🚀 go-pugleaf

eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
=In article <2997802C.21324@ics.uci.edu> mludwig@ics.uci.edu
=(Michael Scott Ludwig) writes:
=>Whether you yourself litter or not makes very little difference on how dirty
=>our streets and parks are.  So that means it's okay to litter, right?  But
=>this ignores the fact that litter will never completely disappear if you
=>litter.
=
=Very good!
=
=However raise this issue say (3 months "after the media, Government"
=declares 'victory.')

I get your point that less people would believe it, but I don't think it
would be any less true.

=The key must be the development of an awareness that we have problems which
=are not easily detectable (sensible).  That the world interconnected by
=more than computer networks.  You can see litter, and I even know an
=environmental slant which would encourage you to litter (Abbey).

Hmmm?  Why do they encourage litter?  (The only reason I can think of is
that they would claim that lots of trash in a small area is too harmful to
that area.)

Also, since people sometimes disagree on which specific things fall in a
certain category, how widely is it accepted that they are an environmental
group?


"Planet Bog - pools of toxic chemicals | Michael Ludwig
bubble under a choking atmosphere      |
of poisonous gases.  But aside from    | mludwig@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
that, it's not much like Earth."       |
        - Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes)  | UCI and I don't agree on anything.