|
Post by getoverit on Nov 24, 2010 23:56:08 GMT -5
Sorry but someone had to tell you, but who are you and why are there no contact details on your pathetic site, why are you hiding who you are?? ONLY the dumb will get involved in your biggest LIAR site that I have ever seen. If you are not a liar then why are you so focused on someone else's lies, you dream about lies so much that you dedicate a whole website to lies. IF YOU ARE SO FOCUSED ON LIES THEN YOU MUST BE ONE YOURSELF, otherwise put up your photo and email address and let us see you if you have nothing to hide.
I am happy that you will delete this post, because it means that you have read it. Remember only the dumb will follow you on this loser website. So long LIAR.
|
|
|
Post by getoverit on Nov 25, 2010 0:07:51 GMT -5
Oh and Chris do you work for Greenpeace OR are you a Japanese by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by getoverit on Nov 25, 2010 0:09:50 GMT -5
OR just someone who hides behind this website, hiding his identity?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2010 0:26:38 GMT -5
If you are not a liar then why are you so focused on someone else's lies, you dream about lies so much that you dedicate a whole website to lies. Your point is too ignorant to even warrant an response (if you don't see why, I assure you everyone else does), but I'll give you a chance to try to redeem yourself. - An intelligent person trying to discredit the site would point out errors or inconsistencies in the facts listed herein. There's a whole list of lies that Watson has told. Feel free to point out a single mistake. There's an obvious reason why you haven't.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2010 0:30:19 GMT -5
Oh and Chris do you work for Greenpeace OR are you a Japanese by any chance? No, I neither work for Greenpeace, whalers or any other group/organization involved in this issue in any way. My company is based in Nevada and we neither whale or eat whale meat. And, no, I'm not going to give you my phone number. But if you want to give me your phone number, I'll be sure not to call you.
|
|
|
Post by steeleshark on Dec 17, 2010 10:16:14 GMT -5
An inaccuracy is about the collision. If you watch the videos directly from the Gill, it will show the engines are off because they were just about out of fuel the entire time the Japanese ship approaches. The reason it had a wake is that they tried restarting the engines when the ship showed a collision threat to get out of the way. They just barely got it to produce propulsion when it got hit so it was still relatively dead in the water and any average person would describe that as being deliberately hit while sitting still in the water.
|
|
|
Post by capncrunch on Dec 30, 2010 19:28:29 GMT -5
Trying to malign Paul Watson under the guise of anonymity is cowardly. Besides, everyone knows he and his crew are attempting to stop the world's billionaire pigs from stealing all of earth's resources for a profit. As far as I'm concerned, the sun rises and sets over Paul Watson's ass. I hope he goes on destroying those who steal from the earth.
|
|
|
Post by capncrunch on Dec 30, 2010 19:31:04 GMT -5
And just to show you that not everyone is too cowardly to speak their piece, my name is Josephine Deym and I live in the greater Chicagoland area. And I absolutely mean what I say about cowards maligning people under the guise of anonymity.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 2, 2011 9:03:54 GMT -5
And just to show you that not everyone is too cowardly to speak their piece, my name is Josephine Deym and I live in the greater Chicagoland area. And I absolutely mean what I say about cowards maligning people under the guise of anonymity. Although a clever attempt at misdirection, the fact is that you're not even attempting to refute the copious facts which reveal Paul Watson's true nature. This site isn't about me any more than WikiLeaks is about Julian Assange's sexual activities. If you're really that interested, it would take a minimal amount of effort to find out the company that owns and operates this website and who I am as the owner. And once you've done that, perhaps you can find another reason to avoid facing the reality that Watson is a liar, felon and hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Jan 8, 2011 18:02:22 GMT -5
I think this site is a welcome counterpoint to the propaganda out there concerning these issues. I am not, never have been, and never will be an advocate of whaling of any kind. Even if the species is plentiful, all whales are highly intelligent beings and hunting them is barbaric. But with the recent falling out with Pete Bethune and Paul Watson, I have to say I am thinking that you and Pete are right. Watson seems to be willing to break any law and or covenant to achieve his aims. He doesn't appear to value truth or honor in any sense. And that, I find truly pathetic.
P.S. I don't blame you for not advertising your identity, these people get kind of crazy and the internet is a breeding ground for them.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 1, 2011 11:26:22 GMT -5
I would like to point out that you have had a handful of intelligent posters on here have pointed out the site inaccuracies, but you have not responded directly to them. Furthermore, here are some of your numerous mistakes...
You accuse Paul Watson of lying about not injuring anyone or committing a crime. Well, you lead people to believe such, while only attempting to disprove the criminal activity. There is not a warrant in Costa Rica for attempted murder or destruction of property. Costa Rica has a dropped those charges but still has the warrant in order to hold Watson until charges can be determined. I don't think any reasonable person would return to be held indefinitely while charges are determined...
Furthermore, sinking of vessels can be debated morally/ethically. That is a different discussion than was it legal or not. In fact, many of those cases were clearly not done illegally. The others were questionable but the authorities in those areas have not pressed charges. So, are you suggesting your detective work on the matter proves illegal activities were done, while the authorities in the areas did not?
Paul Watson has not recanted his confession to sinking the Icelandic whaling ships. That was a blatant lie.
I encourage anyone who believes that Watson ordered his crew to open fire on a Japanese fishing vessel in 1993 to watch the documentary Chris claims he is quoting. Suggesting this is what occurred is a work of pure fiction yet again.
Paul Watson wasn't convicted of anything in Norway. He was arrested on a warrant that was proven contradictory and invalid and released.
More importantly than this foolish list, does laws equal morals? Is it not sometimes morally correct to break laws? A good example of this would be the conviction of 2 Sea Shepherd members in Canada. I see you decided not to mention what they were convicted of... For those who don't know and are interested, they illegally viewed the seal slaughter. That's right. It's illegal to even see that without a permit from the Canadian govt (which they won't give out unless you've got a club in your hand.) Illegal? Certainly. Immoral? Not in the least. At least you point out that this "proof" that Paul lied occurred after the quotes in which you're stating he lied. An odd move there but interesting I suppose.
You point out that the Minke Whale is not endangered by the IUCN but you don't point what how they are classified. They are currently listed as "Data Deficient." So they are not safe or threatened. They are, well, we don't know. However, the ICR wishes to claim they are as abundant as mosquitoes in Florida. More research needs to be done to determine if it's reasonable to kill them in the numbers the Japanese wish to. Furthermore, the IUCN states the #1 (and only certain threat) to them is over hunting.
I will give you one, it does appear the ICR has had some of their papers reviewed by peers upon release. However, I would like to point out that the International Whaling Commision's (certainly no friend of SSCS) own scientific committee has stated that;
"none of the goals of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA 1 [Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic] programme are not required for management under the RMP [Revised Management Procedure]"
They have also called upon the Japanese government "to address the 31 recommendations listed in [the Scientific Committee's JARPA 1 report] to the satisfaction of the Scientific Committee" and "to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary".
Based on this and many other issues with the "research" done by ICR, they are, most likely violating the protection measures and illegally poaching whales in the Southern Whale Sanctuary. The "research" provision is being used as a loophole and Japan has come right out and said this fairly recently.
The SSCS states that they believe the Canadian seal slaughter is a threat to the species and you attempt to prove their lying by pointing out Harp Seals are not endangered. Ummm, they didn't claim they were. Endangered and saying something is a threat to a species are wildly different things. I can say an asteroid hitting Earth is a threat to humans. You'll notice I'm not claiming we're an endangered species...
The SSCS quote states they comply with all international laws and you "prove" this is a lie by an example that they were convicted of braking an immoral Canadian (note: Canadian laws are not international) law. What?
In your "shocking" lie about sea shepherd being non-violent, you state they've rammed boats. I'd like you to read up on Martin Luther King Jr's statements about violence. He, along with many others, feel that violence is done against other people. There is not a violent act against stuff. SSCS goes out of their way to avoid injuring people. The boats that have been sunk have been unmanned, in port. The boats that have been rammed were all able to limp back to port. Let's also ignore all the incidents of the Japanese and Canadian coast guard ramming SSCS boats, shall we? But I suppose you have a better grasp on what non-violence means than the Dali Lama, who supports SSCS's activities...
Your final "lie" is about SSCS only going against illegal activities. While the Canadian seal slaughter is regrettably legal, there are constant illegal acts being done. SSCS, Greenpeace, HSPCA and a handful of other groups have all documented numerous accounts of seals being slaughtered in illegal manners. These include skinning them alive, kicking them to death, requiring numerous club strikes to kill the seals, and many other activities. These actions are NOT legal and there is no enforcement of these laws.
The quotes you put on the side are laughable. Any person in the public eye can have their quotes taken out of context to made to look foolish. It takes no brain power to do this and is, in fact, intellectually immoral to do so.
Does Paul Watson dance in a grey area at times when it comes to the truth or legality of his actions? He does. I will admit this. He does exactly what every major corporation, business and government does. It's more politely called public relations. Sadly, this is how our world works. I question why you create a site to attack someone who does this, in the name of defending animals but not about those who do it to defend greed and destruction.
SSCS is committed to doing everything they can to defend marine animals. This is the key here and if anyone reads this,
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF MY WALL OF TEXT....
Sea Shepherd is accomplishing great things. The ICR blames SSCS for saving over 1000 whales. The Galapagos Islands happily uses Sea Shepherd assistance to help defend and police their fragile ecosystem. They have helped raise great awareness of the Taiji dolphin slaughter. They helped push for the EU ban on seal products. They confiscate long-lines, assist in arresting poachers and raise awareness the world over.
However, Chris here feels that's all invalid because they engage in the same PR that everyone else does. He's not so angry at the whalers or poachers or the nations that defend them to create a site to attack them, but he is towards a group dedicated to defending animals. Why is this?
I'm not suggesting that charitable groups don't need to be watched and investigated. This is certainly not the case. What I am saying is that the "lies" on this page range from distortions, to hypocrisy, to blatant lies by the site's author. More importantly, I am asking those who believe any of it, is Sea Shepherd doing good work. Are they saving animals? Are they protecting the environment? This is a vaild discussion. A page dedicated to semantics and phrasing is pathetic at best.
|
|
|
Post by the5thCount on May 9, 2011 21:40:26 GMT -5
Hey, theres nothing wrong with killing whales. I don't care how "intelligent" you think they are, killing whales is just as fine as killing cows and chickens.
One of the main problems with the human species is the fact that there are too many self righteous environmentalist tree hugging pricks.
I will eat meat until I die. Nothing anyone can say or do will prevent me from eating meat.
|
|
|
Post by James on May 11, 2011 4:01:20 GMT -5
I went looking for a counter opinion after watching a few of the Whale Wars shows. At least this site makes some sense. I'm not sure Watson is quite all there. They just seem like a bunch of sea punks throwing stink bombs at ships. It's laughable really. I wondered while watching, how can the viewer assume they AREN'T doing research?
Also, maybe whale meat is really delicious and totally worth it
Another also, I don't like the ads in the captcha so I won't be returning
|
|
|
Post by Mike on May 13, 2011 3:44:44 GMT -5
This Watson guy is a total doofus, animal activists are retards.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 13, 2011 19:21:41 GMT -5
Adam, I appreciate the fact that you kept your comments civil. It seems most Pro-Watson disciples just spew profanity at anyone who doesn't follow him blindly. I will respond to a few of your comments since that's all it will take to discredit the entire post: You accuse Paul Watson of lying about not injuring anyone or committing a crime. Nowhere on the site does it say that Paul Watson personally injured anyone. To suggest he's never committed a crime is just ridiculous. You'll get far more mileage out of the "sometimes you're justified in breaking the law"...at least that's a point you can defend since it's opinion. Costa Rica has a dropped those charges but still has the warrant in order to hold Watson until charges can be determined. I don't think any reasonable person would return to be held indefinitely while charges are determined... If the warrant has changed, send along proof (NOT from the SSCS website) and I'll update that fact. More importantly, to suggest that "no reasonable" person would face false charges against them is an opinion you'll have a hard time getting traction on in a lot of ways. Many people have honor and attempt to clear their name. In Watson's case, it's also another sounding board to get out his message. Of course, that's only relevant if he truly did nothing wrong. Furthermore, sinking of vessels can be debated morally/ethically. That is a different discussion than was it legal or not. The site is not "SeaShepherdMorals" or "SeaShepherdEthics". You can argue the S.S. crimes are "just" the same way a Fundamentalist can argue killing an OGBYN that performs abortions is "just"....just don't LIE about doing it. I encourage anyone who believes that Watson ordered his crew to open fire on a Japanese fishing vessel in 1993 to watch the documentary Chris claims he is quoting. Suggesting this is what occurred is a work of pure fiction yet again. Send me your version of the transcript...oh wait, let me guess, you haven't actually seen it yourself. A good example of this would be the conviction of 2 Sea Shepherd members in Canada. I see you decided not to mention what they were convicted of... For those who don't know and are interested, they illegally viewed the seal slaughter. Again you miss the point entirely. They were CONVICTED and Watson still asserts the S.S. have never been convicted of a crime. You do understand the definition of "lie" don't you? If not, you're wasting your time on this site. You point out that the Minke Whale is not endangered by the IUCN but you don't point what how they are classified. And again...regardless of their classification or how you're trying to spin this, to say they are "endangered" when they are not is a lie. Listen to the interview with Watson about the seals. He slams using them as a money making endeavor and a few years later, jumps on the bandwagon himself. That's pathetic and hypocritical. Finally, when it comes to using violence, yes there have been plenty of cases in history where violence was used, even in contravention of existing laws, where it is/was deemed necessary or "right". If Watson took the position "we'll break whatever law we have to in the name of saving wildlife," he would not create nearly as much contempt. He doesn't do that, he lies. Over and over he lies! You can't say "I'm not violent" and in the next sentence say "I ram ships and throw projectiles at other vessels." He plays his little game and there are a handful of people dumb enough to believe his lies and send him their money. Of course, there's a saying about a fool and money...and there's a saying that goes "The bigger the lie, the more people are willing to believe it." You're in the business of defending Paul Watson. There is an honorable and lawful way to do things and even if Watson choose to go the unlawful route, he could still so honorably. The fact is, trying to get the "research" loophole closed isn't exciting and doesn't get Watson the limelight or the big money from supporters and he desperately wants those things. You tried feebly to compare Watson to Luther but, as I'm sure you already know, people like Luther or Mandela weren't out heading their movement and lying about what they were doing when they felt it suited their purposes. Watson is a con man. Psychics justify their acts by saying they're "helping people" while making up stories about communing with their dead relatives....and getting rich in the process in some cases. Perhaps you think that's okay, too.
|
|