A Greener Shade of Whale? A History of the International Whaling Commision

http://video.google.com/videop...5975316283253912988

I am very curious to know SS reactions to this documentary. It does make it clear that they are in on it for $$$.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
A Greener Shade of Whale? A History of the International Whaling Commision

http://video.google.com/videop...5975316283253912988

Yeah. From an unbiased source:

quote:

Documentary: "A Greener Shade of Whale? A History of the International Whaling Commission" (2001) Running time 51:42 A Mediaworks Japan Production

I bet the ICR paid for it.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:
I am very curious to know SS reactions to this documentary. It does make it clear that they are in on it for $$$.

The producers of the video or the "researchers"?

quote:

The producers of the video or the "researchers"?

No, SSCS and AP.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

The producers of the video or the "researchers"?

No, SSCS and AP.

SSCS is funded by donations only. AFP draw their salary from the Australian government

quote:

SSCS is funded by donations only. AFP draw their salary from the Australian government

SSCS is after donations only. Nobody is talking about AFP, but AP, which stands for Animal Planet.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

SSCS is funded by donations only. AFP draw their salary from the Australian government

SSCS is after donations only. Nobody is talking about AFP, but AP, which stands for Animal Planet.

I don't know if Animal Planet was even aware of this video. It was made back in 2001 (at least that's the date on the video) long before SSCS started going down to Antarctica.

The decision to ride the Steve Irwin was made after Paul Watson pitched the idea to them. The voice overs and choices of camera angles are all made during post production long after they have left the Steve Irwin and are designed to boost interest (which obviously worked) and therefore ratings which boosts the money they can charge for commercial time.

AP has been used in the past as an abbreviation for Australian Police which I took to mean Australian Federal Police. Thanks for the clarification.

quote:

I don't know if Animal Planet was even aware of this video. It was made back in 2001 (at least that's the date on the video) long before SSCS started going down to Antarctica.

Are you ok? AP made Whale Wars for $$$ and rating. I would not blame Whale Wars for a video in 2001. It is like SSCS supporters using UN Charter for Nature (1982) to justify for their illegal actions in 1970s.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:
I am very curious to know SS reactions to this documentary. It does make it clear that they are in on it for $$$.

That was posted on 18 September by you. I assumed you meant "The documentary does make it clear that they (Animal Planet and SSCS) are in on it for $$$."

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

I don't know if Animal Planet was even aware of this video. It was made back in 2001 (at least that's the date on the video) long before SSCS started going down to Antarctica.

Are you ok? AP made Whale Wars for $$$ and rating. I would not blame Whale Wars for a video in 2001.

Are YOU okay? You quoted only part of my post. Here is the rest:

quote:

The decision to ride the Steve Irwin was made after Paul Watson pitched the idea to them. The voice overs and choices of camera angles are all made during post production long after they have left the Steve Irwin and are designed to boost interest (which obviously worked) and therefore ratings which boosts the money they can charge for commercial time.

I think that means "AP made Whale Wars for $$$ and rating."

quote:

It is like SSCS supporters using UN Charter for Nature (1982) to justify for their illegal actions in 1970s.

They do no such thing. They use the UN Charter for Nature for their current legal actions.

quote:
They do no such thing. They use the UN Charter for Nature for their current legal actions.
__________________________________________

LOL!!! Haaa Haaa Haa!!! OMG!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

"What a gullabull" - Bugs Bunny

quote:

The decision to ride the Steve Irwin was made after Paul Watson pitched the idea to them. The voice overs and choices of camera angles are all made during post production long after they have left the Steve Irwin and are designed to boost interest (which obviously worked) and therefore ratings which boosts the money they can charge for commercial time.


I think that means "AP made Whale Wars for $$$ and rating."

I think this means "Watson wanted TV ad to make $$$."

quote:

They do no such thing. They use the UN Charter for Nature for their current legal actions.

Oh, UN W charter for nature has nothing to do with the current SSCS illegal actions, but out of curiosity, let me ask you this; When Watson got kicked out of GP and started SSCS, what excuse did he use to impossibly justify his illegal actions?

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

The decision to ride the Steve Irwin was made after Paul Watson pitched the idea to them. The voice overs and choices of camera angles are all made during post production long after they have left the Steve Irwin and are designed to boost interest (which obviously worked) and therefore ratings which boosts the money they can charge for commercial time.

I think that means "AP made Whale Wars for $$$ and rating."

I think this means "Watson wanted TV ad to make $$$."

No. It means he found a way to increase donations to SSCS by calling attention to the illegal Japanese whaling activiesin the Southern Whale Ocean Sanctuary and the Australian EEZ. He makes no money off the show. All SSCS funds come from donations.

quote:

quote:

They do no such thing. They use the UN Charter for Nature for their current legal actions.

Oh, UN W charter for nature has nothing to do with the current SSCS illegal actions, but out of curiosity, let me ask you this;

When Watson got kicked out of GP and started SSCS, what excuse did he use to impossibly justify his illegal actions?

That was then, this is now. The show is called "Whale Wars" and it's about the Sea Shepherds trying to stop the Japanese whaling fleet from poaching in violation of Australia's EEZ and whale sanctuary and commercial whaling in violation of the IWC moratorium. It's not about Paul Watson's past actions, it's about his current actions. Try to keep up.

His past leads up to his current actions. Try to look at the big picture.

Oh and Donations = money to SSCS which Watson gets paid from. Did you forget?
I still would be suprised if AP doesn't cut him a check on the side.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
His past leads up to his current actions. Try to look at the big picture.

Tactics change from campaign to campaign. That is the big picture. Your statement is a non-sequitur.

quote:

Oh and Donations = money to SSCS which Watson gets paid from. Did you forget?

How much?

{quote]I still would be suprised if AP doesn't cut him a check on the side.[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. Just another donation to SSCS.

A donation to the ICR would be more effective

quote:

I think this means "Watson wanted TV ad to make $$$."


No. It means he found a way to increase donations to SSCS by calling attention to the illegal Japanese whaling activiesin the Southern Whale Ocean Sanctuary and the Australian EEZ. He makes no money off the show. All SSCS funds come from donations.

He found a way to increase donations to SSCS, yes. The remaining bit is false, as you have been explained to earlier. So, leading the public to cough up some $ based on lies is called swindling.

quote:

That was then, this is now.

So, they had no excuse at that time. Now, they have an invalid excuse.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

quote:

I think this means "Watson wanted TV ad to make $$$."

No. It means he found a way to increase donations to SSCS by calling attention to the illegal Japanese whaling activiesin the Southern Whale Ocean Sanctuary and the Australian EEZ. He makes no money off the show. All SSCS funds come from donations.

He found a way to increase donations to SSCS, yes. The remaining bit is false, as you have been explained to earlier.

Nobody has "explained" anything to me. They have stated a position. When I agree, I say so. When I disagree, I say so and offer a counter position.

quote:

So, leading the public to cough up some $ based on lies is called swindling.

I have heard exactly zero pleas for money. I have seen a way to contribute on the SSCS web site if someone feels like it. Every organization has that capability. Your claim they are telling lies is a lie. SSCS does not swindle. Only those with invalid/unsupportable arguments resort to calling them swindlers.

quote:

Nobody has "explained" anything to me.

I am afraid that that is not true, but in just in case, once more.

UN World Charter Charter for Nature does not give private parties a right to use violence. If you disagree, you want to cite an article in the charter that does it. If you cannot, but disagree, I don't know. It is your problem.

quote:

I have heard exactly zero pleas for money.

And I have never said anything about "plea,"
but Watson does tell lies on the show to mislead the viewers. Most of the viewers simply laugh at Watson, but some who believe in lies, just like there are people that believe in cults.

quote:

Originally posted by antiantiwhaler:

quote:

Nobody has "explained" anything to me.

I am afraid that that is not true, but in just in case, once more.

UN World Charter Charter for Nature does not give private parties a right to use violence. If you disagree, you want to cite an article in the charter that does it. If you cannot, but disagree, I don't know. It is your problem.

Wrong!. Paragraph 24 reads:

quote:

Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

Let me now add the definitions:

"Each person" - "Each" refers to every one of two or more considered individually or one by one. That's everbody on this planet. "Person" refers to a human being, whether man, woman, or child.

"has a duty" - duty refers something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. Since no one is pursuing the legal part of the obligation, only the moral obligation is being pursued and only by the SSCS.

"to act" - is defined as anything done, being done, or to be done; deed; performance. Not standing around with a camera and a sign, but intervening in the criminal activity.

"individually" - one person. Also known as a private party

"in association with others" - a group of persons. To wit: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Another private party.

"or through participation in the political process" - enacting laws (AAT EEZ, Australia's EPBC Act), court cases (Australian Federal Court ruling ordering the Japanese to stop whaling in the AAT EEZ) which the Japanese have deliberately chosen to violate making them criminally liable for their commercial whaling.

"each person shall strive" - strive means to exert oneself vigorously; try hard. Not take pictures and hold up signs.

"to ensure" - defined as to secure or guarantee

"Objectives" - defined as something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive. In this case obeying the moratorium on commercial whaling.

"requirement" - means that which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory. In other words, don't just stand there, do something to stop the whaling.

Read this next statement very slowly: Sometimes violence is required to stop a crime.

SSCS is authorized and required under the Charter to use whatever actions (prop fouling, butter bombs, cutting transfer lines, etc.) they had at their disposal to interfere with criminal activities of the Japanese whalers.