required: Greenpeace consistently misrepresents themselves and others, and this particular chart is a perfect example. Companies that are rated low are NOT rated because there is evidence that they are using toxic manufacturing processes. They are bumped down if they refuse to reveal TO GREENPEACE every last detail about their manufacturing process.
So because companies refuse to reveal their secret, proprietary processes to Greenpeace, they see fit to slander them, despite having no real proof that any toxic chemicals are being used.
Potato: None of this information was revealed "TO GREENPEACE." It is all freely available on the internet. The highly-scored companies provide this information to everybody, which is what Greenpeace wants.
The Triumph proved to be one of the better looking and performing pre-paid handsets we'd had the pleasure of holding in our sweaty mitts, but we had one major hangup: the name.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Wow, people even take Greenpeace seriously? LOL.
I do and I bet you would if you thought about it.
required: Greenpeace consistently misrepresents themselves and others, and this particular chart is a perfect example. Companies that are rated low are NOT rated because there is evidence that they are using toxic manufacturing processes. They are bumped down if they refuse to reveal TO GREENPEACE every last detail about their manufacturing process.
So because companies refuse to reveal their secret, proprietary processes to Greenpeace, they see fit to slander them, despite having no real proof that any toxic chemicals are being used.
Potato: None of this information was revealed "TO GREENPEACE." It is all freely available on the internet. The highly-scored companies provide this information to everybody, which is what Greenpeace wants.
@ Gordon
So what you're saying is that it's not okay to give away general knowledge to sate Greenpeace, but you should be giving away trade secrets?