MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Just like every politician, and every corporation, does all the time.

The difference: Greenpeace is trying to do some GOOD.

I'm all for the real truth about Apple being made clear though--I don't have much patience for dishonest propaganda for ANY cause. (But I have zero when it's for some right-wing corporate agenda, which thankfully isn't the case here.)

Greenpeace does good from one perspective. From another, they seek political gain by toppling the status quo.

What a dork, your cause, his cause wrong is wrong and you defense of it is idiotic. Go hug a leopard seal!

Do you go to an Optometrist to have your lawn mower repaired or to a mechanic for prescription glasses? I didn't think so.

So why would an environmental advocacy organization be expert in the testing of a manufacturing process or the finished product? Apple is a responsible manufacturer, or about as close to one as you are likely to find in today's marketplace. When greener materials are available at a market sustainable price, Apple will use them.

I'm all for wise and sound environmental practices and policies and support many different organizations, but I'm really tired of this unresponsible behavior by some. Some advocacy organizations and their followers get so wrapped up in the rightness of their cause that they think that the end justifies the means. There so sure that they are right that anyone who does not march to their tune is evil and worthy of whatever damage can be done to them.

People, groups and organizations that see things in strict binary fashion often do a great disservice to the very cause they seek to advance. While passionate advocacy can live in the theoretical world, businesses and the people who run them must live in the realities of the day. Get a grip, Greenpeace.

Any group that attempts to lie or in process of, distorts the truth is wrong.... in any attempt to do "GOOD" by doing "WRONG" is wrong and should be punished as such.

Who decides what is good by the means involved.... if you ask me I believe green peace is more of the problem than a solution.

And who thinks we can destroy the environment? Can we change the weather, zones in climate, or any manner effect the planet. NO!
Nature will destroy the what causes the inbalance and simply return the planet back to its former state in thousands, millions or billions of years. Human kind will be gone as well as all traces of anything made by human hands.

Just study science and you will discover that all the land mass will one day be pulled in, melted, and new land will emerge. Hence no trace........ LIFE WILL NOT STOP!

As in this case there is NO GOOD involved here. But simple WRONG!

I say let the hounds of hell burn those who lie to gain!!!!!!

Oh, a little added statement....

ZERO Tolerence for any LEFT or RIGHT extreme agendas. As both are equally wrong and distorted.

Greenpeace is doing the same as any person, company, or group when it lies..... What is the difference when the LEFT LIES or the RIGHT????


IT IS A LIE.... and if believed, protected, and rallied by those with the same belief with little regard to balance. It is called being extreme and I to attack a company just to gain media coverage is INSANE!!!!!!! WEXTREME!!!!!!!!! UNBALANCED!!!!!!!!!

WOW, I love a good rant when trying to protect my favorite APPLE!!!

That was FUN!!!!!

Yeah NGC598!!!!

What's wrong is wrong, and that's good

Come on... the ends justifies the means...... doesn't it?

How many other people and causes have been skewered for using that logic?

Once you get a taste of notoriety, power, or fame, people will do a lot to get more.

Greenpeace, line up and take you lumps...

(any coincidence that the MDN Magic Word for me to post was REASON -

2 the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic : there is a close connection between reason and emotion. • what is right, practical, or possible; common sense : people are willing, within reason, to pay for schooling. • ( one's reason) one's sanity : she is in danger of losing her reason.)

The difference: Greenpeace is trying to do some GOOD.

Just because you're on the side of the angels doesn't make it okay to throw all ethics out the door. The ends don't justify the means.

To put it another way: the road to hell is lined with good intentions.

Gawd, but I do love phrases like "right-wing corporate agenda."

Almost as much as I ADORE "left-wing anti-business agenda."

Next time you want a paycheck, "Greanpeace is exaggerating and telling half-truths," try to get one from a tree hugger.

I stopped my Greenpeace days many years ago, when I became disillusioned with their sensationalism, and uncaring use of information.

People, consider the source of this "article" here: One Daniel Eran, who has ZERO expertise in chemical policy, recycling, environmental law, or journalism. He runs a blog, roughlydrafted.com, that (like many other blogs) is filled with innuendos, mischaracterizations, half-truths, hyperbole, and out-and-out distortions.

Example: Greenpeace did not "apologize" to Eran or anyone else for their prior reports about Apple -- there are no words such as "sorry", "regret", or any other indication of an apology in Greenpeace statements. Yet Eran's headline and text is "Greenpeace Apologizes for Apple Stink". No self-respecting journalist would put words into the mouth of someone else, as Eran has done here.

Example: Greenpeace gave Eran a point-by-point rebuttal to his previous articles, and Eran couldn't even write a straightforward response to that. Eran spends a significant portion of his response complaining about his name being misspelled by the Greenpeace author, and clarifying that "Eran" is his middle name and not his last name.

Example: Eran tried to smear Greenpeace (via classic guilt-by-association) by implying that environmental organizations had publicly protested against Apple and then solicited donations from Apple. Greenpeace responded that they never accept corporate or government donations. Not only did Eran fail to make even the most basic inquiries before asserting his claims - flunking Journalism 101 - but Eran also did not have the honesty to retract his original allegation after it was categorically denied.

Example: Eran claims he is interested in reader comments on his blog, but when users have pointed out significant and fatal flaws in Eran's assertions, Eran responded by deleting readers comments from his blog, banning users, and responding to straw-man arguments.

Example: Eran is not a neutral third party, or independent expert, or anything of the sort. Eran in fact is a rabid partisan in favor of Apple. Why? Because he makes his living via Apple: as a web and graphic design guy. Much like MDN, Eran is a cheerleader for all things Apple, and his livelihood depends on Apple's continued success.

Example: On Digg.com, at least one of Eran's articles have been flagged as containing inaccurate or unreliable information. Eran's track record, at least on environmental matters relating to Greenpeace and Apple, is not a trustworthy one.

Bottom line: Daniel Eran is a typical blogger, meaning that anything he writes is not to be taken seriously, until and unless his claims and assertions and allegations are independently examined and verified.

"Question" writes:

"Apple is a responsible manufacturer, or about as close to one as you are likely to find in today's marketplace."

With respect, how do you know this? Have you access to any independent audit, comprehensive environmental review, or any other data to document this claim?

Or do you just "know" this to be true, because you like Apple and its products?

The reality is that no one outside of Apple knows the answer, because (unlike HP and Dell and Nokia and other high tech manufacturers) Apple keeps such information confidential and refuses to publish either a comprehensive list of chemicals it intends to substitute, or any sort of plan or a timescale for replacing them.

Apple complies with applicable environmental, health and safety laws of those countries it does business too in addition of having its own policy covering environmental issues. The fact that this last documentation or related plans are kept confidential does not make it less worth than others' which get published and - sometimes - ignored blatantly.

So far, Apple has not been found to violates above laws either. The Greenpeace tests on the laptops and their need to lower the rank of HP and not modifying the rank of Apple, ie, raising it, even though their own tests would have suggested it is a proof that having public plans have nothing to do with how environmentally good you are (see HP: hey good plans, thence they MUST be good, right ? WRONG. Ohh, look Apple: they do not disclose their environmental policy, thence it must be really poor, right? WRONG).

The fact that Greenpeace did not disclose the results of their own tests: "we have dissected a MacBook (Pro) and found it better than we thought" cast a shadow on their stance with respect to reliable, unbiased monitor agency concerning toxicity in IT products.

Greenpeace really fscked up on this one.

i got a message for greenpeace:

if i would win the lottery, i would:

go hunt panda bears with only a knife

Get Real,

Eran is on the left end of the political spectrum, judging by his constant nasty comments against conservatives (Bush and Rove bashing, for example) in many of his technical articles. These articles should not descend into cheap shot politics. So Eran's love for Apple seems to trump his loyalty to the tin foil hat conspiracy crowd – see how easy it is to slip into politics.

MDN is an Apple Computer blog/bulletin board and posters should stick to its purpose and not divide the Apple/Mac/iPod/iWhatever community by politics, except where those politics intersect with those subjects of our Apple related interests.

Having said that, the attempted extortion by Greenpeace against companies, including Apple, is outrageous. Greenpeace needs to be taken to task for this behavior. So Eran is right on this issue.

An environmental whacko group lying to advance it's cause??? Next you're going to tell me that PETA makes shit up too...

Hammer some more spikes into trees so that people are injured.

People before seals.

This type of thing may be news to MDNers, but it is SOP (standard operating procedure) for Greenpeace. However, they're far from the only ones in the nonprofit world to place fundraising/sensationalism over principles.
I say this as someone who runs a nonprofit, BTW, and knows many of them.

Several members of Greenpeace's board of directors are on the record as saying that lying about certain facts to promote an environmental cause is a good strategy.

The end justifies the means.

As a result, nothing that Greenpeace's PR department releases can be believed as the truth. They have lost all creditability. They are just trolling for donation dollars.

Greenpeace has very little credibility and Daniel Eran is right to have exposed them for their crass behaviour.

He gets my vote for shining light on a number of technical subjects even though my politics and his may be very different and of course I don't have to believe everything he says.

@Get Real,

the article you refer to was the one where he said Windows was 5 times more expensive than OSX. AND HE WAS RIGHT. The fact that a load of little Windows sh*ts, probably including yourself, laid into the Digg article and accused it of being incorrect doesn't change the facts. Everyone knows that OSX administration is zero compared to that for Windows.

THAT is the Bottom Line, not your garbage...

Who cares what a terrorist organization says.

Yes I too stopped my financial support of Greenpeace when they started to take positions which I felt were morally insupportable. I am glad they are there but like those other supposedly liberal but infact increasingly bigoted mouthpieces the Guardian and Observer newspapers I no longer have much faith in their overall integrity.

"the attempted extortion by Greenpeace against companies, including Apple, is outrageous. Greenpeace needs to be taken to task for this behavior. So Eran is right on this issue."

This is false.

You're buying into Eran's smear campaign. Greenpeace categorically stated that it does not accept donations, either from corporations or governments. It screens individual donations to ensure that they are not a proxy for corporate donations.

So what "attempted extortion by Greenpeace" is Eran talking about? Note the keywords: "by Greenpeace". There's no evidence of this. This was just FUD being spread by Eran, without any evidence to back it up.

Nonsense Get Real.

"Just because you're on the side of the angels doesn't make it okay to throw all ethics out the door."

Funny, I've been making the same argument over this torture issue.

LinuxGuy and Mac Prodigal Son writes:

"These articles should not descend into cheap shot politics. So Eran's love for Apple seems to trump his loyalty to the tin foil hat conspiracy crowd – see how easy it is to slip into politics."

I agree with you about "not descend[ing] into cheap shot politics". I was not joining any "tin foil hat conspiracy crowd" -- my purpose was to point out that Eran is not a neutral observer because he makes his living with Apple's technology.

This fact by itself doesn't make Eran part of any conspiracy, but the irony is that Eran is accusing Greenpeace of an "anti-Apple bias", when Eran is himself equally biased, if not more so, in favor of Apple.

Macaday writes:

"Greenpeace has very little credibility and Daniel Eran is right to have exposed them for their crass behaviour."

Ok. You have your point of view about Greenpeace, and Eran's writings come across as credible to you. Fair enough.

From my point of view, Eran's writings about chemical policy in the context of Apple of Greenpeace are not credible. In my view, Eran made loud assertions and allegations, with poor arguments and little or no facts to back them up. When Greenpeace responded to him point by point, Eran was unable to make any coherent response. Eran also fails to follow the most basic rules of journalism, and he has no qualifications or expertise whatsoever in chemical policy or environmental issues.

Each of these points impeaches Eran's credibility in my view.

You are certainly welcome to have a different view, and that's fine with me.

"the article you refer to was the one where he said Windows was 5 times more expensive than OSX. AND HE WAS RIGHT."

No, that's not the one I'm referring to - nothing to do with OSX or Windows. Eran's article that was labeled at Digg.com as potentially containing inaccurate information is titled "Greenpeace Lies About Apple".

See http://digg.com/apple/Greenpeace_Lies_About_Apple

"Several members of Greenpeace's board of directors are on the record as saying that lying about certain facts to promote an environmental cause is a good strategy.

The end justifies the means.

As a result, nothing that Greenpeace's PR department releases can be believed as the truth. They have lost all creditability. They are just trolling for donation dollars."

Please back this up with names and direct quotes including the context that they were made in please. As a supporter of Greenpeace this is something that I would confront them on, as I have confronted them on previous issues that concerned me in the past.
Just because you support an organization, political party or government doesn't mean you can't call them to task when you feel that they are wrong.

environment is evil. detroy he earth cuz we CAN!!!!! yeeehasaaaa

The guy who runs this blog is a right winger. So, it's natural for him to put up this article. Lets face it folks, we will see massive destruction in the future because of how we are treating the planet. You can say whatever you want, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time..