Bronwyn
Greenpeace is an organisation that uses sensationalism, lies, dangerous "protest" activity, and definitely manipulates scientific data.
It is a "master of spin".
Of course it uses trumped up threats - it needs money to survive. Fortunately the public are increasingly seeing through all these lies, and Greenpeace is gradually losing members and contributions. That is why it is so desperate now to get headlines.

It does make you think Froggie, but you can see in the response section a great deal of the “Principle of Unnecessary Plurality” along with “Solipsism” .That is the frightening thing, and where does it come from . We know where it leads to.

Comparing Graham Young's article with Dan Cass's article makes for interesting reading.

It is very clear who is telling the truth and who is engaged in spin doctoring. Mr Young's article was directed at the ramming incident in which it was quite plain that Greenpeace deliberately rammed a Japanese whaling vessel. His post then went on to ask why the Fourth Estate did not do their job when they accepted Greenpeace's version of the incident without submitting the claim to easily checkable verification.

Dan Cass's article did not even directly refer to the incident. It wandered around all over the place talking about John Howard "lying" about coal summits and then Mr Cass claimed that Mr Young was unfairly attacking his own profession. Cass's implicAtion that the ABC is not biased completely destroyed his credibility.

Cass then claimed that Japanese whalers often rammed Grenpeace ships. Even if I believed him, which I don't, since when does two wrongs make a right?

If Greenpeace is "philosophically opposed to violence", then perhaps they had better remove the "can openers" from the hulls of their ships, which sure look like weapons to me.

Tubley “So, Col Rouge and Graham, lay off the people who are saving the world and your grandchildren may get a chance to see it.”

My response to your “demand”

“Go 'flush' yourself”,

Who on earth are you to "demand" I lay off anyone?

You come here and criticise me but do not challenge the content on most of my posts. (presumably because “playing the man” is an easier target in your game of tired anarchist actions).

Since the dawn of time people like you have been on their high horses or running around like a bunch of prancing nancies, claiming the moral high ground and then abusing the power which accrued.

Tubley, you can eat all the salad you want. I could not give a stuff. However, you are neither competent, accredited, approved or authorised to tell me what I will do, what I will eat, how I will live or what views I will hold.

You are simply a small minded bully with no respect for the rights of others.

You are here demanding that Graham Young and I “lay off” Greenpeace as if it were a "sacred cow".

So take your “Greenpeace, PETA, Animals Australia, Humane Society International, Voiceless, International Fund for Animal Welfare” and all the others from the assorted menagerie of wack-job idiots and stick them where the sun don’t shine.

They are not saving anything except their own delusions of grandeur and inventing self importance in their pointless lives.

Want to “Save the world”?
Go and sterilise the underdeveloped nations.

Exploding population growth is what is going to “flush the human race down the pan” and that is squarely a third world problem, the developed world operating at stable to negative population growth.

I will still post and as far as I am concerned, firing a shot at Greenpeace is as good a sport as shooting duck in season and if it don’t suit you I suggest try complaining to the site managing editor.

oh that’s Graham Young.

tubley, me suggesting that, I think you might have just [deleted for profanity] yourself.

Tubley is mistaken if he thinks that being vegetarian frees him from disease, salmonella is present in all food and one of the biggest sources of food poisoning is cooked rice left at room temperature.

Tubley is also mistaken if he thinks PETA do not practice animal cruelty, in the US members of PETA are currently facing multiple charges of animal cruelty.

Tubley is further mistaken if he thinks that he or anyone elses rights are at risk, the only right at risk is the freedom of speech which Tubley wants to restrict.

Dan Cass says: "As an environmental campaigner and a citizen, I believe web media outlets like On Line Opinion should support their colleagues in TV, radio and print media, not shoot the messenger. Crikey! have proven that if online outlet combines good reporting, insider access and a degree of gumption, they earn positive and deserved influence in the wider media."

Dan Cass, While I think your aticle puts Greenpeaces postion very well, I must disagree with your statement above.

We must support fair and unbiased media; and we must "shoot the messenger" when they start playing silly buggers.

I don't want to be governed by media release or choose a candidate or support a policy because such and such party or lobby group has the best media advisors, access to media resources, especially biased ones, and so on.

I think is Graham Young's article is somewhat of a beat up with the intention of discrediting an organisation that he has issues with.

Nevertheless, GY's criticism of the media was constructive - if applied across all media reporting.

I think, on certain issues, Greenpeace have a very responsible attitude and have proven time and time again to be an effective counter to unwise decisions in relation to the environment. Thanks for your hard work. (Skies of blue)