Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Racheli Gai (racheli![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:09:31 -0800 (PST) |
Tim Mensch wrote (in part):
Let's not rehash it again: Several people on Cohousing-L posted eloquent rebuttals (IMHO) already why the claim wasn't correct, at least for mostdefinitions of "green."
Yes, I remember that we had a discussion on this a while ago (which I probably
participated in)...I don't happen to think that "rehashing" is something which shouldn't be done
if people feel like discussing something again.Personally, I don't read everything on this list as it comes through, and probably miss good discussions. I'm sure I'm not the only one... So, if topics resurface periodically, it allows people who didn't pay attention/participated before to chime in. It's also the case that discussions don't necessarily repeat themselves
exactly, so new information/ideas might come up. Thanks, Racheli.
- Re: How is "cheap" green?, (continued)
- Re: How is "cheap" green? melanie griffin, January 11 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? melanie griffin, January 11 2008
- Melanie's link doesn'yt work, was Re: How is "cheap" green? Mabel Liang, January 11 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? Tim Mensch, January 11 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Racheli Gai, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Sharon Villines, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Racheli Gai, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Tim Mensch, January 12 2008
- Re: How is "cheap" green? / "rehashing" Ed and/or Kathryn Belzer, January 12 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.