 | | 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: 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Well, I don't think it would be any easier to hose 1000 loose balls than 1000 boxed ones, but it would certainly do less damage to the product, however, the hose really should be aimed at the teenage jerks who play ball in the toy store (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Trying not to take this out of context or anything, when you say hose, are you saying store, as in storing the balls? I am slightly confused & perplexed on my own, not by you or anything, I think I need more coffee..... (...) Really? What ones (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) In your original statement, you said "hose" when I assume you meant "house". I was just making fun (sorry for being off-topic...) (...) To a pure Libertarian, laws telling you that your store must serve anyone regardless of race (ect), are an (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Oops, I did. Ugh, I can't wait to go to bed tonight! :) (...) Hmm.. that is interesting, I don't know how Libertarians would view that. I never thought that the first part was bad. I will have the great Larry P. on that one... I think the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Yea, sounds like you need some sleep, or you need to bow down to the great Larry more so you don't make as many misteaks... (...) Things like benefits for domestic partners, having personel policies which state that the company doesn't (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (Something - I don't know what anymore) Was [Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging]
|
|
(...) Ah yes, to not make misteaks like the great Larry.... All Hail Larry! ;) (...) I don't think people should discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, but I don't think it should be an issue in the first place. Some try to make it seem so, (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <386A45E1.237C@minds...ng.com>... (...) Remember what you said, stupid consumers... (...) I don't think (stupid) "consumers would quickly demand a level of packaging which would minimize waste" simply because they must (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Sorry for so many posts on this boring subject, but... Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) transferring (...) I think if this particular industry (and nearly any other, for that matter) were privatized, the actual costs would go down (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <386A5CF5.B1434BC3@c...eb.net>... (...) all (...) Treating (...) Just a comment, when did regulation of the waste disposal industry occur? Around the same time that Civil Rights was in full swing? While the Civil (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) So how would the situation be in the southern states? The black population _didn't_ have cash to spend, and they didn't have much chance of improving that either. Would gays be open about being gay like they are now, without the entire (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brad - TLC needs to minimize packaging
|
|
(...) Simplistic answer is that they DID have cash to spend, it was economic boycott that finally broke the "back of the bus" thing with buses, and was going to break down a great deal more quite soon. As for the legal barriers, Laws REQUIRING (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
