Wednesday, June 07, 2006
GREENPEACE - FILL IN ALARMIST FACTOID HERE
From the Washington Post c/o CCNet:
The environmental activist group Greenpeace wanted to be prepared to counter President Bush's visit last week to Pennsylvania to promote his nuclear energy policy.
"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet, decrying the "threat" posed by the reactors Bush visited in Limerick. But after that assertion, the Greenpeace authors were apparently stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.
"In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]," the sheet said.
The Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, told the Web site that a colleague was making a joke in a draft that was then mistakenly released.
The final version did not mention Armageddon; instead it warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.
The environmental activist group Greenpeace wanted to be prepared to counter President Bush's visit last week to Pennsylvania to promote his nuclear energy policy.
"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet, decrying the "threat" posed by the reactors Bush visited in Limerick. But after that assertion, the Greenpeace authors were apparently stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.
"In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]," the sheet said.
The Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, told the Web site that a colleague was making a joke in a draft that was then mistakenly released.
The final version did not mention Armageddon; instead it warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.
Comments:
<< Home
I have received an obscene message from a Nazi Srebrenica genocide site which I had no difficulty in deciding not to publish.
I have posted this response on its site which I assume will be censored:
"I can see why you have no comments here when you censor those that point out your lies. I do not believe in censorship, even of Nazis like you, but (A) I do not permit obscene comments on my blog & (B) I do not feel I have an obligation to publish lies from you when you censor the truth from me."
I have posted this response on its site which I assume will be censored:
"I can see why you have no comments here when you censor those that point out your lies. I do not believe in censorship, even of Nazis like you, but (A) I do not permit obscene comments on my blog & (B) I do not feel I have an obligation to publish lies from you when you censor the truth from me."
"I have received an obscene message from a Nazi Srebrenica genocide site..."
Let me take a few wild stabs in the dark at who the Nazi might be who sent you the obscene message:
Was it some guy from Quebec,Canada going by the name of:
A)Daniel Lam (alias: "Naser Oric")
B)Daniel Lam (alias: "Steven Kent")
or
C)Daniel Lam ( alias: "David Johnston")?
I personally would have published it so everyone can see how courteous and respectful Mr. Lam is towards those he disagrees with.
Mr. Lam should be working for the UK Guardian paper You see they recently had to fire one of their "impartial journalists" because some bright internet blogger exposed said "neutral" reporter as belonging to an Islamist terror organization.
Gee whiz its so tough finding "objective" and "neutral" journalists these days - especially in the UK; one can hardly blame the Guardian for making such an innocent "mistake" as that,now can one?
Post a Comment
Let me take a few wild stabs in the dark at who the Nazi might be who sent you the obscene message:
Was it some guy from Quebec,Canada going by the name of:
A)Daniel Lam (alias: "Naser Oric")
B)Daniel Lam (alias: "Steven Kent")
or
C)Daniel Lam ( alias: "David Johnston")?
I personally would have published it so everyone can see how courteous and respectful Mr. Lam is towards those he disagrees with.
Mr. Lam should be working for the UK Guardian paper You see they recently had to fire one of their "impartial journalists" because some bright internet blogger exposed said "neutral" reporter as belonging to an Islamist terror organization.
Gee whiz its so tough finding "objective" and "neutral" journalists these days - especially in the UK; one can hardly blame the Guardian for making such an innocent "mistake" as that,now can one?
# posted by 
: June 09, 2006
: June 09, 2006 << Home
