From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Content of Recycled Paper (Was Re: A Dearth of Jobs)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:11:59 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <sjqe144@Unify.Com>, ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.080701.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> I would not recommend Gore's book to anyone with a weak stomach.... it's
>> printed on recycled paper, or in layperson's terms, it's printed on other
>> people's old garbage.  
 
> This is false, as anyone who has made even a casual attempt to inform him/her-
> self wrt recycling knows.  The only kinds of paper that are accepted for re-
> cycling are office paper (printouts, xerox and typewriter paper, etc), news-
> papers, and certain classes of cardboard.  Pizza boxes, for instance, are NOT
> accepted because of the possibility of food particles adhering to them.  Gar-
                                                                        (1)^^^^
> bage *specifically* is "spoiled or waste food" (Webster's New World Diction-
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ary, 2nd. ed., 1978, p. 575), and therefore specifically cannot be recycled.
> (Note, too, that toilet paper is also outside the definition of garbage, un-
> less cdpert01 honestly believes it's supposed to be eaten.)  In laypeople's
> terms, Gore's book is printed on other people's discarded paper, not on
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(2)
> garbage.
> 

     I am honored that someone would spend so much effort in directing
such a diatribe to little old me!  It's too bad you haven't been 
following the evolution of the 'Re: A Dearth of Jobs' postings --
you would have seen that it was basically a number of back-and-forth
*humorous* barbs.  Nevertheless, I will respond to the various issues
you have presented.
     First of all, let's look at what I underlined as (1).  My 1992
Webster's Ninth New Colligiate Dictionary has the following definition
of 'garbage':

     GARBAGE - 1 a : food waste : REFUSE
                 b : unwanted or useless material
               2 a : TRASH 1b
                 b : inaccurate or useless data

Based on definitions 1b and 2a, I believe that 'garbage' does not 
*necessarily* represent only food waste, but rather it represents 
waste in general.  (I would be very surprised if *anyone* disagrees
with me on this.)  Therefore, I believe I am correct in saying
that Gore's book is written on old garbage.
     Next, let's look at what I underlined as (2).  You make the 
inference that I have no knowledge of recycling.  Well, 
here's a fact you may not know: recycled paper in books is
not usually made with post-consumer waste, but rather with
pre-consumer waste.  Quoting Houghton-Mifflin's 1992 Almanac
(pg. 576):

     The paper we put in recycling bins rarely ends up in
     the "recycled" paper we buy for printing and writing.
     Instead, the paper we recycle is used to make low-grade
     paper products like wall insulation, while recycled 
     printing and writing paper is made from SCRAPS FROM THE
     MILL -- industrial left-overs that have always been
     recycled.  (Emphasis is mine.)

Based on (1) and (2), we can more accurately conclude that Gore's
book is written on old garbage from the paper mills.  This is
consistent with my original posting.

>> ... it is quite possible that the pages in Gore's book are made from old
>> toilet paper.  
 
> Also obviously false.  [more Cary Perttunen-bashing deleted]

     No kidding!  The thing you missed is that the 'Re: A Dearth of
Jobs' exchange is the 1992 presidential campaign in microcosm --
we were bashing each other over complete irrelevancies. (You didn't
say "obviously false" when I equated Congress with a room full
of monkeys?)  Moreover, it was a caricature of the types of 
exchanges I see on a daily basis on this newsgroup.
 
>> Recycling is definitely a tacit theme of this book -- 
 
> Good for him!  And it!  Is it truly only tacit, or does Gore actually talk
> about it overtly?  (It's been sold out here since it came out, and I haven't
> been able to see a copy, let alone read one.)

     Recycling really is not spoken of much, relatively speaking, in
his book.  That is not the bulk of the solution he gives for
the environmental 'crisis.'  So, yes, it is my opinion that
recycling is merely a tacit theme -- I have to admit that I expected
it to be the major theme.
   
> [more toilet-based bashing of Cary Perttunen deleted]

>> his solution to the environmental problem is basically recycled Marxism.
 
> This sounds like the typical garbage (definition #2 ("any worthless, unnec-
> essary, or offensive matter")) coming from the Republiars.
> 1. What does it have to do with the content, real or imagined, of recycled
>    paper?
> 2. Can cdpert01 (or anyone) give any proof whatsoever that there's any Marx-
>    ism, recycled or otherwise, in the book?  Two examples, with references,
>    would be nice.

     If you would kindly send me your definition of Marxism, I would
be more than happy to give you some examples of Marxism in Gore's
book.  I'm afraid if I use Webster's definition, you will jump
all over the points I try to make.
     I would *love* to debate this book, unfortunately none of Gore's
supporters has read it.  I put out a couple of 'feeler' postings regarding 
this book, and all I got were uninformed (i.e. not having
read the book) responses.  I am going to withhold any in-depth
analysis of this book until I have some opponents who can
'put me in my place' BASED ON THE BOOK.
     Once again, I highly recommend that you READ THE BOOK!  After
you have your Gore-asm, then we'll talk.

     Cary D. Perttunen 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics