 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) But that doesn't exactly reduce paper consumption. :) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Uh, no. The paperless office is a big myth. The ease with which paper is created id one of the biggest problems of our times, IMHO. Let printer ink and toner be taxed at an additional $2.50 per page, I say. _THEN_ we'll see a paperless office. (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Ah yes... slap a tax on it instead of trying to set things up to get at the root costs, eh? Typical tax and spend thinking. Why not go after lumber companies for causing erosion when they clear cut, and charge the proper amount to dispose of (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Uh, Larry? I _was_ kidding. (...) So how do you figure the costs of erosion? TIhe lumber companies own their land, usually, after all. Or they have permission from the owners. And if the use that land to deposit the waste on, why shouldn't (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) How did you arrive at that number? That's my point. (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
