From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:24:47
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<STEINLY.92Dec15132140@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Dec15.223227.18051@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 15 Dec 92 22:32:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.223227.18051@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   In article <STEINLY.92Dec15132140@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <1992Dec14.211208.18586@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   >   In article <Bz55Bq.4y2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
   >   >In article <Jym.9Dec1992.1257@naughty-peahen> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

   >   >>=\= "The above logic?"  Are you perhaps unaware that the French
   >   >>secret service actually did blow up the Rainbow Warrior?  That,
   >   >>my friend, is the well-documented reality.

   >   >Indeed, it is true, and they were quite deserving of that kind of treatment
   >   >by the French government.  If Greenpeace really wants to declare war on
   >   >industrial civilization (and that is what they are up to) then they ought to
   >   >expect some resistance.

   >   Since Greenpeace has never killed or injured anyone, one could rightly

   >But of course not, any individual or organization that might
   >kill or injure anyone can be made carefully distinct from
   >Greenpeace - a lot can be learned from "plausible deniability"
   >and the dorks in the "Committee to re-elect the President"
   >who had no more to do with Bush than Sea Shepard has to do
   >with Greenpeace - right?

   Is this paragraph supposed to mean that you think the split
   between Greenpeace and the Sea Shepard is phony?  The committee
   to reelect whoever obviously supports whoever but the Sea Shepard
   people openly criticize Greenpeace and I have seen plenty of
   criticism of Sea Shepard within the environmental community.  I
   forget the name of its leader, but he is seen by many as a loose
   cannon.  Unless you can present some evidence that this is a 
   phony split, it sounds like a clear case of guilt by association - 
   a case that, without such evidence, could never be disproven.

Sorry, I thought everyone would remember the Committee to re-elect
the President. It is a legally independent committee that has no
official links with the Republican Party or the President, is in
fact officially disavowed by both - they ran most of the really
nasty anti-democrat ads during the 88 and 92 campaigns - and also
had the "Gennifer Flowers" hot-line in 92 ...  I actually don't think
there is a real organisational link in either of the
above examples, which was what I was trying to illustrate,
that is how such separate organisations come into being, and
if the "nice" group sometimes is less than displeased with the
"bad" activities of the "nasty" group - well, it's all in a good
cause, right?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*