Scotland to charge for plastic bags

[teamsaint]

But what they actually said is far less 'guarded and careful' than your paraphrase of it!

Far from saying that the government's limited actions 'might well serve to disguise/deflect from other failings', FoE point out that it is the government's intention to disguise their failings, but that they will not succeed.

Of course he isn't happy, in that he does not think this measure is enough. But he does not say, or imply, that it is therefore useless.

So the FoE DO think the government wants to disguise its failings.

As for not succeeding, well he would be daft to say otherwise.

His statement is probably far more guarded and careful than what he would really like to have said.

I never suggested that FoE said or thought that this was useless. You have quite deliberately made it look as though I suggested that he did,although I didn't.

Useless was my word, not his.I just reflected what I thought was a realistic interpretation of what he wanted to say.

But significantly , and much more importantly:

FoE think this measure is "insignificant" in terms of the scale of overall waste. Their words , not mine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26048425

[french frank]

FoE point out that it is the government's intention to disguise their failings, but that they will not succeed.

I don't think they do say that. They make it clear that they think the government's record on environmental issues is very poor. They say that this move can't disguise the fact, not that it was done deliberately (nor even in the hope) that it will disguise that inadequacy. That is adding a subjective aspect - the reader believes that to be the case, presumably, but the link is not made of any deliberate intention. Even if it were the case that the FoE spokeman had meant that, how could he possibly have known, other than by saying, well, they would, wouldn't they?

[jean]

His statement is probably far more guarded and careful than what he would really like to have said.

What do you think he would really like to have said?

[teamsaint]

What do you think he would really like to have said?

FWIW, which is nothing, I think he might have liked to have said something like:

1. The way that the government has procrastinated over this simple and inevitable EU measure is a disgrace.
2. That this is very worrying when there are so many more important green issues that need action.
3.All the delays point to a government determined to use every device possible to deflect public attention from more pressing environmental and other matters, and their own dismal record on the environment.
4.the governement appears to have no interest in green matters at all.
5.The best place for in depth discussion about this is likely the FoR3 Forum.

Perhaps he said what he really wanted to.

[Flosshilde]

But significantly , and much more importantly:

FoE think this measure is "insignificant" in terms of the scale of overall waste. Their words , not mine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26048425

a) the report you link to refers to the proposed scheme in England, not the schemes in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland

b) The complete quote from the FoE is -

"Friends of the Earth said the introduction of a plastic bag charge was a small step in the right direction but it was insignificant in terms of dealing with the scale of waste.

"Ministers must take urgent steps to slash waste and turn it into valuable resources, and save some of the phenomenal £650m a year we squander burying and burning reusable and recyclable materials," said Michael Warhurst from the group."

Note that they don't say that it's a distraction, but that it's "a small step in the right direction"

I expect that that was what he really wanted to say. It was you that suggested that it wasn't.

[teamsaint]

we really should decide if we want to use quotes in full, or little bits taken out of context.

where he says " Insignificant", what he means is " Insignificant". That bit is Pretty clear really. The FoE saying it's insignificant is good enough for me.

I do actually remember that I suggested that he might have liked to say something else. I wrote it, and then we had a little chat about whether spokespeople always said exactly what they wanted.

As for all the rest of the nit picking, probably best to let it go now.

I'll try to if you will.

[Flosshilde]

we really should decide if we want to use quotes in full, or little bits taken out of context.

where he says " Insignificant", what he means is " Insignificant". That bit is Pretty clear really. The FoE saying it's insignificant is good enough for me.

Actually it was you taking little bits out of context - I gave the full FoE quote from the report you linked to. You've taken one word that fits your interpretation.

[jean]

we really should decide if we want to use quotes in full, or little bits taken out of context.

where he says " Insignificant", what he means is " Insignificant". That bit is Pretty clear really. The FoE saying it's insignificant is good enough for me.

But out of context, unfortunately. What about a small step in the right direction?

[edit: cross-posting]

[teamsaint]

Actually it was you taking little bits out of context - I gave the full FoE quote from the report you linked to. You've taken one word that fits your interpretation.

Really, shall we let it go? All of us have quoted partially and fully from other peoples posts, and external material.

That was the final time I quoted the remark, I really couldn't be bothered to requote the whole thing each time, when it this particular case there really is no ambiguity at all, that I can see.

[teamsaint]

But out of context, unfortunately. What about a small step in the right direction?

[edit: cross-posting]

Jean , it really isn't out of context, and it was me that linked the whole piece in the first place.

here again is the full sentence.

Friends of the Earth said the introduction of a plastic bag charge was a small step in the right direction but it was insignificant in terms of dealing with the scale of waste.



I don't see any ambiguity.
I am trying to exit this discussion., because its our positions are very clear, and I don't think there is benefit in continuing it for anybody.

[Serial_Apologist]

This reminds me all to much of the arguments I used to have with my father. He would find an item in the papers to pick an argument over, and go on and go on at it all day, refusing ever to admit he might be wrong, changing the goalposts all the time to throw you off the thread of the issue. It wasn't just politics, either.

[jean]

I am trying to exit this discussion...

That's very easy - all you have to do is stop posting, and not care if someone else has the last word.

[teamsaint]

That's very easy - all you have to do is stop posting, and not care if someone else has the last word.

The subtext was that perhaps we could all do it with good grace, which is worth the effort I think.

Just stopping posting doesn't really work for me, especially on a thread like this, and on a board where there are a small number of regular posters.

[jean]

Just stopping posting doesn't really work for me, especially on a thread like this...

Hmmm...but it should work for everyone else?

[teamsaint]

Hmmm...but it should work for everyone else?

No.it doesn't work for me. It was you that mentioned "everybody else",and " having the last word."
I have tried to leave this on a civilised note.