[LINK] O/t responsible consumers

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Sun Sep 5 22:48:15 EST 2010

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 10:22:01PM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 21:04 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: 
> > this can't be just explained away as the result of idiocy or ignorance
> > or even the profit motive (it's easily possible to be just as profitable
> > without making cars so insanely wasteful and inefficient).
> Those are mighty big claims you're making. I assure you that if it were
> possible to as easily be profitable without such insanity, they would be
> doing it. Actually, they'd probably do BOTH. But it's not the cost of
> doing it, it's the cost of changing over.
> > and it's not "consumer demand" because consumers, by and large, "demand"
> > whatever marketing people tell them to demand.
> That argument makes no sense. It seems to, and the words are all in the
> right order and everything, but I think you may have left out the middle
> bit.

ahhh..."makes no sense". that explains the extremely lame corporate
apologetics above - you have a comprehension problem. it's a perfectly
valid and syntactically correct sentence, with nothing missing.

it's also clear and concise and a straight-forward statement with no
ambiguity of meaning. if you can't understand it, then it's probably
impossible to rephrase it in a way that you can understand - the problem
is not in the message, it's in the recipient.

[yawn] to the rest. tldr.


craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

More information about the Link mailing list