Jinx wrote:

> then he cannot, to use a buzz-phrase, "take the moral high ground". 

I think we're getting to the bottom of the thing :)

I didn't feel that he was taking a moral high ground. 

I'm parting a bit to somewhere else, but it is closely related to why I
don't feel that. Industrial mass-production has taken many things far away
from the consumer, and given people (including me of course) lots of things
in their hands that they don't have much connection with, not with the
production process and not with what's going on when using. The many
environmental problems we're having are a result of that, and so is the
almost uncontrolled proliferation of war material in poor countries, to
cite just two examples. 

IMO it's worthwhile trying to say "there might be going on more than you
think there is". This is IMO not (necessarily) taking a moral high ground,
but rather a necessity of our living conditions. Something that doesn't
happen often enough. 


> I was made aware of this site this morning, because of a Parliament
> issue going on in NZ
> 
> www.petitiononline.com
> 
> You can find petitions to ban and save just about anything, including
> fireworks

And just as many petitions to revoke bans of fireworks it seems :)

http://tinyurl.com/ygjapp 

Anyway... one question is whether the fireworks are worth the wildfires
they inevitably cause in certain (dry) regions. One could try to fall back
to the personal responsibility principle, but that's difficult with
fireworks. How do you track the one piece that started the fire (if you
find it) to the person who launched it?

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist