In article <Jk_wj.13926$XI.11650@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Seth wrote:
> > In article <uimvj.8568$5K1.6427@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> "Wayne Throop" <throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> news:1203626461@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>> So, you're saying that if you make deterrence cheaper
> >>> (in terms of money, time, and bureaucratic hassle),
> >>> you'll get more of it, right?
> >> But now you're talking about secondary effects.
> >
> > Making deterrence cheaper leading to more of it isn't a secondary
> > effect any more than making chocolate cheaper leads to more of it
> > (being bought and consumed).
> >
>
>
> I don't buy cheap chocolate - it invariably turns out to be cr*p.
Replace "cheap" with "inexpensive" to eliminate the ambiguity in the
former term.
Of course, your conclusion might still hold.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
|
