It is SUPPOSED to be named the Ady Gil II, but Watson forget that …conveniently.

This remark has been removed due to a violation of our commenting policy. — Ecorazzi

How about the Ady Gil II…isn’t that what it is supposed to be named …PAUL???

No. I don’t even like doing it. Wish I didn’t have to.

No, it’s Paul Watson’s choice. And those who support him, like Bob Barker.

Watson and Barker could stop the torturing and killing of animals but maybe their anti-whaling farce/tv show is more important to them. Oh, and where I live what I am doing is nice and legal. So no worries about getting caught.

My goal is to help people targeted by the violence, extremism, and lies of Paul Watson and his financial enablers like Bob Barker. I don’t care about your criticism. I’m a doer.
http://i51.tinypic.com/296hci0.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/105o7lf.jpg
Please help these animals. Many of them suffered a lot last year even though I let SSCS know what they had to do to help them. Seems like they don’t care because they make so much money from their anti-whaling farce. You can help. Write to the SSCS, Paul Watson and Bob Barker and let them know what they have to do. Tell Watson and the SSCS you’re not going to send them any more money until they do the right thing.

Arnie, what does Watson have to do with you torturing animals?

From what i read you torture animals because you like to do it. How come you chose to put the blame of what you do on Watson and SSCS and not on other animal welfare organizations?

This remark is a violation of our commenting policy and has been removed. — Ecorazzi

“Bethune’s allegation that I ordered him to scuttle the Ady Gil are ridiculous because I never had any authority over him to give him any such orders…”

But your boating was towing the Ady Gil, so you did have every right to order whatever you decided about the Ady Gil and it was Peter Bethune who had no authority to tell you what to do with your boat.

And we know you don’t care about or listen to your detractors. That is why you so often respond to them to tell them you don’t care about them or listen to them.

“…especially not those who oppose us or indulge in worthless criticism.”

It sure seems to get under your skin and cause you to use time and effort in refuting them. And I suppose your criticism of your detractors is worth something?

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society did not raise a great deal of money to replace the Ady Gil. And what we were raising money for was to acquire a third ship for the campaign – and whatever specific funds were donated for that purpose have gone to that objective for a total of $150,000 so far.

As to what we owe donors, the answer to that is simple – we owe them results. We do not need to reveal our strategies and the workings of our tactics. We do not need to explain our decisions or the reasoning behind our decisions in the field. Our supporters invest in saving lives and damaging the profits of our opposition and we have delivered a return in spades on that investment and we will continue to do so.

As to David’s comments that criticism gets under my skin, I can assure you it does not. I am merely trying to be informative and to correct some misinformation. Criticism really does not bother me. In fact why should it bother anyone? Doers do and non doers criticize. Nothing new about that so I would much prefer to be a doer than a critic.

I think this quote from President Teddy Roosevelt best exemplifies the role of the critic;

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

“Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

Roosevelt also said the following:

…the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done.” (1891)

“Criticism can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger.” (1894)
(end quote)

As a student of history I well aware that nothing has ever been accomplished without detractors and the greater the accomplishment, the more animosity the achievements inspire. In fact the measure of one’s success can be observed in the level of anger and hostility that one’s actions arouse in others. In other words if we’re not pissing people off, we’re not doing our job.

So in that regard critics do serve a purpose. They are an indicator of success, not in the content of their criticism but in the mere fact that the criticism is delivered and the more angry and hostile the criticism, the more it indicates success. If large numbers of people involved in the destruction of our oceans did not hate me for what I say and do, I would be terribly disappointed in myself.

“Now one final word. If you do not like what Sea Shepherd does or if you disagree with our tactics, our strategies, or our objectives, I need only say, it matters not. People are entitled to their opinions but opinions and criticisms mean very little to us. ”

Yes “Captain”, Right! You and SSCS care SO little about criticism, you had the forum on The Discovery Channel site shut down.

Quite right, it was a little silly of me to imply I could read the minds of deceased presidents. But just imagine how utterly moronic it would have been if I had claimed to have leapt upon a dying whale and stared into its eye and shared a tender moment of mutual understanding with the distressed beast as it thrashed around in the throes of death! How completely imbecilic that would have been. But worse still if people actually believed a word of it. Those people would be even more deluded and pathetic.

This remark is a violation of our commenting policy and has been removed. — Ecorazzi

Annie,

I take it that you are “Norwegian Ann” that comments on David@Tokyo’s blog… Is that correct?

Well, it’s nice to see that you are here to defend your friends (including Glenn, who plays the role of Kimitake…), and, of course, the whaling industry as a whole.

When Paul Watson tells the story of the encounter with the Russian whaler and the pod of Sperm whales that occurred in 1975, he does not say that he “leapt onto the dying whale and stared in its [sic] eye”… He looked it in the eye alright (many people have looked into the eye of a whale and sensed the intelligence behind it, but it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence, so I doubt that you’ve ever had that experience yourself…), but it was as the dying whale was rising out of the water, after it had been hit with the Russian harpoon.

I know that you guys (GGFMS) like to alter details, and distort meaning, in order to make the things you are paid to oppose seem ridiculous or naive, but most people out there in internetland see through those cheap tactics and recognize you for what you are. And what are you? You’re a mixed bag of paid industry shills, and disgruntled antisocial whiners, who do not consider the long term consequences of your actions. You insist on your right to destroy our shared global heritage and turn it into dog food. Well shame on you, you are the Judas of the modern age, and you will reap what you sow.

Yeah, that is practically just copied and pasted form above.