Monday Mirthiness – #GreenpeaceKnew

Last week, we carried the revelation that in a legal defamation case brought against GreenPeace by a forest products company (GreenPeace claimed they were “forest destroyers” among other things), that GreenPeace claimed their defense was “we publish hyperbole, therefore it isn’t actionable because it isn’t factual“. Given the spirit of such hyperbole, I came to the conclusion that “Greenpeace IS full of sh*t“.

I’m not the only one, Josh weighs in. Remember, these are the same clowns behind the #ExxonKnew campaign, which has turned out to be disastrous for them and failed.

Advertisements

71 thoughts on “Monday Mirthiness – #GreenpeaceKnew

  1. Hahahaha…. will the irony penetrate the mainstream media. Unlikely but then we already knew that Greenpeace was a comedy skit.

    • presumably that evidence was given under oath. So there is now an official record that #GreenpeaceKnew that they talk SH*T and don’t expect anyone to believe them.

      That should be useful in the future.

      • If I remember the original article, the statements were taken from court filings. As such, they are signed as being truthful and always signed in the presence of a notary.

    • The MSM is still hung up on the Australian Border Fence outside of Vienna.

      • And I would not be surprised, if on his phone and his phone is as “smart” as mine is, if he TYPED “Austrian.”

        I have learned the hard way to (oh, great — what a pain!) re-read EVERY word of my texts. Once, I was re-named “James” and “Hwy 101” became “Hey 101” and others… and Ukelele (seriously!) was my phone’s idea for a word I can’t recall at the moment — I caught that one, lol.

        On the other hand, now, using my phone is a lot of FUN! :)

        (have you ever sent a text ON PURPOSE letting the phone pick words for you? — oh, man, that was so funny…. — of course, I told my girlfriend that was what I was doing first!)

      • A journalist that I knew wrote an article on Hugh Morgan, the Managing Director of Western Mining Corporation. The spell-check came out with “Huge Organ” … and was caught before publication.

      • I am taking this comment exactly as written. The MSM does have severe problems with geography.

        Even very local geography – remember the “news” anchor who thought the tampons went on her ears?

      • They were delicenced in Canada as a charitable op for political activism, but the probably get their wings again from Trudeau.

      • I just wished Josh would have used two different figures, these guys look like lumber jacks ( and they are Okay), Instead he could have used some long haired dope smoking peace sign wearing hippies or guys with hammers and 6 inch nails while pounding them into trees, or a couple of divers with mines attaching them to a fishing boat ( or a navy vessel) for that matter at least one well dressed lawyer type or.. well you get the picture. Their power was immense and I hope it is destroyed.

  2. Greenpeace finally gets honest, but The Guardian and BBC have failed to mention this landmark achievement.

  3. The defense seems like a poison pill, by this line of reasoning much of their fund raising could be construed as fraudulent. This is a case where the legal strategy is so poorly conceived that it really could bring the organization down.

    • For some reason the GreenPeas “defense” Reminds me of a scene from Monty Python & Holy Grail where John Cleese is heard to indignantly and self-righteously complain, “Oh! She turned me into a newt!”.

      He then realizes that everyone is looking askance at him – wondering why he isn’t (presently) a newt. So he rather sheepishly admits, ” I got better.”

      • {At ~ 00:11 – 00:19}

        …. I got better.

        (youtube — “Monty Python”)

        lol, McGoo — You’ve done it again. :)

      • FYI for the Mister Magoo-challenged :) —

        “Oh, Magoo, you’ve done it again!”
        (congratulating himself, as usual)

        (youtube — Mister Magoo cartoon)

  4. Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth
    Blowing down the backroads headin’ south
    Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth
    You’re an idiot, babe
    It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe

    Dedicated to their supporters

    • You hurt the ones that I love best
      And cover up the truth with lies
      One day you’ll be in the ditch
      Flies buzzing around your eyes
      Blood on your saddle

      Dedicated fbo their detractors

  5. So for all the donations given on the basis of self-admitted lies, can Greenpeace be sued for false advertising and soliciting money under false pretenses?

    It seems to me a case for conscious f_r_a_u_d exists and there should be something class-actionable here.

    • I like it, Pat. The lawsuit would likely end up won (one way or another) by the defendant, but, it has the potential of serving the wonderful purpose of forcing Greenpeace to take shelter under the 1st amendment’s Freedom of Religion.

      :)

  6. ‘No one believes us anyway.’

    Unfortunately, that’s not true. I have several friends who use to send me daily propaganda from GP, which puts out so much garbage, you could literally make a full time pursuit out of debunking all the tripe they put out and you’d still never catch up.

    And admitting that they publish hyperbole – because emotions are what donations are based on – doesn’t seem to affect the believers in the slightest.

  7. Greenpeace knew is good. Why did they not told us that our use of fossil fuels would destroy the world?
    If they did not know at that time, how would others have known.

  8. Sounds like whenever Michael Moore gets caught telling lies (i.e. on a day ending in -ay): I’m just exaggerating to prove a point.

    As I mentioned, this should be Mark Steyn’s defence against Mann…

    • Steyn’s defense against Mann is better and simpler, revealed in his book. He wrote that Mann’s science was fradulent. And it is. Mike’s Nature trick. Centered PCS producing hockeysticks from red noise. No one can be defamed by truth.

      • Indeed, Forrest. Likely, it is largely due to Australian tort law being based on English law. The Star Chamber felt that preventing violence “caused” by the “outrage” of having horrible truths known about oneself was the controlling principle (excitable people, those British!). While in the U.S., freedom of speech is the controlling principle (and it is the duty of the potentially “outraged” (at the truth about themselves) person to exercise self-restraint).

      • Mac: Hey, everybody! Whoever eats at Joe’s will defecate!
        Everybody: Defecate? That’s sounds bad! Let’s get outta here.
        Joe: You’re hurting my business, Mac. I’ll sue!
        Mac: It’s the truth! You gonna tell the judge that whoever eats at Joe’s WON’T defecate?
        Joe: It’s a lie of omission! People do that no matter where they eat!
        Mac: And Joe’s is one of those “where”s. I didn’t say “Whoever doesn’t eat at Joe’s won’t defecate.” did I?
        Joe: But they don’t know that “defecate” is a fancy word for poop. You exploit their ignorance!
        Mac: That’s their problem, not mine. Go educate them if you like.
        Joe: You’re using a nominally true statement maliciously, to defame me and my business!
        Mac: No one can be defamed by truth, bud. See ya in court.

        (Do I need a /sarc?)

      • Slander or libel by implication or by innuendo are NOT protected speech. That is, the “truth” which is a tort defense is: the meaning or implication a reasonable person without special knowledge of the situation would attach to the defendant’s words.

        There is no “technical loophole” in tort defense as there is at times in contract law. Even in contract law, the reasonable seller/buyer standard is the default/UCC position.

      • “Even if one sticks to strictly factual statements it is possible to defame someone. All you have to do is lead people to a conclusion by implication or innuendo.”

        I think that’s known as casting a false light.

      • rednicholson: And my opponents sister is a known thespian.
        Allegedly from one of LBJ’s early campaigns.

  9. I think Josh may have made a mistake with the cartoon. The two fools have too many teeth to be real protestors :-)

    • They skimmed enough off the top from all those solicited donations to get dental implants. ;)

  10. “But Sweetheart, I know I told you I had no interest in Linda anymore, but what I said were non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion that should not be taken literally”.

    I try that next time, the reaction should be interesting. :-D
    /snark

    • I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

    • —– An Interesting Day —–

      Paul: “…. but what I said were non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion that should not be taken literally.”

      Sweetheart: Oh — that — is — just — GREAT, Paul. So, all these years — YEARS! — every time you said, “You are the best thing that ever happened to me” and “You have beautiful eyes” and…. and (swallow a sob) “I don’t care what you look like, I love you for YOU” and stuff like that, it was just a big pile of LIES!

      Or not?

      (icy cool, now)

      I will never know, now, will I? …………….

      ………… DON’T you touch me!!

      {{{SLAM!}}}

      scccrrrrrrreeeeeeeech! RRRRRRrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! (car backing out and leaving)

      PaulH (sigh — dial, dial, dial): Hello, Dad. What do I do NOW???

  11. I posted this in the other Greenpi** topic, but this is a far better place to put it again, in the same spirit of … hyperbullsh … I mean “hyperbole”:

  12. I’m holding up 5 fingers, but its hyperbole, so when I tell you, I’m holding up 4 fingers.

    Straight out of 1984.

  13. Let me get this straight. The same people who have been pushing for Rico action against Exxon for not telling all they supposedly knew… These same people have been knowingly and deliberately lying for political and financial gain for a generation? Why is this not a RICO case?

  14. on their website (about..) they claim to “take personal responsibility for their actions”

    doesnt look like it ..

Comments are closed.