On Thu, 29 May 2003 22:09:38 +0100, Oz wrote:

Peter Duncanson writes

Oz:
What do you mean by wholesale?

I was afraid someone might ask that!

A dictionary definition is: "of, relating to, or engaged in the sale of
commodities in quantity for resale".

Hmmm.

Well for vegetables typically it's one stop, grower to supermarket.
So none.

I used the word wholesale for completeness.
It occurred to me after posting that supermarkets have absorbed into
themselves the traditional functions of a wholesaler.

For things like flour, grain stores at millers are typically a few
weeks (or less). Flour stores are probably much less.

--
Peter Duncanson
UK

Tim Tyler writes

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

My diet is the way it is for health reasons; conservationist issues
enter into the picture only rather peripherally.

It would be interesting to know what ailment you suffer from, as your
diet doesn't seem to gell with anything I can think of.


::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.

It does not. Perhaps you need to look up the word "cause" in a dictionary?

Rubbish. If the consumer didn;t demand them, they would never be
shipped, and never be produced. The consumer is the direct 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.

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

Nobody's forcing them to perform these actions. The pilot takes off
under his own free will. There is no coercion. If he was concerned
about the environment he could simply avoid taking the action that
directly damages it.

Indeed he could. Then the consumer would complain about free trade and
object mightily to the unreasonable strike on flying the fruit and veg
to them. Then the consumer would get no fruit and veg, and the farmer
and pilots would do something else.

This doesn't mean the pilot is a cause of the shipping, any more than
the aeroplane is a cause. The cause is the demands of 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.

Conspiring to commit murder is a bit of a different crime from murder.

Not in all the ethical systems I know.

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

No - guns can't choose.

A chose to cause the death of C, remember?

If you hit someone with a club, you are the offender - not the club -
since it has no freedom to behave otherwise.

That's why both A & B go to jail.

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

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
Could I invite a select few to try the M6 in Cumbria,
north of Junction 36.
Motoring as it used to be, I have found myself doing 80 in
the left hand
lane with no other vehicle in sight

Problem is getting there Jim. Lower down it is as bad, or
worse, as the M25.

Thellwell viaduct is being worked on at the moment, talking to those who
have to cross it, it has virtually cut the country in half. You have to
cross it before 7am

Jim Webster

In article , Jim Webster
writes

"Old Codger" wrote in message
. ..
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
Could I invite a select few to try the M6 in Cumbria,
north of Junction 36.
Motoring as it used to be, I have found myself doing 80 in
the left hand
lane with no other vehicle in sight

Problem is getting there Jim. Lower down it is as bad, or
worse, as the M25.

Thellwell viaduct is being worked on at the moment, talking to those who
have to cross it, it has virtually cut the country in half. You have to
cross it before 7am

There was no hold up at all the other day at about 3 pm.

But I agree with you about the northern section of the M6.

--
Malcolm

In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
Could I invite a select few to try the M6 in Cumbria,
north of Junction 36.
Motoring as it used to be, I have found myself doing 80 in
the left hand
lane with no other vehicle in sight

Problem is getting there Jim. Lower down it is as bad, or
worse, as the M25.

Thellwell viaduct is being worked on at the moment, talking to those who
have to cross it, it has virtually cut the country in half. You have to
cross it before 7am

It's Thelwall isn't it, or are there lots of little Shetland ponies
on it?

--
Chris Green )

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , Jim Webster
writes

"Old Codger" wrote in message
. ..
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
Could I invite a select few to try the M6 in Cumbria,
north of Junction 36.
Motoring as it used to be, I have found myself doing 80 in
the left hand
lane with no other vehicle in sight

Problem is getting there Jim. Lower down it is as bad, or
worse, as the M25.

Thellwell viaduct is being worked on at the moment, talking to those who
have to cross it, it has virtually cut the country in half. You have to
cross it before 7am

There was no hold up at all the other day at about 3 pm.

perhaps it is down to morning and evening rush hours now?


But I agree with you about the northern section of the M6.

not only that but it is a nice drive as well, a scenic motorway

Jim Webster
--
Malcolm

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

Nobody's forcing them to perform these actions. The pilot takes off
under his own free will. There is no coercion. If he was concerned
about the environment he could simply avoid taking the action that
directly damages it.




If a pilot refuses to fly the aircraft, then another pilot will be found
who will.

If a consumer refuses to buy a flown product or buy an aircraft trip then
there is a small reduction
in the pollution caused by that transport.

The consumer is the key to most voluntary production. Illegal drugs are a
prime example where all other methods
of stopping trade fail while there are consumers willing to pay.

Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:43471 uk.rec.gardening:146366 uk.rec.natural-history:14969 uk.business.agricultu114307

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

:: And if you have conservationist views, you SHOULD do that.
:: All else is hypocrisy.
:
:My diet is the way it is for health reasons; conservationist issues
:enter into the picture only rather peripherally.

: It would be interesting to know what ailment you suffer from, as your
: diet doesn't seem to gell with anything I can think of.

I have no idea what gives you the impression that I'm ill.

:::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.
:
:It does not. Perhaps you need to look up the word "cause" in a dictionary?

: Rubbish. If the consumer didn;t demand them, they would never be
: shipped, and never be produced.

The latter is not debated. However the claim that the
consumer is the sole cause of the event is still not correct.

::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.
:
:Nobody's forcing them to perform these actions. The pilot takes off
:under his own free will. There is no coercion. If he was concerned
:about the environment he could simply avoid taking the action that
:directly damages it.

: Indeed he could. Then the consumer would complain about free trade and
: object mightily to the unreasonable strike on flying the fruit and veg
: to them. [...]

More likely the airline would quickly hire someone else with fewer
environmental scruples.

: This doesn't mean the pilot is a cause of the shipping, any more than
: the aeroplane is a cause.

The airplane has no volition - and can't initiate things by itself.

The pilot however can. He is not even permitting harm to happen by
inaction. He actions are the most direct and immediate cause of the
pollution.

:::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.
:
:Conspiring to commit murder is a bit of a different crime from murder.

: Not in all the ethical systems I know.

In our legal system, for example, though - and in that of the USA -
where conspiring to commit murder is generally treated less severely
than maiming or assault with a dangerous weapon.

:: On you argument they should kill the gun used, and let both A & B go free.
:
:No - guns can't choose.

: A chose to cause the death of C, remember?

B caused the death of C - by pulling the trigger.

A can only cause B to do something directly if he eliminates B's
freedom of action - e.g. by drugging or hypnotizing him - otherwise
B's actions are the result of B's choices.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

On Fri, 30 May 2003 09:10:10 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:



not only that but it is a nice drive as well, a scenic motorway

Jim Webster


It's the best way to explore the eastern fringe of the Lake District.
Beautiful drive, taking you direct to the heart of an unspoiled and
unfrequented area. Then walk in through quiet valleys with cracking
views, up on to peaks where you may well be completely alone.

--
Paul

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com/myweb/index.htm
Updated 13th May 2003

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

:: And if you have conservationist views, you SHOULD do that.
:: All else is hypocrisy.
:
:My diet is the way it is for health reasons; conservationist issues
:enter into the picture only rather peripherally.

: It would be interesting to know what ailment you suffer from, as your
: diet doesn't seem to gell with anything I can think of.

I have no idea what gives you the impression that I'm ill.

A strange diet "for health reasons". Usually means some illness or
other.

: Rubbish. If the consumer didn;t demand them, they would never be
: shipped, and never be produced.

The latter is not debated. However the claim that the
consumer is the sole cause of the event is still not correct.

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle .....

: Indeed he could. Then the consumer would complain about free trade and
: object mightily to the unreasonable strike on flying the fruit and veg
: to them. [...]

More likely the airline would quickly hire someone else with fewer
environmental scruples.

That's why environmentally minded people should do their stuff at every
opportunity. 2M brits refusing to eat air miles WILL have a significant
effect.

:::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.
:
:Conspiring to commit murder is a bit of a different crime from murder.

: Not in all the ethical systems I know.

In our legal system, for example, though - and in that of the USA -
where conspiring to commit murder is generally treated less severely
than maiming or assault with a dangerous weapon.

Maybe slightly less, but not in the case of a contract killingt.

: A chose to cause the death of C, remember?

B caused the death of C - by pulling the trigger.

A can only cause B to do something directly if he eliminates B's
freedom of action - e.g. by drugging or hypnotizing him - otherwise
B's actions are the result of B's choices.

Bollox. You have a disturbed ethical viewpoint.

One might as well say a president who told an aircraft to nuke london
would not be primarily responsible for the deaths.

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

In article , Jim Webster
writes
"Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In article , Jim Webster
writes
"Old Codger" wrote in message
. ..
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
Could I invite a select few to try the M6 in Cumbria,
north of Junction 36.
Motoring as it used to be, I have found myself doing 80 in
the left hand
lane with no other vehicle in sight

Problem is getting there Jim. Lower down it is as bad, or
worse, as the M25.

Thellwell viaduct is being worked on at the moment, talking to those who
have to cross it, it has virtually cut the country in half. You have to
cross it before 7am

There was no hold up at all the other day at about 3 pm.

perhaps it is down to morning and evening rush hours now?

But I agree with you about the northern section of the M6.

not only that but it is a nice drive as well, a scenic motorway

Not only that but it leads to Scotland :-)

--
Malcolm

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

:Nobody's forcing them to perform these actions. The pilot takes off
:under his own free will. There is no coercion. If he was concerned
:about the environment he could simply avoid taking the action that
:directly damages it.

: Indeed he could. Then the consumer would complain about free trade and
: object mightily to the unreasonable strike on flying the fruit and veg
: to them. [...]

More likely the airline would quickly hire someone else with fewer
environmental scruples.

: This doesn't mean the pilot is a cause of the shipping, any more than
: the aeroplane is a cause.

The airplane has no volition - and can't initiate things by itself.

The pilot however can. He is not even permitting harm to happen by
inaction. He actions are the most direct and immediate cause of the
pollution.


I have seen some wriggling but that takes some beating. So if consumers
stopped buying imported fruit airlines and supermarkets would still persist
in importing the stuff and stacking it up to rot in stores in an attempt to
shame people into buying it?



Jim Webster

wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
Could I invite a select few to try the M6 in Cumbria,
north of Junction 36.
Motoring as it used to be, I have found myself doing 80 in
the left hand
lane with no other vehicle in sight

Problem is getting there Jim. Lower down it is as bad, or
worse, as the M25.

Thellwell viaduct is being worked on at the moment, talking to those who
have to cross it, it has virtually cut the country in half. You have to
cross it before 7am

It's Thelwall isn't it, or are there lots of little Shetland ponies
on it?

I blame stubbsy, disposing of all those Shetland Stallions

Jim Webster

--
Chris Green )

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...
But I agree with you about the northern section of the M6.

not only that but it is a nice drive as well, a scenic motorway

Not only that but it leads to Scotland :-)


and even more importantly out again

thus encouraging scots to hurtle past in their journey south, limiting the
time they spend in Cumbria :-))

Jim Webster
--
Malcolm

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 May 2003 09:10:10 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:



not only that but it is a nice drive as well, a scenic motorway

Jim Webster


It's the best way to explore the eastern fringe of the Lake District.
Beautiful drive, taking you direct to the heart of an unspoiled and
unfrequented area. Then walk in through quiet valleys with cracking
views, up on to peaks where you may well be completely alone.


yes it must be a pretty unique motorway. And the eastern edge of the Lakes
is even more unspoiled than the western

Jim Webster

--
Paul

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com/myweb/index.htm
Updated 13th May 2003