On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:04:58 GMT, Malcolm wrote:


There is a similar vicious circle involved in food
production/processing/distribution.

Yeah but not many of us will deliberately coat liberal; quantities of
highly toxic poisons onto peoples foodstuffs, not knowingly anyway,
and then still claim innocence.

I think knowledgeable people here (uk.business.agriculture) have, and will,
challenge(d) your reference to "highly toxic poisons".

The people who have the power to break these vicious circles are
governments. Unfortunately some of the actions they would need to take are
so disruptive and draconian that they recoil from them.

I blame the producers in equally parts, no one forces them to use
poisons, they choose to.

You say "they choose to" - what are other practical choices are available?
Remember that "practical" includes issues of cost and saleability.

No producer is going to waste money on "highly toxic poisons" if there are
less toxic, equally effective and/or cheaper alternatives.

Anything that increases the cost of production moves the producer that much
closer to being priced out of the market - and out of business.

Most produce coming off farms goes directly or indirectly to supermarkets.
Guess who sets the prices that are paid for the produce.

Supermarkets pride themselves on their ability to get what they need, of a
quality specified by them, at any time of the year, from almost anywhere in
the world. If the price is even fractionally too high the supermarket buyer
will so "NO".

--
Peter Duncanson
UK

On Thu, 29 May 2003 16:44:58 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:04:58 GMT, Malcolm wrote:


There is a similar vicious circle involved in food
production/processing/distribution.

Yeah but not many of us will deliberately coat liberal; quantities of
highly toxic poisons onto peoples foodstuffs, not knowingly anyway,
and then still claim innocence.

I think knowledgeable people here (uk.business.agriculture) have, and will,
challenge(d) your reference to "highly toxic poisons".

No doubt they will, I'll be happy sticking to the facts. They are
highly toxic, regardless the quantity used, I don't want them anywhere
near my food thanks.

The people who have the power to break these vicious circles are
governments. Unfortunately some of the actions they would need to take are
so disruptive and draconian that they recoil from them.

I blame the producers in equally parts, no one forces them to use
poisons, they choose to.

You say "they choose to" - what are other practical choices are available?

Accept less yields per acre, a yield where good, wholesome is
available for us all, a yield that was possible long before factory
farming became a reality.

There are only so many corners that can be cut, messing with my health
aint one of them.

Remember that "practical" includes issues of cost and saleability.

Practical ends as far as I am concerned when it's a choice between
poisoning people or not.

If you cannot earn a living doing a job properly, find another job.

No producer is going to waste money on "highly toxic poisons" if there are
less toxic, equally effective and/or cheaper alternatives.

No doubt Himmler thought along the same lines.

Anything that increases the cost of production moves the producer that much
closer to being priced out of the market - and out of business.

So find another job.

Most produce coming off farms goes directly or indirectly to supermarkets.
Guess who sets the prices that are paid for the produce.

Irrelevant. If I had a product for sale, it is at a price I can live
off, if that's not possible I find another job.

Supermarkets pride themselves on their ability to get what they need, of a
quality specified by them, at any time of the year, from almost anywhere in
the world. If the price is even fractionally too high the supermarket buyer
will so "NO".

Damn right too, don't blame the supermarkets for the mug farmer not
being able to manage his own business. You set a price you cannot go
below, it's how business works.

I have no sympathy for farmers brought up on subsidy mentality, it was
a golden goose, it's now gone, live with it and start running business
properly or find another job.

Most of us have had too.
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

If A pays B to shoot C, who should be imprisoned for C's murder?

Both "A" and "B", of course. I get the impression you think only "C" should
be imprisoned??? "A" is the consumer, asking for the imported produce,
which causes "B" to pollute the environment getting it to them.

M

"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message
...

I get the impression you think only "C" should
be imprisoned???

Oops! That should have been "B".

M

On Thu, 29 May 2003 16:26:18 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:


"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

If A pays B to shoot C, who should be imprisoned for C's murder?

Both "A" and "B", of course. I get the impression you think only "C" should
be imprisoned??? "A" is the consumer, asking for the imported produce,
which causes "B" to pollute the environment getting it to them.

Nobody forces the dealer to deal, he does it through his own choice.
without , without him the rest would not occur.
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:
: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: : In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: : I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world
: : should tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage
: : they cause.
:
: : so if you are rich you are allowed to pollute? [...]
:
: Basically you would only be permitted to make a mess if
: reasonable steps to clean it up afterwards followed.
:
: More realistic than attempts to curb pollution entirely -
: and more environmentally friendly than permitting it to
: go on unchecked.

: just stop the pollution in the first place. ban the flying of fruit. If it
: cannot survive by sea then tough

I don't think that is a realistic goal, though.

: lot easier than trying to undo the damage the plane did in the first place

Indeed - but you can't ground the world's planes without a pretty
convincing case.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:

: just stop the pollution in the first place. ban the flying of fruit. If it
: cannot survive by sea then tough

I don't think that is a realistic goal, though.

It's a perfectly achievable aim, though.

: lot easier than trying to undo the damage the plane did in the first place

Indeed - but you can't ground the world's planes without a pretty
convincing case.

Ahh, so environmental concern is fine, just so long as it doesn't bother
the consumer. You should stop 'them' from polluting because by
definition is isn't "us" causing pollution.

Even when it is.

It's like cars and congestion.

"They" shouldn't be allowed on the roads because 'they' cause
congestion.

"We" should be freely allowed on the roads, of course ...

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Peter Duncanson writes
On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:04:58 GMT, Malcolm wrote:

Yeah but not many of us will deliberately coat liberal; quantities of
highly toxic poisons onto peoples foodstuffs, not knowingly anyway,
and then still claim innocence.

I think knowledgeable people here (uk.business.agriculture) have, and will,
challenge(d) your reference to "highly toxic poisons".

Unlikely, he's probably been killfiled by everyone due to a sub-70 IQ
and total inability to learn anything at all.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

On Thu, 29 May 2003 17:46:08 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Peter Duncanson writes
On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:04:58 GMT, Malcolm wrote:

Yeah but not many of us will deliberately coat liberal; quantities of
highly toxic poisons onto peoples foodstuffs, not knowingly anyway,
and then still claim innocence.

I think knowledgeable people here (uk.business.agriculture) have, and will,
challenge(d) your reference to "highly toxic poisons".

Unlikely, he's probably been killfiled by everyone due to a sub-70 IQ
and total inability to learn anything at all.

That'll be quite a few points above you then old chum, I'm not the one
sitting here whining about how hard done by I am, because I produce
crap goods and nobody wants them. In fact I have a proper job and earn
a fortune, more then enough to pay for my choice not to be poisoned by
subsidy inbreds like yourself, I choose where and who I buy or sell
from, you are apparently too dumb to work it out, even though the
writing was on the wall years ago.

Sub 50 should cover you and the other Bennies quite nicely.
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:
: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message
...
: : In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: : I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world
: : should tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage
: : they cause.
:
: : so if you are rich you are allowed to pollute? [...]
:
: Basically you would only be permitted to make a mess if
: reasonable steps to clean it up afterwards followed.
:
: More realistic than attempts to curb pollution entirely -
: and more environmentally friendly than permitting it to
: go on unchecked.

: just stop the pollution in the first place. ban the flying of fruit. If
it
: cannot survive by sea then tough

I don't think that is a realistic goal, though.

so you would happily let the destruction of the environment continue


: lot easier than trying to undo the damage the plane did in the first
place

Indeed - but you can't ground the world's planes without a pretty
convincing case.

we aren't, we are saying no flying luxury freight, send it by sea.

OK so supermarket margins might suffer
but on the bright side, the third world, rather than cash cropping to pander
to wealthy europeans (often in european or US owned plantations sending
profits back to EU or US) could grow food crops for themselves

Jim Webster

On Thu, 29 May 2003 17:49:39 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
: In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:
: : "Tim Tyler" wrote in message
...
: : In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: : I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world
: : should tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage
: : they cause.
:
: : so if you are rich you are allowed to pollute? [...]
:
: Basically you would only be permitted to make a mess if
: reasonable steps to clean it up afterwards followed.
:
: More realistic than attempts to curb pollution entirely -
: and more environmentally friendly than permitting it to
: go on unchecked.

: just stop the pollution in the first place. ban the flying of fruit. If
it
: cannot survive by sea then tough

I don't think that is a realistic goal, though.

so you would happily let the destruction of the environment continue


: lot easier than trying to undo the damage the plane did in the first
place

Indeed - but you can't ground the world's planes without a pretty
convincing case.

we aren't, we are saying no flying luxury freight, send it by sea.

OK so supermarket margins might suffer
but on the bright side, the third world, rather than cash cropping to pander
to wealthy europeans (often in european or US owned plantations sending
profits back to EU or US) could grow food crops for themselves

Since when have you shown any concern for anyone but yourself and a
few other subsidy goats?

Don't try and kid us now, do you really think we came in on the last
free trade banana boat?
--








So, you dont like reasoned,
well thought out, civil debate?

I understand.

/´¯/)
/¯../
/..../
/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
/'/.../..../......./¨¯\
('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
\.................'...../
''...\.......... _.·´
\..............(
\.............\..

Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:43409 uk.rec.gardening:146199 uk.rec.natural-history:14920 uk.business.agricultu114194

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
:: Tim Tyler writes

::I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
::tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.
:
:: Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.
:
:: If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
:: pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution
:: would never have happened.
:
:The consumer just wants the fruit.
:
:Where it is grown - and whether it is transported by burning fossil fuels
:- is not under their control,

: ********. Just refuse to buy imported products.

Well, you could do that - at least in the cases where the country of
origin is known to your suppliers.

:and consequently it's hard to see how they
:can be held responsible for any resulting damage.

: By buying them. They are the SOLE cause.
: If they didn't buy them, they wouldn't be shipped over.
: YOU are responsible.

No event as complex as shipping fruit around can possibly
have a single cause.

You could equally well argue that if the farmer didn't pick them,
they wouldn't be shipped over - or if the aeroplane pilot
didn't take off they wouldn't be shipped over.

:Even if they /could/ specify how it was done, blame would still not
:be clear:
:
:If A pays B to shoot C, who should be imprisoned for C's murder?

: A and B, in all courts of law I know of.

You suprise me - A has committed no murder.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

Tim Tyler writes
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
:: Tim Tyler writes

::I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world should
::tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they cause.
:
:: Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.
:
:: If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
:: pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution
:: would never have happened.
:
:The consumer just wants the fruit.
:
:Where it is grown - and whether it is transported by burning fossil fuels
:- is not under their control,

: ********. Just refuse to buy imported products.

Well, you could do that -

And if you have conservationist views, you SHOULD do that.
All else is hypocrisy.

at least in the cases where the country of
origin is known to your suppliers.

Usually there is some indication on the packet/box.
Otherwise tropical fruits typically come from the tropics is a
reasonable guide.

:and consequently it's hard to see how they
:can be held responsible for any resulting damage.

: By buying them. They are the SOLE cause.
: If they didn't buy them, they wouldn't be shipped over.
: YOU are responsible.

No event as complex as shipping fruit around can possibly
have a single cause.

It does. The cause is consumer demand allowing a business to produce
them to be set up. It's horribly simple.

You could equally well argue that if the farmer didn't pick them,
they wouldn't be shipped over - or if the aeroplane pilot
didn't take off they wouldn't be shipped over.

No, because they are directly doing it on behalf of and paid for by the
consumer.

:Even if they /could/ specify how it was done, blame would still not
:be clear:
:
:If A pays B to shoot C, who should be imprisoned for C's murder?

: A and B, in all courts of law I know of.

You suprise me - A has committed no murder.

Murder by proxy.
On you argument they should kill the gun used,
and let both A & B go free.

You have a sterile argument.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
news
Peter Duncanson writes
On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:04:58 GMT, Malcolm wrote:

Yeah but not many of us will deliberately coat liberal; quantities of
highly toxic poisons onto peoples foodstuffs, not knowingly anyway,
and then still claim innocence.

I think knowledgeable people here (uk.business.agriculture) have, and
will,
challenge(d) your reference to "highly toxic poisons".

Unlikely, he's probably been killfiled by everyone due to a sub-70 IQ
and total inability to learn anything at all.

not only that but his definition of highly toxic can only be described as
eccentric, due to the sheer number of people who resolutely refuse to die
after eating all these highly toxic poisions.
After all he is the one who washes food with detergent but cannot cope with
the fact that the most dangerous thing about roundup is the other contents
of the tank mix

Jim Webste

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
:: Tim Tyler writes

::I'm not sure how best to deal with pollution. Probably the world
should
::tax the pollutors - and use the proceeds to undo the damage they
cause.
:
:: Ultimately the consumer is the polluter.
:
:: If they did not demand and buy the things that have caused the
:: pollution, then they would never have been made and the pollution
:: would never have happened.
:
:The consumer just wants the fruit.
:
:Where it is grown - and whether it is transported by burning fossil
fuels
:- is not under their control,

: ********. Just refuse to buy imported products.

Well, you could do that - at least in the cases where the country of
origin is known to your suppliers.

just look at the fruit, if it isn't produce of EU it has a fair chance of
being flown in


:and consequently it's hard to see how they
:can be held responsible for any resulting damage.

: By buying them. They are the SOLE cause.
: If they didn't buy them, they wouldn't be shipped over.
: YOU are responsible.

No event as complex as shipping fruit around can possibly
have a single cause.

don't buy them, they will not be grown

You could equally well argue that if the farmer didn't pick them,
they wouldn't be shipped over - or if the aeroplane pilot
didn't take off they wouldn't be shipped over.

just don't buy them, put yourself out rather than blaming everyone else

:Even if they /could/ specify how it was done, blame would still not
:be clear:
:
:If A pays B to shoot C, who should be imprisoned for C's murder?

: A and B, in all courts of law I know of.

You suprise me - A has committed no murder.

the person who hires the hit man gets life, this is a regular even in UK
cases where it crops up. Hire a police detective posing as a hitman to
murder your wife and you could end up getting an awful long sentence even
through she is still living

Jim Webster
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/