 | | Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) I haven't seen the movie (yet), so I hadn't been taking it into consideration. I'd consider it a bad trade, too - but then it wasn't me making the choice. To him, it may have been worth it (and I'll shut up now - at least until I see it). (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) I have little sympathy for stupid consumers. I see too many of them at my second job for that. "This was supposed to be 80% off, there was a sign." Lets say they have a Christmas sweater. (Actual example) I went back there to see, and it was (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Hear hear. Trash fees DON'T cover costs because the government runs most landfills, and regulates the rest. That regulation, by imposing standards instead of using strict negligence, allows landfill operators to meet the standards (of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
|
(...) You say that as a mortal. :-) I don't want to .debate this, but I do want to highlight (and I guess I may be spoiling some of the plot here) that this character already WAS immortal, practically. He was faced with the choice of trading it away (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) I think that it's not so much a case of the consumer wanting more packaging, than that the companies perceive that larger packages sell better because the stupid consumer thinks he's getting a better deal. As far as government regulation of (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
John, (...) Oh, I agree with the concept of them doing what they are supposed to do. Having them in the first place, on the other hand.... Don't worry, John, I am having a case of me overgoverning again, and it just booms out of me every now and (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <386A025E.278F00DF@c...eb.net>... (...) A quick search on the net found that Japan and Germany have laws such as I mentioned, and, voila! so does the US, many of them in fact. Maybe you missed this pork while the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
Since Larry is the most eloquent than I can ever be, I will just agree with him and be done with this. Scott Larry Pieniazek wrote: < Snipped the Larry & Jasper commentary > ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn -> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Work Email -> (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
< Cross posted to off.topic.debate > (...) Well, all packages contain what they have in there (i.e. 5.5 oz, etc.) The packages may need downsizing, which I can agree with, but the government taking action against them? What agency should look at (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
|
(...) Why? Is it OK to break the law if it was long enough ago and you didn't get caught? That seems to be George W's perspective. Hogwash. It is either wrong and the law should be changed, or it isn't. (...) What do you mean? Quayle came right out (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
