Members roughtrade Posted November 17, 2011 Members Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'm not sure that you proved that Gibson was singled out, either. You clearly showed that Martin and Taylor execs were exposed to the same display by the environmentalists and you include that they did discontinue business with the grey area vendors, but Gibson didn't. Good luck on your essay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GAS Man Posted November 17, 2011 Members Share Posted November 17, 2011 Henry's Maple Got Baked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members d_dave_c Posted November 17, 2011 Members Share Posted November 17, 2011 Nice. I like the essay. I think the second paragraph gets a little clunky in places, especially: It is in this act that has caused Gibson trouble over the last two years. In both raids, investigators believe that the wood Gibson obtained was undercut, and not finished in for legal sale in the foreign countries (Hagerty). That first sentence is kinda jumbled, and you might not want to use 'act' as it can get confused with 'the Act' (Lacey Act). The second sentence is also a little clunky, and you haven't established that there were two raids yet. I like that you're using the raids for a paper. Howzabout 'Logjam: The Knotty Business of Tropical Hardwood Regulation' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimmy Chitown Posted November 18, 2011 Members Share Posted November 18, 2011 "Firewood X" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.