country because their last nation renounced their flag rights due to their activities).

Oh...totally agree with you mate.
Credibility and being able to attract members is huge because more members = more money.

 

[Liverpool]

Still waiting hot-shot:

What is your stance on what the Govt. should do Six pack, as you seem to have avoided Liverpool's request to give us your opinion on what we should do?

 

[Disco08]

Why is it necessary to have a fully-conceived solution to point out the stupidity in someone else's proposal?

 

[Six Pack]

Sorry Livers, I forgot about this one. But seeing as you asked so nicely!!

Firstly I should point out that my main issue with your opinions on this issue were the stupid and extreme measures you were suggesting: ie. blowing the japanese whalers out of the water.

But

If the Japanese are breaking an Australian law then the companies involved should be taken to court in Australia. if they are breaking international law then they should be tried there.

Additionally the government should use diplomacy to try and sort out the problem. Failing that it should go on to the International stage.

If that all fails we could consider trade sanctions etc.

 

[Liverpool]

Why is it necessary to have a fully-conceived solution to point out the stupidity in someone else's proposal?

If people think they have a better solution than mine...that is great.
But let's hear about it.

People saying your solution is crap when they don't have one themselves is weak as *smile*, if you ask me.

Either offer what you think or shut the *smile* up....don't have cracks at other people who are at least having a go at what they think should be done.

 

[Disco08]

I agree if the solution has some sort of reasoning behind it.