by the way, I know other people like you. It’s sad. I call out liars who I believe hurt people. You’ll see no hatred in what I said. You want to though. I wonder why? I would feel sorry for you but people like you never change. You find some satisfaction in bringing others down even if you have to lie to do so. You want us to be like you because you can’t understand people like us being happy.

Am I happy whales aren’t being killed? Of course. Do I still think Paul and his lies are dangerous? Yes. Has he lied even more? Yes. Have I been proven right? Yes. Am I happy that he lies? No. I criticize with the hope that people like him and those in Taiji change because I know they have a voice. Find fault in that. Please. You know what? You can’t. But keeping spewing your hatred.

So it’s whining to call someone out on their lies? You use that word often. Someone criticizes Paul and you automatically resort to that term. There’s no negativity there at all.

And are you sure that a court would bust me for libel and slander? You understand what those terms mean, right? Only one would apply unless you have heard me speak or are you also claiming that I have said something aloud about Paul? You and your ilk do like to lie about what I’ve said. You said this to me once too: “If this was a court of law, the judge would be kicking you out of the room by now.” If you want to insist on using the law, then learn it.

You went out of your way to call me out. You were looking to prove me wrong. That’s a bit sad when I was right and more sad that you had to lie to do it. You stated that I said that The Cove folks were against Paul Watson and SSCS and that I was “going on and on” about it. All lies. Plain and simple. You tried to “get me” somehow (why?) but failed (not surprisingly). And what do you say about Louie’s comment below? Had I said what you accused me of saying, would that not in part support that? Also, you stated that the SSCS website says nothing about boycotting Japan. Check Paul’s commentary re Taiji and get back to me.

I’ll give you some lies: They saved 528 whales last year. The lies that no whales were being killed. That butyric acid is just rancid butter. And getting shot. I’d love to get into court on the last. I’d probably call a forensics expert and Paul would insist on his expert, the guy from CSI or whatever.

Pete admitted that he lied and exercised bad judgment. Do I like that he lied in the first place? No, but I can give some respect to someone who admits to being wrong. I never deny what Paul has done in terms of saving some (though not as many as he claims) animals but have issue with how he does it. In fact, check what I said on Feb 5 at 12:46 pm.

Looks like I’m consistent. I oppose the same lies. I don’t believe lies should be used to solicit donations. And I don’t discount things accomplished.

Four responses means I have hate? Really? That I don’t like someone making up facts about me means I hate or does it mean that I am consistent?

And as for whales being killed, I do feel like you would say one thing and then another. January 22, you stated: Whales are still alive, RIGHT NOW, because they are doing a terrific job stopping the whalers. And this: I have looked all over the place and I see no evidence of anyone “happily hunting”. And this: What with the lack of updates on the SSCS site, I have the sinking feeling that they are, in fact, conducting whaling operations.

And you still seem like a very bitter person. It’s sad. Seems like SSCS supporters are mostly either those who may or may not like whales but definitely don’t like humanity and are pissed at the world OR those who love animals and just support any group who they believe is acting on behalf of animals.

you know, i always read your posts with great interest, Km, and about the lies, you certainly have a very good and valid point.
It’s so true, Paul Watson sometimes tells lies, and rather silly obvious lies ! Paul getting shot by the whalers ? Me don’t think so.
But, you know, how i see it, Paul Watson despite this little fault, is a great person with a great heart, and a true hero. His silly lies are maybe, like many great historical persons, part of a somewhat eccentric caracter. His actions though, speak for themselves, these are actions of a hero and a great man, and most importantly, he and SSCS saved much animals.
And for Michael, you are a good guy, we share the same things like protecting whales and that whaling stopped for this season, is a victory for all of us,you, me, just everybody, but you gotta slow down on some of your comments, in that respect i am afraid i have to agree with Km, just another guy who also seems to be happy that the whaling season ended early this year.

“We won, everyone else lost.”

And here I thought this was about whales. Silly me.

And, at the end, nothing I said about Paul or the campaign in Taiji has changed based on what happened in the Southern Ocean. And, you know what, it makes me sad. I derive no pleasure from what I see as destructive behavior.

Also, I’m not happy that 172 whales were killed. Or should I be because that means I was right and being right is really what this is about? Do I take a page from your book and start posting everywhere that I was right? Nah. I’m not like you, thankfully. Instead, I focus on the lying part, which was the claim that little to no whales were being killed and trying to raise donations on false claims, because I’m consistent and not messed up in the head. And I give credit where it is due because I’m not at war with you or Paul.

Also, thanks herwin for your comments. It is very much appreciated.

What is your point Herwin?

You going around telling people to shut up again?

@KM, you’re a pretty bad liar . It’s interesting to see people who’m are so spiteful(don’t feign otherwise, it’s sad) that they’ll take anything from anyone which plays against their enemy. I’m sure you read that diatribe by Pete Bethune when he said that Butyric acid C4H8O2 is more acidic than battery acid and loddy doddy dah. Which is funny though because that’s not a arguable fact. BA has a pka of 4.82, not 1.5 like silly Mr. Bethune said. But it’s funny that people trust him like he’s a chemist lol.

You got proof that Paul wasn’t shot? If not that’s a very moot point to try and drill over don’t you think? You’re evidence there would literally to have the absence of such a thing, which is a very poor way to win an argument I must say.

In the beginning of the season Paul said 0 whales were killed from what they had seen from the state of the harpoon vessels, that’s not lying, that’s being very optimistic on the situation, and optimism is something you really need in such situations.

“I’ll give you some lies: They saved 528 whales last year” How is that a lie when the whalers quota was 1035? Should SSCS kind of make something up NOT based on the numbers?

“Yet the maritime report and Whale Wars show proves otherwise.”
Oh really? Sea Shepherd said that in their official statement? I don’t thing so

“Captain Komura almost killed six Sea Shepherd volunteer crewmembers and did not respond to the Ady Gil’s mayday distress signal.” from the SSCS website

tell me what part of the show did the Ady gil get contacted by the SM#2, I don’t remember seeing that part, do you? I doubt it sincerely.

” Nah. I’m not like you, thankfully. Instead, I focus on the lying part, which was the claim that little to no whales were being killed and trying to raise donations on false claims, because I’m consistent and not messed up in the head. And I give credit where it is due because I’m not at war with you or Paul.”

Goodness gracious aren’t you the spiteful one. In contrast to the quota which the whalers set out for I would call that very few whales, getting approximately 16% of what they wanted seems to be few does it not? Then how can you call it lying anyways? Again, it’s called optimism, you go with the best result out of what you have seen, and that’s what sea shepherd went on. In the past the whalers didn’t slaughter entire pods, this season it’s believed they did. So how can you call them liars for being ignorant to the same things EVERYONE was to?

Oh and for St. Peter I’d like to drop some info on you. I have personally talked to SSCS crew who have extended contact with him, even having him sleep over at friends. According to what I’ve been told Pete not only wanted to shoot a poison arrow into a whale, but he wanted to pull the whale off the harpoon and slice it’s jaw off so he could hang it on his wall at home with all of his stuffed ducks and deer. What a nice guy. FOR THE ANIMALS!

@Lolz, but the quota wasn’t 1035. It was 950 and 50 of that was removed before they even left port. So the real quota was 900.

What about if you drop a bomb on them and film it at the same time? Ever think of that?

Sounds like SSCS are ont eh right track here, they are stopping the illegal whalers AND they are also filming it.

“My strategy is to give a powerful piece of filmmaking to people to create a legion of activists. By activists I don’t mean sinking ships or burning down buildings, I mean people becoming active in their own lives.”

Describes SSCS to a T !

Geeze, talk about WIN WIN!

km..I have no proof that you are not Pete Bethune or one of his monkeys ..I cannot prove that you are just some crazy la la looking for attention, but hey…you never know.

Yes MR, you do good on here.

Always nice to have a visit from Paul Watson to shed some light on the whackos propaganda machine.

Thanks KM, I’m glad you were impressed with my post.

Unlike you, I am not seeking attention, and unlike you, I still have friends on this thread.

Where have all your buddies gone to I wonder?

Must be sealing season, hey.

Or perhaps they are just too ashamed to have been sticking up for such an evil industry as whaling.

Perhaps they have woken up to themselves, had an epiphany, and decided to seek the truth and the light.

Perhaps they have started to do Gods work, instead of being lowly sinners. We shall rejoice when they repent. They can join in doing Gods work and become like the shepherds of the fields.

(Isaiah 58:6-11) “Is this not the fast that I have chosen: To loose the bonds of wickedness, To undo the heavy burdens, To let the oppressed go free, And that you break every yoke? {7} Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; When you see the naked, that you cover him, And not hide yourself from your own flesh? {8} Then your light shall break forth like the morning, Your healing shall spring forth speedily, And your righteousness shall go before you; The glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. {9} Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; You shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ “If you take away the yoke from your midst, The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, {10} If you extend your soul to the hungry And satisfy the afflicted soul, Then your light shall dawn in the darkness, And your darkness shall be as the noonday. {11} The LORD will guide you continually, And satisfy your soul in drought, And strengthen your bones; You shall be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.

Thats sounds like a better plan doesn’t it km?

Michael is doing a great job, keeping you & all the other trolls all busy on here, credit where credit is due. Nice to see him get a star. It means a lot to have your work acknowledged. It certainly beats being told that you are irrelevant and obsessed, which clearly you are.

You might think you deserve a gold star too km?

Sounds like you are jealous.

Not only that but you are the weak. We are trying to shepherd you until you see the light.

crumpets: There’s a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”

I been sayin’ that sh*t for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherf**ker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some sh*t this mornin’ made me think twice. Now I’m thinkin’: it could mean you’re the evil man. And I’m the righteous man. And Mr. .45 here, he’s the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you’re the righteous man and I’m the shepherd and it’s the world that’s evil and selfish. I’d like that. But that shit ain’t the truth. The truth is, km, you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin, km, I’m tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd.

This is from the guy who called me out on this page. From the guy who went out of his way to try and prove me wrong and not only failed but used lies to do so? That’s precious. That’s beyond nit-picking. That’s some sick obsession. You won as you say. Did I come on here to diminish Paul’s success? No but you still tried to stick it to me. If all you cared about was the whales, then why are you trying to defeat, you know because we are at war with you, those of us who dare challenge the SSCS? Because you derive enjoyment from it. Isn’t that what I said before? You can’t be happy even as you ramble on and on about how you’ve won and been proven right. You’re like Paul in that way… so insistent on whales being all that matters and being happy with that but very obviously not. I’m not even a pro-whaler and you are going out of your way to attack me. And failing.

What is your problem with me having a problem with Paul’s lies? He can just stop and I’d have nothing to say. But if he insists on effectively saying that as long as whales are saved I can say or do anything even if it hurts other causes and if people like you continue to give him carte blanche to do so, then I will continue to comment.

Do you expect everyone to kiss his ass every time there is a post about the organization? What kind of world are you living in? Is it some strange utopia where Paul is a god and must be immune from criticism because he is the almighty saver of whales?

Where did I say a wink and a smile would work? Why do you insist on lying?

And you really see this as war, not only between SSCS and the Japanese but between those of us who don’t agree with everything SSCS does and those of you who do, as your comment to my other post proves. That’s disturbing. Those comments and your need for violence or, as you say, true eco-terrorism further confirm that. You need some serious help buddy. You’re unraveling. Calling people losers. Stating “we won.” You’re a bitter and sad man.
What’s also fascinating is that you “won” the “whale war” and hopefully have found employment and you’re still miserable.

By the way, the cat anecdote is very touching.

Keep posting Michael. I didn’t post on this page until you, who are clearly negatively obsessed with me, tried to call me out and prove me wrong. I find it sad when people lie but even more sad when they lie to themselves. In fact, it’s pathetic.

Michael, since you are an expert, how come it appears that there was no hole in Paul’s mustang suit? How come he barely felt the shot? How come if you search Paul Watson and shot and read all the posts, including those by other self-identified experts like you, none of them agree with you? I’m not a gun expert. I guess I can’t be as a vegan?

Using your logic, why would the Japanese claim acid injuries and then prosecute Bethune for it? And how do you know Paul is telling the truth about what happened with the authorities if anything? Because he said so? If I was shot, I would have cleared the deck so my crew was safe. What kind of vest does he wear? What kind of bullet was it? Could his vest have stopped that kind of bullet? Could a badge have done so? Shouldn’t the bullet be shaped differently and have some copper? These are some things I read the other day.

And, because you are an expert on the law, under what law would the cops be able to slap cuffs on Paul? None, so there goes that logic. Where did you go to law school? Someone school needs do lose their accreditation.

If I were Paul, I would also maybe do an entire show with all the evidence and photographs to prove it, or at least include them on my website. Attempted murder is a big deal and if I couldn’t get get a real trial I would want one in the media.

So if I go to the police in Australia and falsely claim that someone shot me in the Antarctic where they have no jurisdiction they can arrest me? Do you really want to go with that story? Think about it. You’re angry but not dumb. There is no crime if there is no jurisdiction so there can be no falsification of a crime.

Anyway, how do you know he went to the police?
Have you seen a copy of the police report? Can you send me a link to it? Did they even take a report as they had no jurisdiction to do so?

I didn’t see a hole in the mustang suit and I just watched it again on youtube. I did quantify that above by saying it didn’t appear that way. I never stated it as fact.

The type of vest he wears is very relevant because not every vest is capable of stopping every kind of bullet. What kind of bullet was it? What kind of vest?

And I said I wasn’t a gun expert. The vegan comment was because of your comment to herwin. Did you forget? That happens with mania, I’m sorry.

And that I use other posts on the internet to form my opinion is wrong? If it is on a forum for guns, is that so crazy? If the posts are from people both pro-SSCS and anti-SSCS? You are suggesting we use yours, from a guy on Ecorazzi who advocates violence? Moreover, you form your opinion on Paul’s word and ask for no evidence except a couple clips from an episode on television.

Let me tell you that he could not be arrested and you would be best served if you stop insisting on that. You are just wrong. He knew that there was no jurisdiction for various reasons including the that he is not a citizen of Australia and neither are the whales so he can make up anything, kind of like the whole hostage deal. If there is no jurisdiction, there is no crime and therefore you cannot falsify evidence of a crime that doesn’t exist. And for all intents and purposes, a crime does not exist if authorities have no jurisdiction. Paul is very aware of the jurisdictional issue. So let me use crumpets’ oh so mature language, epic fail.

I have watched Whale Wars but not all episodes. Are you telling me that I should judge Paul based on an edited television show? Seriously? I have read almost everything on the SSCS website. I have read articles from various independent sources about the incidents I speak of. I have read the ICR website. There are a million resources but you insist I should draw conclusions from a reality show?

You’re the one who somehow associated being a vegan to handling guns, not me. Deal with it.

You state that “All the fussing is irrelevant” and that you are happy yet you go out of your way to call me out on something? Kick your feet and deny deny deny all you want but no matter what you say, you showed your colors in the first post on the top of this page, first by posting and second by lying. It is funny that you have yet to address this or your lies. It’s quite telling in fact.

To use the only language you seem to understand as offensive as I find it, having lost people to real wars, I won and, not only that, I won in a battle that you began.

KM…you do seem obsessed by Paul Watson and SSCS as a whole. Yet you don’t care if whales die.

So, why the obsession?

You’ve completely lost it. I am not ignoring Paul statement. In fact, just the opposite, that he made it is why I question it. I, like a judge or jury, base the weight I give to it on credibility. Credibility is usually determined based on past acts. Paul lies. Not only that, Paul’s failure to show pictures or copies of reports or any other evidence is evidence in and of itself. I then go to the internet and read a ton of comments from people stating how the shot is almost impossible. And then those who comment about the vest and what kind of shot it could withstand. And then questions about the shape and type of bullet. And then questions about how anyone who is shot who feel more than a pinch. And that they would have more than a little mark. And then there being cameras everywhere yet no picture of the shooter. And then that no other bullets were found. And that the Japanese knew a camera crew was aboard but that they would still try to assassinate him. And that they went for the heart and his special badge saved him. And..

And as for the law, you are wrong. You don’t even know what libel and slander mean but you’re going to tell me that you know about territorial and in personam jurisdiction?

I was all over another thread. No, there was an interview posted that day from Ric and I posted it and asked what others thought. And if they responded then so did I.

Owning a gun is contradictory to being a vegan? Really? Please tell me how that works. Are those seeking a license to hold firearms required to eat animals?

“Alleged” shooting? Are you questioning your god? He may read this, you know.

If you end every post with a statement about how happy you are, does that up the chances of it becoming true?

I agree that it isn’t impossible but given the other information I provided as to credibility, evidence, history, lack of other bullets, television crew, Paul feeling just a simple pinch, etc, it pretty much is.

Let’s try this legal stuff again because you seem to be an expert on everything. Then again, you probably attended the same law school as Paul and we know his interpretations of the law are laughable. If I go to a police station in Canada and say that I was shot while cruising in the in the Arctic by an Icelandic ship and I even tell them I’m lying but I want to file a report, then I will be arrested? On what grounds? They will say they have no jurisdiction and to get out. No jurisdiction, no report, no crime, no false report. In fact, I believe that if I go here to the Santa Monica police station, the result would be the same. Let’s even add this fact. Paul knew there was no jurisdiction so if no case, how can it be proved later that he was giving false information? Check out, for example, the South Australia Summary Offences Act of 1953, Part 13, Sec. 62A and keep in mind that this law assumes jurisdiction as to the filing of the report.

Enlighten me as to what this means:
“the representation is such as would reasonably call for investigation by the police”
and then notice that it is one the elements needed to be accused of the crime of filing a false report.

This may not be the exact law that would apply in Paul’s case but just an example of one in Australia that refutes what you have said.

I’m skipping a step and saving this part because it is classic. Let’s try this because this example just proves how uninformed you are and how ironic it is that you are telling me that I may not be particularly gifted in the intelligence department. I go to the Santa Monica police and report a crime that happened when I was in San Diego for business. Will the Santa Monica police take my report?

Now tell me if Paul even got to the stage of filing a report. That is, did he file a report? Tell me if Bethune was able to file a report in NZ even against the Shonan Maru captain for attempted murder.

Let’s speak in the Michael’s language. You initiated a battle and again you lost.

“The decision to call back the Japanese whaling fleet is based on low whale meat consumption locally, and other evidence that shows the industry is not sustainable,”

Prof. Toshio Katsura, marine biologist at Mie University told IPS.

@ David, you seem to have a problem with someone speaking from a truly scientific perspective.

Don’t you think a marine biologist, especially one who holds a high position at a teaching institution, would have some handle on the truth of the matter?

Isn’t Japanese whaling supposed to be all about science? Ever heard of ( so called) “scientific whaling”?

Since when did the ICR have a handle on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Do you only believe what the ICR tells you to believe?

“other evidence” is not evidence!

“Don’t you think a marine biologist, especially one who holds a high position at a teaching institution, would have some handle on the truth of the matter?”

Well since in his statement he claims it is because of economic factors, then no I don’t believe a marine biologist, whether he holds a high teaching position or not, would have some handle on the matter. Or do you not understand that economics is different than marine biology?

boo, the question I was asked was “Don’t you think a marine biologist…” and no I don’t think a marine biologist has any better knowledge of economics than anyone else. In fact from people I know with PhDs, many of them know almost nothing outside their own area of study.

And with the statement we have we don’t even know what he meant by sustainable. Was he talking economically, which seems likely since the statement overall seems to be an economic argument? Because when you are talking about research, sustainable economics don’t really apply. Look at NASA, it has never been economically sustainable but it still gets funding every year. Or maybe he meant ecologically sustainable, of course the IWC’s own RMP says that it is, so there seems to be a scientific debate on that issue.

What the article was trying to do is called argument from authority, he has a PhD and teaches at a prestigious university so he must be correct, except his statements have nothing to do with his PhD so his OPINION has no more weight than anyone else’s opinion.

I already answered that question boo.

Your refusal to acknowledge that or your inability to understand English is your problem, not mine.

Hmm…I wonder if that marine biologist read that too…if he did, then I bet he understood what it meant.

>@ David, I shall put your final, extremely lame dribble answer down to an inability on your part to answer the question

1) * For fear of incriminating yourself and / or

2) * Because you cannot think of a good enough comeback for that one.

Thats an interesting & rather pompous tactic david, why don’t you just put your hands over your ears and cry ” boo hoo boo hoo ” for five minutes. Alternatively hold your breath for ten, that should do the trick.

You could of course simply answer the question.

Oh I forgot, one final point.

We all know that the Oriental Bluebird has been scrapped.

Do you think it is economical for the Japanese whaling interests to build a new supply vessel?

Do you think it will it pay for itself? ( I think economists call this return on investment)

How much do you think it will cost to fit out the Nishin Maru to comply with the new heavy oil regulations coming into force soon for Antarctic voyages?

Can Japanese whaling afford all of this?

Do you think they will be able to pay back their debts?

No need to flash your “PHD in economics” badge here either, just a straight forward, humble reply will suffice.

Now that he has blocked us, we can write whatever we like.

Perhaps I can write a poem about him, one that he will never get to read. Sad because this is rather good.

Oh David, Oh David,

at Tokyo sits

with each morning, a quota of less than zero,

Whaling is a hammer to the brain,

our lives a bouquet of blood, you can watch

The Nishin Maru spilling hot blood,

Gushing forever gushing and guts into the sea….I spy a baby whale, newborn, torn asunder, mothers death.

Carved for research, left for flotsam

Oh David this whaling toll, no money no sense,

Ginza, still with his harmonica

playing elegiac tunes while

slouching toward Nirvana and broken promises

without expectation or grace.

The whales left alone, there are

as many killers as flies as we dream

of giant sea turtles with strange words carved into
their hard backs

and no place for the knife to go in.

Sushi for David, in Tokyo , mercury abounds.

Sickeness, decay, defeat.

Since I’m being called a thug (or thuggie) I’d like to go on the record that no state of hostility or animosity existed between me and herwin until she blatantly attacked me on another thread. She has also taken me to task for using insults and personal attacks. I would say that the epithet “thuggie” would fall into that category.

@ Michael.
big yawn for you, it’s getting boring, you did get crossed with me after i responded to a typical meateater of the wall remark from you that some animals can’t be eaten (they are too smart) and other animals like pigs are not inteligent and can be eaten. i HAD to respond and i did it with arguments.
If you can’t take an argument, than don’t post on a public website, i would say.
As for insults, look at yourself, one of your posts has been removed by Ecorazzi, and it wasn’t me who removed it.
@ Crumpy.
when did you get your lobotomy ?
two ships on the high seas going up and down and a few hunderd meters away from eachother. It’s a miracle if any sniper could have a shot and shoot somebody straight at the heart in these cicrumstances.
Oh, and having a sniper on board, that good, that isnt a decision from “the whalers”, that would be to have a decision from high above. And pesonally i don’t think somebody high above think Watson is that important enough to be killed.
NOTHING fits in the whole story. It’s insulting to tell such a story and actually want us to believe it, and if anybody don’t believe it, ax off his head, or at least try.

Its easy to see the bad influendce Watson has on you. Watson talks about “masturbation” (WTF?) and that makes you feel you gotta be equally rude so you use “anal”.
It’s exactly this reason why many people critise Watson’s attitude like publicly dishing ex collegeuas, because it has a bad effect on little people like you who ape Watson.
Why don’t you ape Watson on his good side ?

If anybody wants to hear excessive use of various explicit terms I refer you to the heyday of ’60s & ’70s social radicalism (of which Paul Watson is a product).

Peace. Love. And F*** those war mongering pigs!

Reading some of these comments is a bit like watching Sarah Palin claim David Letterman is a pedophile because he made a joke at her family’s expense.

for AnimuX because Michael’s post below calling herwin an “overly emotional girl” shows everyone what kind of person he really is. Actually, his use of that language is as offensive and as telling as Paul’s language.

AnimuX, we can agree to disagree. I’m not challenging you even if you want to compare me to Palin. I don’t view Paul’s need to put me down by questioning my manhood as benign. I think it is the sign of something much deeper and is very sad coming from the leader of a non-profit. I’m pretty sure Sylvia Earle and many leaders of other organizations would ever resort to such language. That PETA objectifies women is also problematic to me but I don’t know if that is all Ingrid. Even if it is, she seems to be of the position that if you don’t like it, too bad because this is about the animals. She seems to believe in what she does and sticks to her point that she doesn’t care about critics. Also, unlike Paul, she seems to allow dissent. Maybe you can point me to some article she has written where she insults her critics or evidence that she removes members from groups or closes forums. I haven’t seen her post here. Again, I can’t say for sure though.

For what it is worth, I appreciate your responses today. You obviously see things differently but the respect you’ve demonstrated in addressing my comments hasn’t gone unnoticed.

I think that unlike your other buddies, you clearly are happy about the results this season. I’m not at all a pro-whaler so I too am happy that whales are swimmingly freely.

Again, I respect what you’re saying. I don’t think what I’m doing is character assassination and I don’t think I expect him to be a super-human but I do genuinely believe that his agenda has changed in recent years. I would say that in the past he was like ALF and the clients were the whales and now he’s taken on his ego as a client. And I will say this again, I have no issue with lies about the Gojira heading to port or not or the like, but lies as to no or few whales being killed or saving 528 are made for ego and to solicit donations. That people would donate even if they knew the truth might be the case but I don’t know. That supporters view the Japanese differently because they think they shot Paul in the heart or attacked his crew with spears or took them hostage, is pretty undeniable. That he uses language about war and POWs is further proof that this isn’t just about the whales. That he attacks other individuals, critics, NGOs and closes down forums, is just outright wrong and frankly childish.

I could go on but I actually think you understand my concerns, whether you agree with them or not. In fact, I would go so far to say that I believe, and I could be wrong, that you probably wish he didn’t do the same because all you care about is that whales are being killed and that SSCS do what it can to physically stop the killing.

I’ll take it further. I will acknowledge that some of his stunts allowed him to get more money to make this year possible (and, as an aside, Paul should be grateful to Pete because Pete’s actions and popularity were a critical part of that.) Having said that, to me Paul’s actions do not justify what he did in any way, shape or form. If you want to operate that way, then do it as a 501(c)(3). If you don’t want to operate within the rules, then get out of the game and start your own game. I would guess he would still get a lot of donations even without the exempt status and without the claims he that he is operating honorably and truthfully.

1) Saying “X number of whales were saved” is not a lie when Japanese officials publicly admit their quotas fell short because of Sea Shepherd interference. (privately too, Wiki-leaked)As for discrepancies with the numbers before any official tally is released by Japanese officials, even the news media can’t get those numbers right. The “quota” changes from one publication to the next.

In the 2005/’06 season Japan killed 866 whales in the Southern Ocean. In the seasons following Sea Shepherd increasingly intervened and the killing declined as a result of that interference.

2) Whether Watson was really “shot or not” is irrelevant at this point.

Publicity-stunt? Maybe.

If so, who cares? The issue is whaling, is it not? Publicity = raising awareness.

Attempt on yet another activist’s life by an industry/government/criminal organization? Perhaps.

Many environmental activists have been murdered over the last 30 years. I find it interesting that they’re rarely or never mentioned in all of the generic antagonistic rhetoric about supposedly violent eco-terrorists who have never killed anybody.

3) When Japan stops describing the flash-bang grenades it threw at Sea Shepherd as “warning balls” and in contrast flares thrown by Sea Shepherd as “incendiary devices” everyone can have a good giggle about the words “bamboo spears” too.

4) The WWII angle that gets played up well beyond any realistic impact by Sea Shepherd critics has a place in Japan’s whaling history. Most people don’t understand that Japan’s modern whaling industry initially expanded rapidly because of its naval power. Or that whaling ships were adapted for military use during WWII. Or that whaling became a temporary solution for food shortages in the post WWII recovery that Japan seized upon to re-assert its sovereignty.

Also, when it comes to describing whalers as “barbaric” or some other term alleging Watson is anti-Japanese, I must point out that the same language has been used by Watson to describe white seal hunters from Canada and whalers from other countries primarily populated by people of white European descent.

5) As for Pete Bethune and his fans, I think it’s high time that all of the Bethune and Ady Gil supporters stop and accept that they don’t run Sea Shepherd and they never will. Thankfully, the “bad break” between Watson and Bethune is also now irrelevant as SSCS has proven it can continue to deliver on the goal to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean.

I wasn’t refering to the arguments you presented. I was refering to the way you went completely bat-crap on me, to include insults and attacks of your own. I copied and pasted them twice in past threads and there was no response from you. And I don’t call you and overly emotional little girl to insult you. I call you that because you are an overly emotional little girl. It’s not an insult if it’s true.

“And, urm, it’s Paul’s ex wife and one of her friends that publicly stated in great detail that most probably a highly trained sniper did shoot Paul watson.”

It just keeps getting better and better with you. Paul’s ex-wife and her friend? Seriously? That’s who you’re getting your news from. Could you get the guys from the corner barber shop to weigh in because I am starved for their opinion? Here you go, genius. Do you want to know why it wasn’t a sniper? Because it wasn’t a rifle that he fired. Want to know how I know? Because it wasn’t a rifle bullet that was recovered. They don’t show it for very long but that was definitely a handgun bullet. See, these are the insights that knowing what you’re talking about brings to you. Not to mention that the damage to the badge and the perceived impact at that range are consistant with with what a handgun would do.

It just never stops with you. You’re so desparate to be right about SOMETHING around here that you’ll just plug into anything that comes along.

Ha ha km is going off like a friggin firecracker.

I’m the dummy, really? If the sneaky Japanese weren’t sneaky last year, which they weren’t, then how can Paul claim to have saved 528 whales in 30 days last year? That would be saying that EACH ship with only one harpoon could have caught 170 whales in one month. You are saying above that 30-50 is the assumption with one harpoon so 30-50 times 3 ships last year equals 90-150. How did Paul get 528?

I see that you do not know what a quota is. Let’s keep it simple. If bad weather prevented the whalers from whaling for two months so that they had a zero kill, are you saying because they had a quota the simple fact that they have something called a quota could magically give them some powers to slaughter more whales than is physically possible so that they would reach the 900 or so number in one month?

Yes, the epic fail is on my part. Classic.

@km, You must be the arithmetic man; you add trouble, subtract pleasure, divide attention, and multiply ignorance.

km, I wouldn’t be wasting too much time feeling bad for Admiral Paul Watson. The organization which he has spent the best part of his life on has just sent the Japanese whalers packing from the Southern ocean whale sanctuary.

As someone who enjoys seeing whales swim free, you should be happy about that, and for him.

I wouldn’t say that km, Paul looks mighty pleased right at the moment. As happy as can be.

So he should be too.

Onward christian soldiers, marching as to war…

Time for your medication, km.

Hey KM, I think I know who you are now.

Aren’t you that guy that runs that website…something about cash..where you post all that BS about where people get their money from and where it goes?

http://activistcash.com/

Is this you?

Sea Shepherd’s transparency is well tended to.

Charity evaluators give SSCS high marks for putting the vast majority of its donations toward operational expenses rather than administrative costs.

A third party (Animal Planet) films Sea Shepherd’s anti-whaling campaign in the Southern Ocean and SSCS does not have editorial control.

The people getting obsessive about what “he said” or “she said” are on a crusade that reflects more upon themselves personally than any NGO.

In all fairness, the bickering that goes back and forth between certain environmental organizations is not productive. Any incorrect or obfuscating statements by members of these organizations leave plenty of room for skepticism.

However, for whales and dolphins, the results are more important than the narrative.

Sea Shepherd has produced amazing results despite all of the criticism and controversy.

But masturbation, impotent and cheap pleasures are often used in one sentence? Okay. You keep telling yourself that’s normal.

Say what you will about Paul managing forums. Your arguments fail. And Greenpeace and PETA don’t remove comments or members or close forums.

Aren’t you a keyboard kommando? Are you telling me I shouldn’t be taking you seriously? Thank you but I already knew that.

Greenpeace individuals also acted as human shields. Pete jumped off a jetski in the Antarctic waters and climbed aboard an enemy ship in the dead of night and waited until morning and then served time for what he did. What was your point again? Oh yeah, you didn’t have one but you think he deserves special treatment. If someone wants to claim special status because they did something for the whales then it is quite evident that it was not all for the whales and maybe also for the ego. There are a ton of people all over the world doing many dangerous things in the name of many admirable causes. They are doing it because they believe in it. Do you think they go around bragging about it? Do you think they believe they should be held to different standards because of it? No, most are humble and would be embarrassed that the attention is about them and not the cause.

I do support SSCS as a US taxpayer. If a nonprofit isn’t required to pay taxes that go toward certain services that are government provided and of which they benefit, I am covering them. Does that give me standing to sue them for not doing something under the law? Nope but it doesn’t give anyone with the status the right to abuse it.

As people call me names and insult me, you have no issue but if I use a term to describe people who blindly accept what someone says because that someone has saved whales, you question me. Would you prefer I call them idiots or fools? I was trying to refrain from that.

I’m not upset that SSCS has the status but getting the benefits associated with it shouldn’t be taken lightly. I already acknowledged that there are many groups out there who are much worse but does one really want to be like them? That’s not an excuse.

Thank you for the civil post. I will say this and hope you understand but saving whales doesn’t give you a license to lie and attack others. Paul does not allow his supporters on AP or Facebook to even see that people question him. Doesn’t it make you wonder why? Why do PETA and Greenpeace keep negative comments on their website and Facebook pages? Do you agree with those crazy right wingers in Japan who were able to stop the showing of Taiji?

Saving whales does not excuse someone from acting like a semi-moral and semi-adult person. Do you think it was appropriate for Paul to attack Greenpeace and one of their employees? Do you see Greenpeace issuing press releases about Paul? They have a page on their website that someone may or may not read. I have my own issues with them but that doesn’t mean Paul’s attacks on them are any more justified in my mind because of that. By the way, do you ever read the comments on Facebook from young kids? There is one that got so mad because the Japanese were trying to kill the SSCS crew with spears. You tell me that that is okay.

Why is this so hard for you all to understand? I’m not saying that in a rude way but why are you so bothered by this? Why should Paul be immune from criticism? I would think that the type of people who support SSCS direct action would be the ones who support someone asking questions. This part is to some extent what transparency is about.

I’m not disregarding your point but whales aren’t the only thing I care about and I’ve said this before but for all the good he does for whales (and know that people do question if his actions hurt the movement in the long term), he does a lot of bad in other areas. It doesn’t have to be that way. Why do you encourage it?

Please share with me all the times Greenpeace issued press releases or commentary about SSCS on Facebook, in the press or on their website. And who was it that whined about having his name removed as a co-founder? I’m sure the whales cared a lot and he was just acting on their behalf. As for Greenpeace, can you give me examples where hey’ve affirmatively acted, not when they have been asked about something? I’m not denying that they have affirmatively acted but let’s compare.

Paul tries to make himself immune from criticism in forums where potential or actual supporters exist. He knows that most people don’t read activistcash and take it seriously. A grown man of 60 supposedly told Facebook fans or friends that they have to choose between him and Pete and supposedly removed some people if he saw them posting on Pete’s page. Apparently there is something called Whale Wars Unmoderated that he took over and removed all negative comments and then also removes people if they have any association with any page that may question him. Look at the Greenpeace page on Facebook. They allow posts from people with that black SSCS badge on their avatar. You can try to defend Paul’s actions all you want but there is no valid defense. Look at all the criticism about PETA on this very site. Has Ingrid ever posted on here?

By posting on this page and in response to me, Paul has made it certain that more people will hear about his childish behavior. How ironic.

You haven’t answered my question so I will assume there are no press releases or articles recently or not so recently issued by Greenpeace about Paul and that Paul just likes to whine over events that happened a long time ago.

I haven’t been kicked out of any group on Facebook. I have gone on to the SSCS pages and the more extreme FOJ and then to the opposite end of the spectrum with the various Whale Wars sites. I have never joined any group or commented in any group. And you didn’t address my point anyway but instead tried to make me look bad. I guess my point was valid or you’d be addressing it. Same with the Greenpeace issue.

I’m done. I know I’m right because of your response and anyone else reading your responses can see the same. If you had a rebuttal, you would include even some substance with your insults.

You mean “Fu*k Off Japan” in it’s title? Isn’t the page that Paul’s ex was trying to have shut down? I wonder why…

I actually liked the group she formed for ARAs against racism. I believe it was there that I learned of FOJLTWA.

Uh huh. I’m sure that’s where you “learned” of FOJLTWA.

It’s a shame that people continue to skew the subject away from an important issue, like the ongoing destruction of whales in violation of international conventions, by presenting completely unrelated topics and injecting controversy where there is none.

Sometimes this is done out of ignorance. Some people are simply unable to make a logical connection between a phrase and a subject of protest. Instead they take a word out of context and promote hysterical opposition based on a false assumption. You see, and it’s clearly explained in the group summary for years now, FOJLTWA is not about racism.

It’s about expressing anger at the national government of Japan which uses its economic power and geopolitical influence to support and facilitate the whaling industry. “Japan” has violated and subverted international whaling regulations since the 1930s.

Historically, Japan is guilty of violating size limits, species protections, seasonal limits, sanctuary boundaries, all manner of quotas, and even facilitating “pirate whaling” (that’s front companies with foreign labor illegally killing whales in secret and smuggling the unreported meat to Japan).

Currently, the government of Japan:
* Bribes IWC officials from developing countries for votes
* Abuses Article VIII of the ICRW in order to continue commercial whaling under the guise of science and subvert the democratic decisions of the IWC
* Spreads propaganda to developing countries like the ridiculous “whales eat too many fish” lie
* Keeps the failed whaling industry going with tax-funded subsidies all to preserve private sector jobs and political clout for corrupt officials.

F— OFF JAPAN, LEAVE THE WHALES ALONE!!! is a statement of angry protest against the whalers and government of Japan. Nearly half a million people have joined the group in protest on Facebook.

I once again, refer anyone who wants to observe explicit language in protest to the heyday of the ’60s and ’70s counter culture.

“Peace. Love. And F— those warmongering pigs!”

That wasn’t a racist statement either, in case you needed another explanation.

km…Greenpeace do leave most of their comments up (most, not all) on their site, however they will remove some posts on occasions.

They have dedicated internet moderators who work in an office, and earn a wage and have the time and the inclination to moderate.

Paul Watson is currently on a ship, rocking about in the southern ocean, and has limited time to moderate facebook.

Do you really expect him to organize his crew of 88, look after three ships, take on Japans whale poaching, search for the Nisshin Maru, conduct a 5 day search for lost sailors on the Beserk, deal with maritime NZ, do press releases, appear on TV and do radio interviews AND moderate facebook forums all at the same time?

Paul Watson wants to talk to his supporters, not deal with trolls. We appreciate the effort it takes to do so.

You do not see the heads of Greenpeace talking directly to people on the internet.

Most people could not tell you who the heads of Greenpeace even are.

We all know Paul Watson though because he take the time to talk to us and is seen taking action.

Greenpeace are a little like the Wizard of OZ who do all the communications from behind a big green screen. When you pull the curtain back, it is all a bit of a let down.

As far as I am aware, there are no head honchos from Greenpeace on the ecorazzi forums talking to everyone, and I have never seen them make any personal statements to the public on their website. I have never seen them go down to the Southern Ocean in a ship to take on the whale poachers either.

Paul Watson has made time to come on here and discuss a few issues and to have a little fun with us. If you want to read what he and SSCS are about, you can go to the SSCS website and read all about it. Paul Watson writes most of the stories on there and keeps everyone updated.

You wont see GP doing that now will you?

Everything that is posted under the Greenpeace banner on their site is from GREENPEACE, not from one of the heads of GP.

There may be a piece written by a blogger or two within the movement. When you think of SSCS you think of black ships and Paul Watson.

When you think of Greenpeace you think of the rainbow warrior and people in bear suits.

Their names elude me right now.

Greenpeace do not attract the ire of the pro-whalers or the pro-sealers, because they are not actively involved in either realm and are not effective. Mostly the ire directed towards them comes from people who are doing something about whaling and wondering where the hell they are and why they have not sent any ships down to the whale sanctuary to help out. Not too much to moderate!

Greenpeace do not protest the seal hunt with ships or helicopters or people on the ice…no Greenpeacers on the ice since Paul Watson left, and they do not send their ships to the Southern Ocean to take on the might of the Japanese empire.

Greenpeace did not send a ship with a head honcho at the command to tackle the Japanese whaling fleet this year and have not been sighted for at least three.

They did not send the whalers home with their tails between their legs this year ( though that appear to be trying hard to claim some credit).

So why would any pro-whalers take them on? Why would any pro-sealers take them on?

GP are not doing anything and taking peoples money ( which could be put to better use with SSCS) so why protest? Greenpeace, as far as they are concerned, are doing a great job doing nothing.

SSCS are active and get results, so all those people with vested interests see them as something worth taking on.

Greenpeace conducted a ‘campaign’ recently which involved making origami paper whales to send to president Obama all the while asking for more money so that “together we can save the whales”.

Meanwhile, Paul Watson & his crew on three ships have sent them packing.

Who would have the time to deal with a pack of internet trolls on facebook after all of that?

“I’m not understanding your argument. I’m not trying to be rude but their actions completely contradict what you’re saying unless I am misreading something. If so, I apologize.”

———————————————

The point is, is that Paul Watson is “out there” unlike Greenpeace. So he has a rabid pack of infidels chasing after him.

People just want his attention..all of the time.

Pro-sealers with their ex to grind, pro-whalers and their army of trolls have their vested interests, as do the Ginza Glen Inwood company who are on the ICR payroll , etc etc.

I think we have all seen the evidence of their infiltrations so I probably don’t need to outline what tactics they use.

I personally have a bit of time during a busy day to tap out replies on here, so does MR and Animux, boo etc.

So we have a small team of people that can tackle the Ginzas. But how would you go if you were on your own? A lengthy rely on one site such as this can take twenty minutes or so…writing and editing. How many times in a day can you do that?

Paul Watson is a busy man and is far better off removing these types of people who, lets face it, only get on there to cause trouble and to argue sh*t.

Quite frankly, I think that Paul Watson has far more important things to do that replying to trouble makers.

Less trouble makers= less moderation.

Another way of looking at it is to study the old adage “a stitch in time saves nine”.

Remove a few silly people and make your life so much easier, and this makes for a far more pleasant experience for the true whale lovers out there and means people are not constantly defending against the dills.

No surprises to see Pete Bethune get the boot.

He was creating a small mess of his own on the internet.

Obviously Paul Watson doesn’t support Pete in what he was doing or saying (I suspect some of his loyal followers were also a negative part of the problem) so it makes sense to remove time wasters such as that. leaving time free for more important things such as shutting down Japanese whaling.

Once again, Paul doesn’t have time to keep replying to what Pete Bethune has to say.

Pete has his heart in the right place as far as wildlife is concerned, and he wants to be a whale warrior and be “out there” too.

But he is also a bit of a monkey and highly competitive.

Pete Bethune is a gung-ho character, who doesn’t appear to mind firing a few cheap shots and is carrying a massive chip on his shoulder.

Unfortunately he is also passive aggressive and all of this spells trouble.

So if he can make a few problems for Paul Watson ans his followers on the internet then he will create a bit of trouble.

isnt it a better strategy, and remove the source of the trouble (remember, a stitch in time)?

All makes for more time doing what needs to be done…saving whales.

Really? You are essentially saying that Paul is above reproach be he has spent 30 years dedicated to marine conservation. Where have I exaggerated? Do you know what that word means? Where in my post is this exaggeration? You so want me to act as others have that you use the same attacks against them as ridiculous as they are without even thinking before you write. I gave an example of what it means when you idolize someone. You are the one who keeps defending all of his actions with the fact that he has saved whales.

And that all of you keep responding to me is proof of your obsession with me. You all have initiated the conversations with me and not the other way around. It’s here for anyone to see.

And you can call me wrong but not one of you can refute my facts so say what you will but I’ve made statements and backed them up. If you are writing this for someone other than me, then those people will see the same thing.

Let’s take this further, what if someone spent 30 years dedicated to fighting against the captivity of animals but was beating their wife and five children?

* maybe they were keeping birds in cages?

Ha ha.

We defend Paul Watson because people attack him due to his success and because he is defending the defenseless. They either have a grudge against him, are jealous, are trolls, bullies or believe what the trolls say about Paul Watson (unlikely).

We believe Paul Watson to be a good man.

Thats different to just doing good work.

Tiger Woods is a great golfer but I would not call him a good man. Mike Tyson is a great boxer but if he were to have ever stepped into the ring with Muhammad Ali then I would be cheering for Ali because Ali is a good man and in his day he stood up for the oppressed and went to jail because he didn’t believe in hurting others, Mike Tyson is not a good man and chews peoples ears off.

Muhammad Ali told people how good he was…but he went out there and got the job done, often against the odds. People still liked him even though he told us what would happen and made it happen. That is no reason not to like someone.

Paul Watson combines both great work (ie results) and being a good man.

One thing to bear in mind is that not everyone has had everything they do and say for the past thirty years documented and out there in the public realm. Presidents don’t carry on their presidential duties for 30 years like PW has. But Paul Watson has been at the front of ocean conservation for a long time and therefore has a long and well documented history. Some out there like to go through history and point to this and that as signs of him not being a good man.

None of it does of course, but people will still try.

Therefore KM, no matter how much you or anyone else tries we know that Paul Watson is a good man. So we will defend him, just as he defends the defenseless ( whales, turtles etc) against those who want to destroy them.

Paul Watson is the one setting the example!

I think my comparison of Ali vs Mike Tyson already answered most of your points.

You could also compare him to George Foreman who was bigger and stronger than Ali and maybe a better boxer. But guess who the people followed in the “Rumble In the Jungle”? Why? Because he was a good man and fighting for recognition of his people..he wasn’t just there to win a boxing round.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebu0OBa1pus&feature=related

There are men who are good at what they do, then there are good men who are good at what they do.

Paul Watson is one of those men.

Anyone who has watched “Pirate Of The Sea” has seen Paul Watson in a family environment.

It is obvious that those closest to him all adore him. I think that tells you everything you need to know.

He hit his father once for beating him up. Serves him right too. My own father would go off on a tangent at times too and one time I hit him on the head with a frying pan. I knocked him flat & he deserved it. That was the last time he ever tried to hit me and I’m tipping it was the last time Paul’s father tried to hit him too.

Has Paul ever eaten an animal? Sure , he grew up in a fishing village. Has he ever eaten a whale? No, although i remember one time they tried to serve it up to him in Iceland or Norway.

Everyone has things that would rather not have done or said in their history.

No-one is perfect.

Even Jesus lost his temper in the temple, and he was supposed to be God. Ghandi and the Dalai Lama have both probably swatted a mosquito or trodden on an ant. Martin Luther King may have told a lie. Ali went to jail because he didn’t want to hurt anyone…yet he was a boxer. I bet even Mother Theresa swore once and may even have sent someone away who later died…who knows…lets not forget the pope who used to belong to the Hitler youth. Doesn’t mean that they were not great people or their message worth hearing or that they were not good people.

But if you believe Paul Watson is a good man, who loves animals, and is prepared to put his life into saving lives without hurting anyone, and stands up for what he believes in then thats going to be good enough for most people and to hold him up as their champion.

I’m sorry KM, we’ve reached Tasmania and I no longer have time for this. It’s also a little boring being psycho analyzed by a troll. Why would I respond to an online forum for amusement? Because it was about be and I think that gives me the right to respond. I’m not a troll because you know who I am. Who are you btw? Why do you think I should be oligated to answer questions from someone I do not know? Anyhow I have better things to do now, so have fun posting your silliness. Whatever floats your boat.

First post on this page is written by you and directed at me and accusing me of saying something I never said and then trying to prove me wrong with lies. You came here to pick a battle with me and then you lost. Ouch. I hope that happiness comes your way one day. It’s really sad that you not only lie to others but to yourself. I hope you get out of the dark place you’re in some day. In the meantime anyone reading this thread can easily see that you’re spinning out of control.

You brought me here and you don’t like what has transpired. That’s the bottom line. Your fellow SSCS supporters are engaging me in conversation, not the other way around. Your fellow SSCS supporters are coming here and asking me questions or accusing me of all sorts of things. And lots of them. They must not think you did a good enough job.

As for herwin, I have no idea who she is. To say that she is distancing herself from me means that we were at some point allies. Can you show me where we established that? Are you trying to “burn” me somehow? Did I ever even say that she was on my side? No so another failure on your part.

And you want to suggest that I want people to pay attention to me? No one knows who I am. What a dumb thing to say. Moreover, I wasn’t posting here until you accusing me of saying something I didn’t and then started lying. Say what you will but I did not come here and just post. I came to respond to something you said. It was defensive, not affirmative and that’s why your logic fails.

All your words and posts won’t erase what you did or your ridiculous statements of the law or comments such as being a vegan and owning a gun are somehow contradictory The list goes on. It’s almost funny that you keep engaging me in conversation because your paranoia and anger become more and more exposed with each post.

I agree with you. You’re responsible for my being here. And with that statement you contradict yourself in saying that I am seeking attention. Unless, that is, you want to acknowledge that for me to be seeking attention, it would necessarily mean that you’re doing the same.

Like Michael, I can see that you use legal terms and have no idea what they mean. Either that or you’re hearing voices.

KM, even by your standards that was a rather flacid, impotent response.

Highly reactionary.

What is interesting about reactionaries is the way these people seem to invest so much of their personal identities in being members of a persecuted political minority such as being pro-whaling or pro-sealing.

The major difference between a coherent political doctrine and a reactionary movement is that reactionaries don’t worry about how to reconcile competing intuitions about justice.

Reactionaries care about defining the enemy ( eg eco-terrorists, they cry) and this makes reactionary positions very appealing to people who want to point to an enemy as the source of all trouble or injustice.

This is dangerous not only because some of the people who are attracted to reactionary positions are already prone to paranoia or delusions but because, almost by definition, a reactionary political position can’t be altered by new evidence or rational arguments.

A person who has decided that activists, greenies, eco-terrorists or unwashed hippies are not simply dishonest or corrupt but actually conspiring against him or his people is not someone who is likely to participate in logical discussion.

Reactionaries think that any good argument is wrong and a sign that we are trying to trick them. They react badly to logical arguments & even worse to successes, they don’t see success as being good, rather they see it as insidious manipulation by an evil liar.

This is the position that reactionaries hold.

KM , I’m glad that you are here actually, i agree we are talking to you because Romika is not really joining in much, ( probably sorry about how badly this has all turned out for him) and as for Herwin…well… she sits on both sides of the fence and finds it hard to keep up.

So that pretty much leaves you.

What you have done is raised the level of debate.

I thought that this thread would see maybe 25 replies before it died.

But it is still going strong.

If you want to be reactionary then be my guest, you can pull any trick in the book that you want, say what you want and how you want. if you want to calling into question your oppositions motives, be my guest. If you want to write a piece that has nothing to say but everything to say against another poster without providing any new information or adding to the debate but merely respond flaccidly, ( reactionary) , fine by me.

For everything we say, you can bring up another point on which we can tackle you. You react brilliantly. I enjoy the debate myself..it keeps us all on our toes. You can provide the negative point of view and we can provide the positive.

This helps us to provide valid arguments for the future where it might count for something.

I don’t know if anyone else other than us enjoy this entertainment, I suspect not considering the amount of replies to the other threads. No doubt that sea Shepherd are the most popular threads on this site but there may not be too many people watching.

But on the off chance that someone out there is reading this and forming an opinion on whaling, then hopefully the debate will provide them with some insight or information and provide those of us who might be heard some time in the future, gives us good practice for for when the time comes.

So, congratulations!

Paul Watson having a catfight with a cheap troll. priceless.

“Paul Watson having a catfight with a cheap troll. priceless”.

Nothing wrong with that Herwin.

Its all good fun.

You are pretty cheap by anyones standards & seem to get pretty catty at times…..yet we still respond to your claptrap.

I disagree.

I think that Paul Watson has every right to respond to whomever he likes & have a little fun doing it along with us commoners.

If PW he wants to make a spectacle of himself, whats wrong with that? Seems OK for you to do it?

One lowly troll?

Trolls are like cockroaches.

Where you find one you find twenty.

I think its obvious by now that Paul Watson is not your average joe blow.

@ Boo,
You know, it’s all so bizar, PW calling a troll a “coward” because the troll doesn’t uses his real name, while most of his apple polishers (that’s a nice word for c.ck s.ck.rs) like you are also anonymous.
By PW standards, you are a …..(fill in the blanks)

Anything to comment on that ?

Sure Herwin, those who support Paul Watson…not the fence sitters or those who merely pretend to support Paul Watson one minute (then plant seeds of doubt against him personally the next in a sly underhanded manner), but those who are supporters of Paul Watson adn what he does are not the ones making accusations against SSCS.

Paul Watson comes on here as himself, so is under public scrutiny, as you have observed. We know who he is.

But you and your mates KM, david, seacumbers, and all the other assorted fishwives remain anonymous.

If I talk to you, then we are at least on equal terms. So there is no problem.

I wont complain about you being anonymous but when you take a crack at Paul Watson, then you are playing an underdog due to your anonymity.

So you call me an apple polisher and a c*ck s**ker, fine by me, is that the worst thing you can think of or something you think will raise a smirk from your troll buddies?

At least we are all even on here …you call yourself herwin , I call myself boo radley.

BTW I don’t know what Herwin means but I think if you ever studied english at school you would know who boo radley is. He is the quiet one who defends Atticus Finch’s children against someone who is trying to molest them and the man who blames an innocent black man in jail.

Mr Ewell…the who told lies in court against someone who did not deserve it, to disguise the fact that he is a brutal man and molested his daughter.

Thats what I do on here, I’ll defend anyone who has their hearts in the right place ( the Atticus Finches of the world)and if people like you want to string up innocent people and spit in the eyes of those who defend them, then eventually someone like boo radley will turn the tables on those people.

Atticus Finch will turn the tables on what is wrong with the world and expose it for what it is.

You can drop anonymous comments against Paul Watason , you can call me and everyone else who defends whales anything you like, Herwin, you can spit in the eye of those who defend the whales, as Mr Ewell did to Atticus Finch, but you know what Herwin?

As long as the whalers are returning from whence they came, and as long as the pro whaling trolls make themselves look like the Mr Ewells of the world, and fall on their own knives, I couldn’t give a flying fig.

Because you know what Herwin?

What is true yesterday is still true today.

It is a SIN to kill a mockingbird.

Yes MR, this is so right.

The hypocrisy would be laughable if it wasn’t so astounding.

Just because you don’t agree with me, you try to toss me in the same room with KM and the other trolls.

Just because i do agree with Paul Watson you call me an apple polisher and a co*&su*&er.

nice

I would like to visit the herwin website though, do u have a link?

“And yes, i take a crack at PW because he visits this website just to tell some sneaky anonymous troll that he is “mentally masturbaring”.”

and you come on here to call everyone co*&su*&ers…

so why are you having a crack at PW again?

“It’s a Charly Sheen act, to take a ranting shot at anybody who critises you.”

pot/ kettle/ black

Throwing stink bombs at a boat is not terrorism.

Unfortunately, romika continues to represent his very brutal seal killing industry in Canada by repeatedly attacking environmental organizations with this very common and false allegation.

Sea Shepherd has been intervening against destructive and cruel industries and poachers for 30 years and in that time has NEVER beaten up, taken hostage or killed anyone (and never threatened to). They throw stink bombs, not grenades. They shoot cameras, not machine guns.

Anti-environmentalist antagonists like to make allegations that SSCS will be charged and prosecuted for any number of invented crimes. These antagonists continue to use emotionally charged words like “terrorist” in order to demonize activists, who never killed anyone, by comparing them to Al Qaida and other murderous groups.

To my knowledge, there has never been a single incident where an environmental activist has killed someone for an environmental cause.

In contrast, many environmental activists have been murdered by poachers, industry thugs, and governments since the beginning of the environmental movement…

Romika, are you going to name that person?

You are acting as if you know what you are talking about? The question is, do you really?

I think we are all thinking that that person does not exist.

Prove us wrong.

Come on romika3, I want YOU to back up what you claim is true, not I.

Epic fail so far on your part.

Either you know what you are talking about or you are just spouting hot air all over the place.

What war?? I thought the SSCS was a conservation organization, so are you saying they are at war, they use terror and violence.