• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Welcome to Free PC Help, a free PC Help forum to get help with your computer problems.

    Free PC Help is a community that offers free computer help and support for all users, all ages, worldwide.

    In order to start asking questions or contribute on someone else's post you will first need to register. Don't worry - it's quick and easy and once you have registered you will have instant access to the entire forum.

    If you do decide to join the forums you will not have the option to send Private Messages [ PMs ] or add a Signature until you have made 5 posts or more. This is an attempt to try to stop Spammers using the PM system or adding links to their Signature.

Greenpeace is at it again!!!

help4me

FPCH Long Term Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
395
Location
USA
PC Experience
Some Experience
Operating System
Windows Vista - Home Basic
#1
In light of this thread http://www.freepchelp.co.uk/forum/t1237-Poisonous-Playstations?#p5190 and the bunk that Greenpeace is pulling... I decided to start a civil discussion about Greenpeace. So far I am not impressed with Greenpeace. Here's another such article http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/16/apple-gets-sued-over-greenpeace-iphone-report/.

Feel free to post your opinion and site other articles. Everyone's opinion is welcome(be it for or against) as long as the conversation remains friendly.... so please remember your manners. I have no issue having the thread locked if we can't be cordial to one another. (Unless you are trashing Greenpeace :D ;) j/k)
 

help4me

FPCH Long Term Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
395
Location
USA
PC Experience
Some Experience
Operating System
Windows Vista - Home Basic
#3
You'd be surprised my dear Wolf. But then... considering... no you wouldn't be.
 
W

Wolfeymole

#4
Well based on that link it looks to me that the CEH is using Green Peace as a tool to try to obtain money from Apple via the lawsuit.

And if Pat Moore (GP Co-Founder) got interrupted by GP over his support of the addition of a genetically modified gene thinks it's ok by suggesting that millions of kids will starve if it's not, then GP have my full support.
How the hell does he know if the gene will work? What about the long term aspects?
 

Seth

FPCH Long Term Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
2,268
Location
Canada
Operating System
Windows Vista - Home Premium
#5
Bonnie,

IMO, GP has noble intentions, but are clueless when it comes to empirical evidence or the affect that their actions have on global economy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing the "pollution" that human kind produces, but the "sky is falling eco-evangilists" solution, will result in more human distress than that which they seek to avoid.
 
W

Wolfeymole

#6
Yes that is it isn't it, it all comes down to money and bollocks to every thing else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm wide awake and not some obscure eco warrior but the mighty $/£ will wreck it all in the end.
 

Seth

FPCH Long Term Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
2,268
Location
Canada
Operating System
Windows Vista - Home Premium
#7
The US will not sign on to the Kyoto agreement, as they will know it will destroy their economy.


The previous Liberal government in Canada agreed to Kyoto, but that was just a political move to which they did nothing about. The Liberal government knew that Kyoto would destroy the economy, but agreed to it for political development. Fortunately, the Canadian public threw their assess out of government.

The current Conservative government in Canada has recognized this, and has proposed a slow but effective resolution that is fulfilled by 2050. The naysayers don't understand the econmic percussions of "too much too fast". As such, they should be given a buck knife and sent into the woods to understand what eco-evangelism really means.
 

JEBWrench

FPCH Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
309
Location
Aperture Science
PC Experience
Operating System
Windows XP - Media Center Edition
#8
However, Seth, I think the current resolution will never see fruition. Almost any of the alternative parties would likely ax it almost immediately upon reaching power, especially since they could use the far-off "end-point" of 2050 as the Tories being "soft" on climate change.
 

help4me

FPCH Long Term Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
395
Location
USA
PC Experience
Some Experience
Operating System
Windows Vista - Home Basic
#9
Seth said:
Bonnie,

IMO, GP has noble intentions, but are clueless when it comes to empirical evidence or the affect that their actions have on global economy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing the "pollution" that human kind produces, but the "sky is falling eco-evangilists" solution, will result in more human distress than that which they seek to avoid.
Agreed, but as they say.. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. While I am not an advocate for achieving desired effects by any means possible... some common sense should be used. Sometimes it appears that GP wants a more naturalistic approach taken to solve everything. Ok... respect for nature and the environment yes, and we humans must tread lightly so as not to destroy our planet... but for the sake of the greater good... sometimes a few ants or even cute bunny rabbits are going to get crushed. So yes... we are in agreement. All things in moderation.. as with this forum.. a happy medium... a well balanced mix.
 

JEBWrench

FPCH Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
309
Location
Aperture Science
PC Experience
Operating System
Windows XP - Media Center Edition
#11
Oooh, PETA. World-wide animal killing at its finest:

2,981. That’s how many dogs, cats, puppies, kittens, and other "companion animals" died needlessly at the hands of PETA employees in 2006. According to the group's own records, PETA employees killed more than 97 percent of the flesh-and-blood creatures in their care that year.
Quote from http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Makes me prefer the 'real' PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals.