Leonardo DiCaprio must have missed the irony in his statement, "I will fly around the world doing good for the environment." Will the fabulously wealthy actor take a private jet?
The Mother Nature Network reported that DiCaprio plans on taking a break from acting in order to fight "wildlife crime," by "teaming" with the World Wildlife Fund's "Hands off my Parts" program, which is not a pro-abortion message, but an initiative to save "wild elephants, rhinos and tigers" from being poached. It is unclear how the money solicited to help these animals will actually be used.
According to the MNN piece, the "Hands off my Parts" campaign "is a week-long effort tied to WWF's Stop Wildlife Crime campaign to raise awareness and mobilize support to end the illegal trade of wildlife." The main action item seems to be "calling on Thailand's government to show leadership on elephant conservation by shutting down its ivory market before the country hosts a meeting of 177 nations on wildlife trade in March 2013". So do the donations go to airfare to Thailand? Website maintenance? Pardon the skepticism, as preserving wildlife is undoubtedly a noble cause. But for Leonardo DiCaprio, whose Malibu property is currently on the market for $23 million, while he floats around in a yacht and flies around on a private jet, to preach to the Thai government on "wildlife crime" seems to be a tad hypocritical.
Image Source: Kathryn MacLeod via Vanity Fair
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 378 ( 1 removed by Renee Nal )
An asteroid in near earth orbit is predicted to pass within measure degree. How will mankind deal with a future event to affect a change.
"President Obama has re-conceived the next big space push: sending astronauts to visit an asteroid by 2025, and then to possibly try for Mars in the mid-2030s" by NPR STAFF
February 10, 2013
Improved understanding of soot formation will enable manufacturers to design and build high-performance engines that emit less pollution.
Dr. Mel Roquemore, Air Force Research Laboratory
Combustion Science to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions for Military Platforms
Minimization of emissions from gas turbine engines during initial design is currently not possible. Accurate modeling of soot formation is difficult due to the complex underlying chemical and physical processes. These processes involve a sequence of gas phase reactions, followed by particle inception, particle-particle interactions, condensation, particle growth, and oxidation. The reactions involve literally hundreds of chemical species and take place in extreme environments of pressure, temperature, and turbulence. This environment is challenging for both modeling and measurements.
Dr. Mel Roquemore led a collaborative team from academia, industry, and government laboratories in advancing the fundamental science relevant to the formation of PM2.5. The team conducted experiments and simulations to understand the chemistry, fluid dynamics, and thermodynamics of particle formation in high-performance engines. Validated detailed soot and full chemical models can be applied, in conjunction with full 3-D combustor design codes, to estimate soot and other emissions for gas turbine combustors.
This research represents a critical achievement in the quest to enable jet engine manufacturers to design and build engines that emit less pollution.
For this work, Dr. Roquemore received a Project-of-the-Year award at the annual Partners in Environmental Technology Technical Symposium & Workshop held November 29 –December 1, 2011, in Washington, D.C.
Like fly commercial, for example? or Forego the big yacht and mansion?
Oh they don't mind traveling in the lap of luxury staying at the very best air conditioned hotels using large amounts of water while bathing or swimming in the luxury pools while giving interviews to all and sundry that the world is somehow going to come to an end because a few tenths of a degree change in the global temperature over the last 100 years. The utter hypocrisy of these people shine like a beacon in the dark for all to see.
AND how dammed conceited that the puny race of man somehow thinks we can somehow change our climate and how it works. Proof of this is now being seen as tons of CO2 in the last 16 years has been pumped into the atmosphere and our planet just like its always done has again regulated it self NO WARMING IN THE LAST 16 YEARS. Its got that bad for warmegedinists that they have now resorted to looking to Australia in January while she is having her summer months and picking a two week heatwave to try and convince the world of global warming and fools like DiCaprio who is well known for his stance on global warming(What lefty jerks don't have the same stance) believe every word of it.
Cant wait for DiCaprio to go and see for himself the Polar Bears that his mates the Alarmists say are in danger bet my next weeks pension money that one of his first stops on his journey around the world all paid for by the way of one of the richest organizations in the world money taken from leftist fools who fall every time for the tear jerking adverts that plead for money from them and the poor deluded fools dip into their pockets and give the multi $ billion Wild Life Fund even more money so that they can fund people like DiCaprio and his team of a hundred or so staff.
Stirred but not shaken, this time with the cherry on the top. :-)
The biggest irony is this:
If "warming" (let's humour them and just pretend for a moment) is "man-made," then the only solution isn't viable. And that solution is to ERADICATE Man. And, if we were ERADICATED...then what is the point in there being an 'Earth???'
I know that those FOOLS would love to get rid of most of us..but...think they'll go for it? (laughs!)
It is reminiscent of the "charity work" done by many - they have lovely balls where everyone gets dressed up, they spend a ton of money and feel good about themselves, but what are they really doing, aside from throwing money at problems that are best solved with culture changes and elbow grease? It is all about image.
Tell me that DiCaprio is doing anything other than lending his face for a cause. Tell me the WWF is really doing anything other than selling t-shirts. They make pretty decent salaries, I can tell you that. They revel in "raising awareness". If one googles "Hands off my Parts," you will see that the first two links are trying to sell you tee shirts.
If DiCaprio and friends went to live as the locals do in Thailand for a year, I would be impressed. Excuse the cynicism, but this is a photo op.
Nothing wrong in nice fancy five star hotels I myself stay in them when I go places and very nice they are to. I wrote about something like this the other week when that ever so nice fella Rajendra Pachauri from the IPCC went to 12th Delhi Development Summit to talk on how unsustainable our lifestyles are. What he could not see most of these sort of people don't by the way was how hypocritical they are and sound when they stand in front of people and say look you must not stop in five star hotels and if you do you must have a meter in your room and be charged extra for the water that you use while all the time having a bath or a good shower twice or three times a day in the hotels that they are using throughout the world each month of each year.
This is what he said, “Today we have reached the point where consumption and people’s desire to consume has grown out of proportion,” said Pachauri. “The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable.”
Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed.
"I don't see why you couldn't have a meter in the room to register your energy consumption from air-conditioning or heating and you should be charged for that," he said. "By bringing about changes of this kind, you could really ensure that people start becoming accountable for their actions."
Its alright for these people to wander all over the planet as a nomad living the high life paid by other people, but "DON'T YOU DARE DO THE SAME" and I just wonder if DiCaprio had to pay out of his own pocket for his wonderful save the animals jaunt if he would be so keen.
1. I worked in a hospital in Ghana for three months,
You have no proof, no evidence, none what so ever.
2. I went back to Africa for a holiday - I stayed at fancy places, where very wealthy people went on "safari" -
So you can go to Africa on vacation and no one else can go to enjoy themselves, take pictures and get pamper. Spend money on tourist industry which a capital business market where the money from tourist passes through many hands and adds to wealth of this African country in the form of tourism.
3. many of them were "philanthropists" (actual movie stars, they had to be pointed out to me)
So you're just so detached from the world that you had to have someone tell you who was the movie stars and just who were the philanthropists. And you didn't ask for an autograph, nor get your picture taken you just observe them getting pamper in the same hotel you were in while you were on vacation and you look down on their behavior while they were there, just like you.
So come Renee I'm just dying here, tell me a name, one name just one movie star or celebrate. Sure you're just so concern about these "lefties, liberal" and their privacy. My, my, my that sure is calling the kettle black.
4. had a lovely dinner where we rubbed elbows and snuggled up in their comfy rooms, waited on hand and foot. I can name names, but I won't. They kind of sickened me. They did not break a sweat.
And you Renee observe all this while on vacation yourself and this was just so important for you to do watching (star gazing) what other freedom loving people are doing. Furthermore, while you were just so busy on your vacation you didn't have time or the need to follow up on your call of mercy while working in Ghanaian hospital for three months. What about what happen to those people. No you're on vacation at that moment checking out the rich and famous and there oh so discussing behavior that make you sick.
5. but what are they really doing, aside from throwing money at problems that are best solved with culture changes and elbow grease? It is all about image.
But you Renee are allow to go on vacation after a three month mercy call and kick your heels up and get pamper while following around stars and celebrities that you don't even recognize.
6. If DiCaprio and friends went to live as the locals do in Thailand for a year, I would be impressed. Excuse the cynicism, but this is a photo op.
Excuse me for my cynicism but like are your photos Renee. Are you against Non-profits organizations? Are just against wealthy people, I thought you were a Reaganite and believer in the trickle down theory. It's their money and their form of free speech.
You don't agree with their life style, or their support of preserving wildlife and indigenous people of the world and their way of life. So just don't movie star or celebrate pulling a face to an issue that they believe especially if it against your beliefs. You must get paid very well to do what you do Renee.
However, I for one don't for one moment believe you. If I'm wrong I will apologies and I really do thank you for your work in helping others, but as Pres. Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify."
Name the stars, let's see the picture of your elbow grease. I doubt Renee you'll be able to prove a thing.
I listened, I really did - but all I heard was a little gnat buzzing in my ear.
You folks don't nothing. Just bunch of nonsense dribble. You have no proof no evidence, none. I get it. I know you're right wing facilitators but that's why you folks are losers.
What's wrong with the World Wildlife Fund. Not concern about the other creature we share this planet with, I'm not surprised at all. Backward people, wow so very short-sighted.
but that's why you folks are losers.
I never thought that I would see the day when some called me a loser after traveling all over the World and doing what I have done. God help the other people in my country if Richard thinks I am a loser what they are is anyone's guess. And no Richard I wont be sending you photos to show you what I did or have done the closest that you will get to see what I have been doing for most of my life is in one of my posts a few weeks back with photos.
If we had a lot more like you in the World...we'd have a lot less like him in the World.
I always cleaned my own and they got a bit dirty I can tell you Mark and smelly.
It is hard to argue the fact that waste management has become a large problem in the world, with landfills growing to enormous sizes and recycling rates remaining dismally low. The number of plastic bottles produced by the bottled water industry and subsequently discarded by consumers has only exacerbated this problem.
According to a 2001 report of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), roughly 1.5 million tons of plastic are expended in the bottling of 89 billion liters of water each year.
Besides the sheer number of plastic bottles produced each year, the energy required to manufacture and transport these bottles to market severely drains limited fossil fuels. Bottled water companies, due to their unregulated use of valuable resources and their production of billions of plastic bottles have presented a significant strain on the environment.
References
Golub, Catherine. (2001). Liquid assets: Is bottled water really better than what’s on tap? Environmental Nutrition, 24 (9).
Potera, Carol. (2002). The price of bottled water. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (2). Shermer, Michael. (2003). Bottled twaddle. Scientific American, 289 (1).
I recycle all my rubbish, plastic bottles go in one bin all glass in another, paper in one more and cardboard in another, old clothes are put in one more along with any shoes that we don't use anymore.
Now here is the thing Renee, the other week a post appeared on Gather by a well known Gather alarmist asking what are you doing to save the environment or words to that effect, and not one not one person who was an alarmist came out and said what they were doing. Oh they could go on rally's and be interested in supporting the activists on the Pipeline coming out of Canada but when it came down to doing something positive like what I have been doing and what the other guy on Gather has been doing Nothing zilch nada. All talk and no trousers the lot of them.
Stirred but not shaken, this time with two cherry's on the top. :-)
So you can't fly or use the modern convinces of travel and not demand that it or mankind be as environmentally friendly as possible. There is no hypocrisy there.
Mocking anyone that uses jet travel or drives a car as hypocrite does not render a solution to the problem of pollution and man made environmental changes. It is just another way to avoid the issue.
Climate change, global warming, environmental pollution, whatever it maybe called cannot be denied. And for reasonable people and scientists the facts are over whelming. Responsible stewards of the earth, we must always demand the best that we can do as we determine our balance with the environment in which we live and the future we leave to our children.
ZAnd I'm sure for those that really don't care, there nothing else to be said
He's probably just having a dry spell; he's doing it to get Chicks. ;]
Loggers 'burned Amazon tribe girl alive'
Loggers in Brazil captured an eight-year-old girl from one of the Amazon's last uncontacted tribes and burned her alive as part of a campaign to force the indigenous population from its land, reports claimed on Tuesday night.
Luis Carlos Guajajaras, a local leader from a separate tribe, told a Brazilian news website that they tied to her a tree and set her alight as a warning to other natives Photo: AP
By Raf Sanchez8:39PM GMT 10 Jan 2012
The child was said to have wandered away from her village, where around 60 members of the Awá tribe live in complete isolation from the modern world, and fallen into the hands of the loggers.
Luis Carlos Guajajaras, a local leader from a separate tribe, told a Brazilian news website that they tied to her a tree and set her alight as a warning to other natives, who live in a protected reserve in the north-eastern state of Maranhão .
"She was from another tribe, they live deep in the jungle, and have no contact with the outside world. It would have been the first time she had ever seen white men. We heard that they laughed as they burned her to death," he said.
Reports of the killing, which was said to have happened in October or November last year, were seconded by the Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI), a Catholic group which said it had seen footage of her charred remains.
A spokesman for the Brazil's Indian Affairs Department said the government was urgently investigating the claims.
Related Articles
Tesco cancels meat contract over Amazon claim 06 Jun 2012
Logging versus eco-lodges 15 Aug 2008
Britain spends £10m to stop deforestation in Brazil 04 Dec 2011
Huge iron ore deposits and valuable timber have encouraged mining and logging companies to enter the forests of Maranhão despite laws designed to protect the few remaining uncontacted tribes, often leading to violent clashes.
Around 450 tribes people have were murdered in Brazil between 2003 and 2010, according to figures from CIMI.
Survival International, a charity for tribal groups, warned that a third of the Awá's land had already been destroyed and that their nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle was being threatened as animals fled in the face of the approaching logging companies.
Yes life of the indigenous people and the creature and plant life by those who inhabit the rain forest are under assualt by the devastation of deforestation are things that once destroy, will change worldwide weather patterns.
The main historical problem with international trade has been the correlated destruction of the environment. This is especially true when it comes to the issue of deforestation. In Madagascar, people have been cutting down the forests for decades. Throughout the past century, much of the rainforests of Madagascar have disappeared.
www1.american.edu/ted/MADAGAS.HTM
Joke if you want too, but change is always going on around.
"Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda? Only the political and politically connected elite—the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies. And think of the power that governments would have if they controlled energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people. No wonder governments have spent tens of billions of dollars promoting this scenario and supporting political panels like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to disseminate the desired “findings.â€"
Mass Media has diluted star power even as it's promulgated celebrity. We've never known so many rich and famous, and we've never cared less about what they actually had to say.
Making an extra movie or two and using the money to fund some Noahs' ark project, run by the people who have indisputably committed their lives to the cause would be my suggestion, but I seem to have lost his phone number. But the days when a Bardot or even a Sting could stroke a seal or hug a tree and actually start a conversation are pretty much past.
No proof, just like I said, you must be a shell and a fraud Renee.
That's right folks the right wing talks a good games but have no facts or evidence, nothing.
I could care less about what anyone does with their $$, I am pointing out the hypocrisy.
Renee Nal.
We in Europe are already been told what light bulbs that we can buy. None of us can buy the ones that are cheap at 50p a bulb but have to buy the new type that cost between £3.50 to £6.00. No shop is allowed to stock the old fashioned ones. Our electricity that was once at a moderate rate has now gone through the roof because of the renewable energy programs that have been brought in but don't work. Hence my solar panels on the roof of my home. Oh yes someone somewhere is making a lot of money from all this.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus feels "threatened" by the "Global Warming Doctrine" which he considered an "attempt to control and mastermind...our lives"
We can give everyone the data that says its not mans fault we can debate with it, what alarmists cant do is give data back that refutes our data because they have none just guess work that they put into computer models and then tell the world this that and the other. We then see as Vic rightly says comments getting shorter and shorter when we ask people like you to put your cards on the table or we see the old tired insults being thrown at us but what we never see is the actual proof.
And are you really so arrogant to think that man can change the cycle of our weather if so what an arrogant species we have become to think that we could ever change our whole cycle that keeps us warm and cool along with how we feed ourselves.
Sea's being over fished or polluted does not bring about climate change anyway I agree that we should limit the fishing industry which in some country's this is being done anyway why I endorse this fact is not because of climate change but because fish is a valuable commodity to feed our ever growing planet. As for polluting the sea's our oceans are actually cleaner today than they ever have been as in the past years our own human waste was dumped into the sea which now in this modern age is taken to be recycled. Plastic bottles of course do damage as do other items such as fishing nets and we must ensure that we educate people in the folly of getting rid of these items in the sea.
As for the how our weather forms most of it forms from the Oceans when the water evaporates. In temperate ocean sea areas the quantity of water vapor taken from the sea in temperate climates is an amazing 2million gallons in just two square miles every day and how large are our Oceans? And its this that forms our weather. You can if you wish read a more detailed account of how how weather forms here.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979663517
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979673418
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979701105
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979716402
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979727652
I wrote all this around two years ago and pointed out how our weather works on a comment on an alarmist post he wrote back and told me to get lost and go away with my none science. I cant see for the life of me how its none science but there you go thats alarmists for you show them how it all works and they just don't want to know because it does not fit into what they have been led to believe.
How so? Is he poaching animals on his Malibu property, or his yacht, or his jet?
And as for his "flying around the world for the environment" comment, he apparently made that remark while doing an interview for the German newspaper Bild. Maybe it loses something in the translation into German and back again? I’d be willing to bet that DiCaprio was making an ironic joke, smirking and elbowing the interviewer in the ribs.
Oh my goodness Renee the poor darling is bit drained after all that hard work!!!! not that drained that he cant sit with his feet up like ordinary people do after meeting a deadline. Oh no that would never do would it better fly the World leaving a great big carbon footprint while castigating everyone else for doing the same thing. Just like Rajendra Pachauri has done in the past. Birds of a feather flock together Renee.
Not necessary. Way to dodge, though.
LOL
Tony, Dodge what? You want me to address that the comment was somehow "lost in translation?" Or do you really want to make a bet?
Well that would be a tad bit daft his new found friends would take a dim view of him doing that but if you think he is doing it well I suppose there is a first for everything.
You? Adding to the obfuscation? Shocking.
"but if you think he is doing it..."
Speaking of daft, the question I posed (which has still not been answered) was just that - a question, and not a statement.
So still no answer then, huh?
And still no answer.
And since you didn't write the passage I quoted, I wasn't asking you anyway.
How so? Is he poaching animals on his Malibu property, or his yacht, or his jet?
There's nothing quite like historical photos of glaciers to show what a dynamic planet we live on. Alaska's Muir Glacier, like many Alaskan glaciers, has retreated and thinned dramatically since the 19th century.
This particular pair of images shows the glacier's continued retreat and thinning in the second half of the 20th century. From 1941 to 2004, the front of the glacier moved back about seven miles while its thickness decreased by more than 2,625 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
While historical photos like these show change over many decades, satellites are giving us a better understanding of how Earth's ice cover has changed in the more recent past. The satellite era, beginning in the 1970s, has given us a picture of accelerating ice changes in places like Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica, where the loss of land-based ice is contributing to global sea level rise.
Forty-six gigatons of ice from Alaskan glaciers was lost on average each year from 2003 to 2010. That's according to data from NASA's GRACE satellite, as analyzed by a team of scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Their paper on global ice changes, as measured by GRACE, was published in Nature in February 2012.
For more on that study, visit: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-036
For more historical images of glaciers, visit http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ or http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global_ice_viewer
Photo credits: Photographed by William O. Field on Aug. 13, 1941 (left) and by Bruce F. Molnia on Aug. 31, 2004 (right). From the Glacier Photograph Collection. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for Glaciology.
The science cannot be denied and if anyone wants to bring attention to climate-change and who it will effect is person and a cause I can support.
The point is that his mansions, yachts, and private jets do not exactly equate to being good for the environment.
and
I kind of have a problem with DiCaprio taking Annie Liebowicz and a crew of people on a private jet to Antarctica in order to stomp all over the delicate ecosystem for a photo-op so that Americans can be lectured about running their dishwashers.
You didn't answer the question, because that isn't the issue. DiCaprio's remark about the environment (if he really did say that) and your statement about him being a hypocrite for trying to speak out about poaching while being wealthy and flying his private jet are two separate issues. You're being disingenuous by purposefully ignoring that fact.
And for the record, he's trying to stop animal poaching - that doesn't have anything to do with running a dishwasher. You've taken one slightly off-the-cuff (probably meant to be humorous) remark and completely confused the issue. It's about poaching, not the environment or climate change.
And since you didn't write the passage I quoted, I wasn't asking you anyway
I don't care if you did not asked me personally this is an open forum and as such I answered the question. If you don't like people answering the questions that you pose on this site enroll on another site that does not allow other people answering questions. Asked and answered end of story move on.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration - NASA
There's nothing quite like historical photos of glaciers to show what a dynamic planet we live on. Alaska's Muir Glacier, like many Alaskan glaciers, has retreated and thinned dramatically since the 19th century.
This shows your total ignorance of what is happening in the world. We are still in a warming period and as such until the planet once more goes in to a cooling period Glaciers all over the world will continue to melt just like they have done since we went into the warming period which was around 22,000 years ago this period shaped the world that we all now live in do try and learn about how our planet works and the periods that the earth has gone through before commenting please.
Its her post not yours she does not have have your permission or anyone else's to veer of topic if she wants if you don't like what she prints then I advise not coming on her posts.
Insulting me will make a great debate. His quote was, "I will fly around the world doing good for the environment."
Well you got it all the same.
I have yet to insult you.
His quote was, "I will fly around the world doing good for the environment."
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this statement about animal poaching, which is what you claimed he was a hypocrite for....
"But for Leonardo DiCaprio, whose Malibu property is currently on the market for $23 million, while he floats around in a yacht and flies around on a private jet, to preach to the Thai government on "wildlife crime" seems to be a tad hypocritical."
Nope, the point I made in my original comment in this thread won't go away, no matter how much you and your buddy try to obscure it.
Renee Nal Feb 21, 2013, 3:30pm EST
Yes, Graham - you are always welcome to butt in
Thank you Renee, anything else I can help you with Tony?
Answered Tony, move on with something else
"move on with something else"
Make me.
Now, quote my words back to me and analyze them as you do so well.
Make me.
Well carry on asking the same question you will still get the same answer from me.
"Tony, why are you being so supportive of DiCaprio?"
Actually, the fact that this is centering around Dicaprio is inconsequential. It could have been some non-celebrity and I would still have posed the same question to Renee. The bottom line is, the fact that he's wealthy and flies a jet does not make him a hypocrite for speaking out about animal poaching, as the two things have nothing to do with each other.
"Maybe you should change your profile picture. You are defending actors because you have convinced yourself that you are one. Although, I have to admit. You are a good actor. I am totally convinced that you believe the dribble you produce. You deserve an "Oscar."
Ad hominem, and patently false, on all counts. Complete fail at trying to make this personal, Vic.
Tony, why are you being so supportive of DiCaprio? He is just an actor. Maybe you should change your profile picture. You are defending actors because you have convinced yourself that you are one. Although, I have to admit. You are a good actor. I am totally convinced that you believe the dribble you produce. You deserve an "Oscar."
Answer the question please posed by Vic
"But for Leonardo DiCaprio, whose Malibu property is currently on the market for $23 million, while he floats around in a yacht and flies around on a private jet, to preach to the Thai government on "wildlife crime" seems to be a tad hypocritical."
How so? Is he poaching animals on his Malibu property, or his yacht, or his jet?
How so? Is he poaching animals on his Malibu property, or his yacht, or his jet?
Already asked and answered move on once again please.
Answered long ago, now answer Vic's question that he put to you please.
Request to re-answer Vic's question denied.
Answered long ago and you know it.
Tony, why are you being so supportive of DiCaprio? He is just an actor. Maybe you should change your profile picture. You are defending actors because you have convinced yourself that you are one. Although, I have to admit. You are a good actor. I am totally convinced that you believe the dribble you produce. You deserve an "Oscar
Its a simple enough question I am sure that Renee and Vic along with myself would like to hear the answer to it. We answered your question so do the right thing and answer Vic's.
Now I am of to bed. I expect a more reasonable answer from you when I get back tomorrow as do we all.
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 3:48pm EST
"Tony, why are you being so supportive of DiCaprio?"
"Actually, the fact that this is centering around Dicaprio is inconsequential. It could have been some non-celebrity and I would still have posed the same question to Renee. The bottom line is, the fact that he's wealthy and flies a jet does not make him a hypocrite for speaking out about animal poaching, as the two things have nothing to do with each other."
So, your obfuscation attempt failed. Getting back to my original relevant question....
"But for Leonardo DiCaprio, whose Malibu property is currently on the market for $23 million, while he floats around in a yacht and flies around on a private jet, to preach to the Thai government on "wildlife crime" seems to be a tad hypocritical."
How so? Is he poaching animals on his Malibu property, or his yacht, or his jet?
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 3:48pm EST
"The bottom line is, the fact that he's wealthy and flies a jet does not make him a hypocrite for speaking out about animal poaching, as the two things have nothing to do with each other."
Because you haven't explained how that's hypocritical, since the two things have nothing to do with each other.
"I will fly around the world doing good for the environment." Do you see the hypocrisy in that?"
If he was serious, then yes, I could see the hypocrisy in that. But that doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked you, to which, after you finally acknowledged it, you tried to answer with a question, which really isn't an answer at all.
Here...I will post your response to save you the time...
"Contrary to what you may believe, Tony, we are not on this Earth to please you."
Link, please!
"Are you as needy as you present yourself?"
How so? Is he poaching animals on his Malibu property, or his yacht, or his jet?
"...you have proven repeatedly that you are not interested in an honest conversation."
You've perfectly described yourself, as you continue to ignore the point I've made in the honest conversation I'm trying to have....
Renee Nal Feb 21, 2013, 5:35pm EST
"So the fabulously wealthy DiCaprio can preach to "poachers" in Thailand and you really don't see the obvious hypocrisy?"
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 5:41pm EST
"Because you haven't explained how that's hypocritical, since the two things have nothing to do with each other."
Still no response.
You didn't answer this:
"I will fly around the world doing good for the environment." Do you see the hypocrisy in that?
You have a wonderful economy of words...I look forward to your next syllable. The average person does not use sentence fragments in order to communicate with others. You produced three such fragments while only using seven words. I am quite impressed with your attempts, but it would serve you well to work on your communication skills as opposed to presenting yourself as something and someone you are not. No one wishes to be viewed as a nasty, irritated, angry, and insensitive individual, so to intentionally do so via an alternate Internet persona makes one almost feel sorry to see someone so desperate for attention. No one truly believes this is how you are in real life, but it does make one wonder why so much effort is put forward to manifest such a character, and why that would possibly give anyone satisfaction or pleasure. I am not insulting you; I am addressing the false personality that you present to others, which is really quite disturbing. I, and others do not take you serious because you do not present yourself as being honest, sincere, or with a serious intent. People are not trying to be rude to you, but trying to figure out who you are and what in the hell you are trying to say. Most people do not get pleasure in trying to create distance between themselves and others. That is simply not normal societal behavior, and most people do not understand your goal with that chosen behavior. Try to get this information to the “real Tony.”
Wait, almost two days since I originally posed the question, have you actually answered it? Pardon me while I pick myself up off the floor.
Alright, I think I have my bearings back now. So let me get this straight - you believe that because DiCaprio has more money than the people that are perpetrating wildlife crime, that he has no business standing up for that cause? Is that the gist of it?
"You didn't answer this:
"I will fly around the world doing good for the environment." Do you see the hypocrisy in that?"
I did answer that, even though it had nothing to do with what I was talking about....
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 7:20pm EST
"If he was serious, then yes, I could see the hypocrisy in that. But that doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked you, to which, after you finally acknowledged it, you tried to answer with a question, which really isn't an answer at all."
Don't worry, Vic, I've alerted Mr. McGuire to your propensity for personal attacks. I'm sure you'll be contacted shortly.
"I will fly around the world doing good for the environment." Do you see the hypocrisy in that?
Tony, I am sure Chuck takes you very seriously.
"I will fly around the world doing good for the environment." Do you see the hypocrisy in that?"
There seems to be a comprehension problem here. I'll try again....
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 7:20pm EST
"If he was serious, then yes, I could see the hypocrisy in that. But that doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked you, to which, after you finally acknowledged it, you tried to answer with a question, which really isn't an answer at all."
"Tony, I am sure Chuck takes you very seriously."
Yes, I'm also sure.
Is that an acknowledgement that I did indeed answer your question? Kewl! When are you going to answer mine?
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 7:30pm EST
"So let me get this straight - you believe that because DiCaprio has more money than the people that are perpetrating wildlife crime, that he has no business standing up for that cause? Is that the gist of it?"
Although, I did lol at your justification for insulting me here today - because I may or may not have "indirectly" invited others to insult other people on some other post, as if those supposed people aren't responsible for their own actions. Hilarious.
Apparently, since the scumbag got bounced from Gather. Why, are you under the impression that "scumbag" is some kind of profanity? Keep in mind, it's not against the TOS to insult people who are no longer members of Gather.
Why are you pestering people for noticing that he's helping "kill off" wildlife if the "global warming alarmists" are correct, in the name of saving wildlife? Why are you not joining in the criticism, if you think it's harming wildlife for him to "fly around the world", pretending he's exploring/investigating the freakin' ice caps, when it's rather obvious that's not what he's really doing? . . He's just pretending . . How does him pretending like that help the environment. wildlife, or anything else?
"Why are you pestering people..."
And just think, you were almost able to get through that comment without any ad hominem arguments. Huh.
The positives that his celebrity brings to shedding light on the subject far outweighs the negatives of him flying there to do so.
You think so? I think he just looks like a big fat hypocrite.
Why does some actor need to fly anywhere to "shed light" on anything? What's the point? Why not just speak out?
It's of no huge surprise that our opinions differ greatly on the matter.
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 7:30pm EST
"So let me get this straight - you believe that because DiCaprio has more money than the people that are perpetrating wildlife crime, that he has no business standing up for that cause? Is that the gist of it?"
"Why does some actor need to fly anywhere to "shed light" on anything? What's the point? Why not just speak out?"
Yea, those press conferences do not produce nearly as much emissions, my friend...
(Your turn, empty man)
No, well thats not such a big surprise oh look though Mr Stark has managed to do a bit of threatening like he always does no surprise there as well.
Now let me see. Somehow, we got derailed again. Back to the subject...
No Mr Stark no derailment the the original question has been answered as I have now been telling you for quite some time now. So how about the questions that have been put to you.
Alright, I think I have my bearings back now. So let me get this straight - you believe that because DiCaprio has more money than the people that are perpetrating wildlife crime, that he has no business standing up for that cause? Is that the gist of it?
Putting the question another way will not alter the fact that the original question has been answered. please move on with some thing else
"And I never said you said anyone was for it Tony."
Good. Then we're in agreement.
Still waiting for a clarification....
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 7:30pm EST
"So let me get this straight - you believe that because DiCaprio has more money than the people that are perpetrating wildlife crime, that he has no business standing up for that cause? Is that the gist of it?"
Same question but put a different way already answered move on please.
Have you considered the possibility that you're just really bad at recognizing hypocrisy? I doubt you really don't see what others are perceiving as a form of hypocrisy, altogether, but if you really don't get it, maybe it's your insensitivity to hypocrisy that is revealing itself here.
Regardless, other people are not obligated to see only hypocrisy some guy on the internet confirms, I get that you don't agree there's a contradiction worthy of that term involved, I just don't get why anyone ought to be particularly concerned that you don't. You can keep insisting we must conform to your opinion, but it's not really all that big a crisis to me . . and the more you act like your approval is some sort of critical commodity, the less I think it is. Narcissism is not a real strong selling point, when it comes to taking a disagreement with someone seriously, ya know what I mean? You made your opinion clear . . Rejected.
I don't need to make you move on you will eventually move on yourself like you did last time.
Your question was answered long time ago move on with your life.
My skills of perception are just fine, thanks.
"You can keep insisting we must conform to your opinion..."
I've done no such thing. As a matter of fact, I'm having a discussion with Renee about something she wrote, so this "we" business you're talking about doesn't apply.
"You made your opinion clear . . Rejected."
That's okay, I pretty much reject everything you have to say, so I guess we're even.
That's right. And when I do decide to move on, it will have nothing to do with any orders you've barked in this thread.
"Your question was answered long time ago move on with your life."
Again, it was not, and you don't get to tell me what to do.
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 7:30pm EST
"So let me get this straight - you believe that because DiCaprio has more money than the people that are perpetrating wildlife crime, that he has no business standing up for that cause? Is that the gist of it?"
That's right. And when I do decide to move on, it will have nothing to do with any orders you've barked in this thread.
Only dogs bark.
Your question was answered long time ago please stop wasting people time and move a long with something else.
Tony Stark Feb 21, 2013, 7:30pm EST
"So let me get this straight - you believe that because DiCaprio has more money than the people that are perpetrating wildlife crime, that he has no business standing up for that cause? Is that the gist of it?
Asked and answered long time ago please move on with something else
Not true.
"please stop wasting people time and move a long with something else."
By all means, if you feel your time is being wasted, feel free not to read or respond to the conversation I'm having with Renee. And btw, you still don't get to tell me what to do.
Never said I felt MY time was wasted and I will carry on responding to this open forum as long as I want. Now move along your question was answered long ago.
As will I.
As will I.
Good then we can all expect a new question as the old one has been asked and answered long ago. Now I am of to bed please when I get back tomorrow morning have something more than the old question as its ran and ran and ran its course.
Did he say he wasn't paying for the plane ride? Not that it really matters, I'm sure a corporation like the World Wildlife Fund can afford it. And that's like saying police officers shouldn't try to stop criminals because they make more than the average lawbreaker.
Because I'm not here to talk to them or you. I'm having a conversation with Renee, and I won't let anyone bully me out of a thread by obfuscation methods, or by just flat out telling me to leave.
I am back for one last comment before I go to bed.
You do not get the privilege on someone else's post to dictate who can and cannot comment on a thread you get that privilege on your own posts and no ones bullying you either. And as Renee has told you I am always welcome to come on any thread on her posts as is Vic.
Graham L. Feb 21, 2013, 3:35pm EST
Answered Tony, move on with something else
Graham L. Feb 21, 2013, 3:57pm EST
Already asked and answered move on once again please.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 1:58am EST
please move on with some thing else
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 2:30am EST
Same question but put a different way already answered move on please.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 2:35am EST
Move on.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 4:44am EST
Your question was answered long time ago move on with your life.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 4:37pm EST
please stop wasting people time and move a long with something else.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 4:40pm EST
Asked and answered long time ago please move on with something else
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 4:49pm EST
Now move along your question was answered long ago.
I guess we'll find out whether or not Chuck agrees with you about bullying.
Prove that I was nasty to anyone in this thread.
"The hole is getting deeper, but I am not the one in it."
I guess we'll see, won't we?
Because you can't.
"I will tell Chuck the same thing if he asks my opinion."
Don't hold your breath.
Quite right Renee It looks like the World Wildlife Fund thought to bring out a celebrity thinking that he would hold more sway over the Thailand Government and of course they are going about it all in the wrong way because these horns and tusks end up in China ground down as medicine that have no proven medicinal purpose. If they could stop the Chinese from importing these animal items then there would be no need go to Thailand as the market would drop. The Chinese Government are not bothered at the moment as its big business in China, all they do is a token search of a few vessels.
I don't know what more these Governments like Thailand the Congo and Nigeria can do they are doing there best to combat it with regular Anti Smuggling patrols but what people do not realize or if they do they don't comprehend the shear size of these country's and the habitat that these creatures roam. Logistically you would need over a 5,000 persons and expensive equipment to cover these vast areas and even then some smugglers would get though. Perhaps pin up boy would do better to stay at home and contribute part of his fortune to these Governments.
Far better to try and lobby the Chinese Government and persuade them to end the selling of it. We know that wont happen though the Chinese are a law unto themselves so hence the picture boy on a wild goose chase.
Now I really am going to bed.
"You do not get the privilege on someone else's post to dictate who can and cannot comment on a thread"
Graham L. Feb 21, 2013, 3:35pm EST
Answered Tony, move on with something else
Graham L. Feb 21, 2013, 3:57pm EST
Already asked and answered move on once again please.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 1:58am EST
please move on with some thing else
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 2:30am EST
Same question but put a different way already answered move on please.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 2:35am EST
Move on.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 4:44am EST
Your question was answered long time ago move on with your life.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 4:37pm EST
please stop wasting people time and move a long with something else.
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 4:40pm EST
Asked and answered long time ago please move on with something else
Graham L. Feb 22, 2013, 4:49pm EST
Now move along your question was answered long ago.
I guess we'll find out whether or not Chuck agrees with you about bullying.
All asked in a civilized manner to get you to move on with something new when you knew full well that your question had been answered, There is nothing insulting or of a bully boy nature in my remarks just legitimate questions to get you to move on in a debate which you refused to at every turn.
So please don't threaten me with your well known tricks or you might just find that it all comes back to bite you as two can play at your game.
That's right. And when I do decide to move on, it will have nothing to do with any orders you've barked in this thread.
Inferring that I am a dog or a bitch.
Lets see how chuck responds to that insult shall we. Chuck is well versed in your ways and I feel you you could be treading a very fine line.
lol
"Inferring that I am a dog or a bitch. Lets see how chuck responds to that insult shall we."
I'll completely understand if you weren't aware of the definition.
"...two can play at your game."
Apparently not.
"I think it is hypocritical for a wealthy person to allow regular people to fund his trip to put pressure on the government to change their rules (who is LD to tell Thailand what to do), insisting that poachers who are most likely poor themselves to tell them how they should live their lives."
Did he say he wasn't paying for the plane ride? Not that it really matters, I'm sure a corporation like the World Wildlife Fund can afford it. And that's like saying police officers shouldn't try to stop criminals because they make more than the average lawbreaker.
Notice the use of the word "like", which means similar.
Notice the use of the word "like", which means similar.
He's a celebrated pretender, Tony, not like a global police officer.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
truth [trooth]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
noun
to make obscure obfuscate the issue
- had a Junior English teacher that would write this across the top of an essay he felt was trying to dazzle with big words rather than analyze the points.
He also had a hand lettered poster of a dinosauer which read 'The Thesaurus is NOT extinct'
glitter-graphics.com
There ya go, Tone, now you're back in the spotlight.
But thanks for the implication.
Cute graphic comments
Nice advertisement at the bottom. lol
Irrelevancy is not based on the acceptance of something by another based upon his/her personal approval or benefit.
By the way, cool picture, Graham…
here
I could not agree more.
and its very scary.
Animated graphic comments
Sure it is, as demonstrated here.
I couldn't agree more. Douglass would be astounded as to the depths that certain people have gone to in this thread to pervert the views I've expressed here.
I wonder how you would feel about his other quotes... like:
"A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." ~ Frederick Douglass
Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe. ~ Frederick Douglass
The thing worse than rebellion is the thing that causes rebellion. ~ Frederick Douglass
There is no negro problem. The problem is whether the American people have loyalty enough, honor enough, patriotism enough, to live up to their own constitution... ~ Frederick Douglass
People might not get all they work for in this world, but they must certainly work for all they get. ~ Frederick Douglass
Douglass would be astounded as to the depths that certain people have gone to in this thread to pervert the views I've expressed here.
LOL, you have not expressed any views, just attacked everyone else's.
A subject I would love to delve into further, if I ever start a thread about Frederick Douglas. At this present moment in time, the thread topic seems more relevant.
"LOL, you have not expressed any views, just attacked everyone else's"
LOL, I have attacked no one, and I've repeatedly expressed views and posed questions that have gone unanswered for days on end. The dog and pony show, complete with irrelevant pictures, is fooling no one.
Ummmm.....
I have attacked no one, and I've repeatedly expressed views and posed questions that have gone unanswered for days on end. The dog and pony show, complete with irrelevant pictures, is fooling no one.
And butter would not melt in my mouth either. And you have been told more than once that the questions have been answered however we all know that the answers were not to your liking hence you keep on telling everyone that the questions in question have not been answered.
Yes for once I have to agree with you wonderful rebuttal.
I'm not concerned with what you have to tell me.
The last question asked, which has yet to be answered...
Tony Stark Feb 22, 2013, 6:30pm EST
"Did he say he wasn't paying for the plane ride?"
There has been plenty of obfuscation since then, but no answer.
Points have been made, you've chosen not to acknowledge them.
Sure it is, as demonstrated here.
You have no idea as to what my earlier comment meant. You cannot honestly argue the point using only part of that particular sentence I posted by leaving out that part that would make your statement false. When you omit a selected part of a statement, you change the meaning of the statement. With the sentence fragment you used, your statement is true, but that is not what I said in its entirety, nor is it what the entirety of my statement represented or meant. Nice try, though.
Thank you.
About 75 comments into this Grand Inquisitor charade, and Tony is certain that we have no idea what he believes . .
"When I want you to know what I understand, I'll tell you."
And then it could be obfuscated, theoretically ; )
ummmmm - nope. You have made no points.
No, I was speaking in "specifics", Tony. Not about "other subjects", just these under discussion here, about which others have "shared what [they] believe", while you obfuscated away, while claiming others were obfuscating what you have not "shared".
Share away if you'd like to, it's a public forum . . but just badgering people and claiming they're obfuscating by not treating your every inconsequential question as if it matters ever so much, by default, even when you yourself tell us it does not matter, is just you obfuscating rational discussion as far as I'm concerned.
"The last question asked, which has yet to be answered...
Tony Stark Feb 22, 2013, 6:30pm EST
"Did he say he wasn't paying for the plane ride?"
You told us that did not matter . . in the same comment;
Tony Stark Feb 22, 2013, 6:30pm EST
"Not that it matters . . . "
Share away, or quit pestering people with questions that don't matter, I suggest. Such questions are obfuscatory, to me.
It would seem my sarcasm has been lost on you, yet again. Or, you're just purposefully ignoring it, yet again.
The only thing inconsequential has been the people trying to obscure a conversation I was having with Renee, trying to answer questions (when not deflecting) that only she could answer.
Your suggestion doesn't apply, as it is based on a false premise. Not that I would consider any suggestions you would make anyway.
And still, according to Tony the empty-man;
"Contrary to what you may believe, you in no way, shape, or form have any insight into what I believe."
I think, Tony is just a gullible sucker, who bit on the Madison Avenue/Hollywood PR hype as a kid, and can't face that he's been hooked all these years on illusions . . so he tries to convince himself it's others, who see it as PR hype, that are missing the real story . . of big important people that really count, who must be taken ever so seriously . . no matter how obvious it becomes that they're just doing their PR things.
My true intentions here are to help, if I can, reveal the folly of believing Madison Avenue/Hollywood style PR hype.
Nothing obscure, nothing malicious . . I wish you nothing but peace and freedom from manipulative illusions. Honest.
Say Hey, Chuck, I think you do a fine job of helping to keep this public forum a good place for people to come and discuss matters that are important to all of us. I realize that's a difficult job at times, but you seem to me to be up to the task, and deserve some credit I think many people, including myself, don't give you often, openly anyway.
John Knight Feb 24, 2013, 5:31pm EST
"And still, according to Tony the empty-man"
"I think, Tony is just a gullible sucker"
So much for "non-insults".
And for the umpteenth time, there is no "us". I was speaking to Renee about something she wrote. No one was twisting your arm to speak for her. And also, it's pretty hilarious that you're trying to blame someone else for your TOS violations. We're all responsible for our own actions.
Like I said, I guess we'll see, won't we?
Happy Obfuscation Day!
Again, I'll post how I wish, and won't be considering your suggestions anytime soon.
Tony's big contribution to "the topic";
" . . he apparently made that remark while doing an interview for the German newspaper Bild. Maybe it loses something in the translation into German and back again? I’d be willing to bet that DiCaprio was making an ironic joke, smirking and elbowing the interviewer in the ribs."
How dare anyone "obfuscate" your freakin' fantasies . . How dare others not treat them like the crux of "the topic", since they popped into the Grand Inquisitioner's head, after all ; )
Fess up, Renee, you don't think Tony's vision is sacred revelation, do you? You insult him with unbelief, don't you?
"How so? Is he poaching animals on his Malibu property, or his yacht, or his jet?"
You rhetorically placing some of your fantasies in other people's heads does not make it "cherry picking" to point out they're fantasies without mentioning each and every one.
Grow up, I suggest, and realize he's a celebrated pretender, like the man you are labeling a HERO.
"How so? Is he poaching animals on his Malibu property, or his yacht, or his jet?"
No, that's not a fantasy, that's the only way this passage would make any sense....
"But for Leonardo DiCaprio, whose Malibu property is currently on the market for $23 million, while he floats around in a yacht and flies around on a private jet, to preach to the Thai government on "wildlife crime" seems to be a tad hypocritical."
"But for Leonardo DiCaprio, whose Malibu property is currently on the market for $23 million, while he floats around in a yacht and flies around on a private jet, to preach to the Thai government on "wildlife crime" seems to be a tad hypocritical."
The reference to being hypocritical is the simple fact that with that $23 million mansion, the yacht, and the private jet, it implies the use of much energy, which relates to environmental concerns, especially quite commonly with the voices of those on the left. Anyone with an ounce of brain function can easily comprehend the meaning of that statement. Either you simply do not comprehend very well, or you are simply trying to discredit the actual content of that statement.
Dethrone these HERO's in your mind, I advise, and expect them to set a good example if they wish to rightly influence how the little people live. Just like real people. If they don't, they are wide-open for questioning and criticism, as they ought to be, to my mind, like anyone else.
If you're here to sell us one the idea we are too worthless and uncelebrated to see hypocrisy in hyper-wealthy "elites", I ain't buying. I'm denouncing that man-worship stuff as silliness.
Which has nothing to do with the post topic, or the passage I quoted, which referred to animal poaching - hence the question to Renee, asking for a clarification.
Which is why my comment to Renee was in the form of a question.
Can I Play!!!????