Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:04:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
842 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > > Jason, you may be "honesty impaired" -- the condition of engaging in
> > > unseemly contortions just to be able to claim you were doing the "right
> > > thing."
> >
> > Is that how you define "honesty"? Or is that how you define "moral"? Is
> > honesty necessarily moral? If you ask me, if you're honest with respect to
> > putting the little "gift" mark on a package, then you *DON'T* mark it as a
> > gift no matter *WHAT* you think of the moral implications of the law that
> > you're breaking. If you're "honest", you tell the truth. And the truth is
> > that it's not a gift.
>
> But the act of marking it as a gift might be a gift. So what then?
Well, considering that the "gift" denotes the contents of the package (or so
I would assume the "law" dictates), then no, not really...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) But if I sell you an old 3055 (say) for $3 & postage is "Merchandise" more appropriate than "gift"? Merchandise is more for describing buying from a commercial organisation. If anyone is selling several thousand dollars worth pa then perhaps (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
