Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:29:06 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 12/4/2010 5:38 AM, Leland Torrence wrote:
> and we were told it was considered a sustainable source.
>
Leland,
"... we were told..." When I looked into ipe a few years ago, and you
may be able to find some of that inquiry in the BP archives, one
predominant unresolved question was that though it is purported to be
from a 'sustainable source' that despite any paperwork indicating same
that it could very likely not be, and more probably is not, from a
sustainable source. In the case of being told a source is sustainable if
the speaker means in fact that they can sustain supplying it to you as
long as you pay for it then I presume then yes that it is sustainable.
][<
--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
|
|