Asp Forum - Amount differs after Packing Slip - microsoft.public.axapta.programming

vishnu

1/3/2006 11:42:00 AM

Hi all,
I just want to know whether i am right or wrong.
I have created a purch order in other currency(e.g. CAD) and the
currency of the company is EUR. When i have done the packing slip of the PO
and i see the details of the voucher from the inquiry of this PO then i see
that there is amount in CAD in both the fields AmountCur amd AmountMST but
the currency, it showing is, EUR.
I think either there should be currency CAD with AmounCur field value
in CAD currency and AmountMST in EUR OR let the currency be EUR but
the AmountcCur and AmountMST field value in EUR currency.
Please if any one can give me valuable suggestions then most welcome.

Thanks

Vishnu Prakash Verma

38 Answers

Ankit Rajvanshi

1/10/2006 6:31:00 AM

Hi Vishnu
This a standard Axapta Functionality. All the vouchers are shown in the
company base currency only. So the voucher you are checking is displaying the
base curreny only that is EURO. Amount are also showing in base currency. If
you post this PO, then after clicking Origin you can check both the
currencies. At the time of packing slip it will only display the amounts in
base currency only.
The reason behind this is that at the time of packing slip posting financial
transaction is not posted only physical transaction is posted so its just
showing the data in base currency and once you invoice the PO then the
financial transaction is posted and the amount are displayed in selected
currency also. So you just invoice the PO and check in Origin.

Thanks
Ankit Rajvanshi

"vishnu" wrote:

> Hi all,
> I just want to know whether i am right or wrong.
> I have created a purch order in other currency(e.g. CAD) and the
> currency of the company is EUR. When i have done the packing slip of the PO
> and i see the details of the voucher from the inquiry of this PO then i see
> that there is amount in CAD in both the fields AmountCur amd AmountMST but
> the currency, it showing is, EUR.
> I think either there should be currency CAD with AmounCur field value
> in CAD currency and AmountMST in EUR OR let the currency be EUR but
> the AmountcCur and AmountMST field value in EUR currency.
> Please if any one can give me valuable suggestions then most welcome.
>
> Thanks
>
> Vishnu Prakash Verma

dechucka

12/13/2010 3:59:00 AM

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4d059658$0$3033$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce CO2
>>> emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>
>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>
> OK.
>
> Is it binding?

No
>
> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?

Yes

>
> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?

Haven't seen all the pledges so don't know

>
> Exactly which part of "World's nations unanimously make non-binding
> agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some future
> time." do you think is incorrect?
>
>
>
>
>
>> Very good basis but isn't going to fully limit the global warming
>> occuring now
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/un-deal-sets-pace-for-emissions-20101212-...
>>
>> UN deal sets pace for emissions Adam Morton and Simon Mann IN CANCUN
>> December 13, 2010
>> .A LAST-MINUTE agreement at United Nations talks has increased pressure
>> on the Gillard government to lift its ambition in tackling climate
>> change, with the Greens saying Labor has ''no choice'' not to set a more
>> ambitious target than a 5 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
>>
>> A final overnight session ended with UN negotiators for the first time
>> backing an agreement that formally included targets from the US, China
>> and India.
>>
>> Advertisement: Story continues below The deal included arrangements for
>> protecting rainforests and a planned $US100 billion ($101 billion) green
>> climate fund to help the most vulnerable nations cope with the effects of
>> climate change.
>>
>> The Cancun agreement included steps to ensure transparency in emissions
>> measurement and reporting - a key sticking point for China and the US at
>> last year's disastrous conference in Copenhagen.
>>
>> But while representatives from more than 190 countries agreed to seek
>> ''deep cuts'' in emissions, the deal does not include targets big enough
>> to meet the goal of limiting the global temperature rise since
>> industrialisation to 2 degrees.
>>
>> Researchers for the Climate Action Tracker estimated the emissions
>> pledges would set the world on course for 3.2 degrees warming - enough,
>> scientists say, to cause droughts, crop failure, species extinction and
>> increased damage from floods and storms.
>>
>> Despite this, climate activists welcomed the deal as a step forward that
>> could lay the groundwork for a binding treaty in South Africa next year,
>> or Rio de Janeiro in 2012.
>>
>> The Climate Institute deputy chief executive, Erwin Jackson, said it was
>> a more significant result than the 2007 Bali climate conference, when
>> wealthy nations recognised they should cut emissions by 25-40 per cent by
>> 2020.
>>
>> ''It has broken the back of starting to capture all the major emitters in
>> a legally binding framework,'' he said.
>>
>> The Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, said the conference was a
>> ''historic step forward'' but that a lot of work remained if there was to
>> be a single treaty covering all big emitters.
>>
>> The Greens deputy leader, Christine Milne, said the agreement would raise
>> the stakes in the Australia climate debate as the multi-party climate
>> committee sought a deal to introduce carbon price legislation next year.
>>
>> She said Labor had no choice but to increase its ''inexcusably weak''
>> pledge to cut emissions by between 5 and 25 per cent below 2000 levels by
>> 2020.
>>
>> ''The world's poorest countries made very significant concessions in
>> these negotiations in order to keep the UN process alive,'' Senator Milne
>> said. ''Next time around rich countries like Australia will be expected
>> to make similarly substantial contributions.''
>>
>> The Coalition climate action spokesman, Greg Hunt, said the results at
>> Cancun were modest, and would not sway it from opposing a carbon price.
>>
>> The agreement bought more time for nations to negotiate a second
>> commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, although that
>> process remains fraught.
>>
>
> Hmmm. Non-binding. No emission reduction requirements. No date.
>
> As long as they all had a good time, that's the main thing.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> But really, the weather in Cancun looked delightful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

asdf

12/13/2010 4:00:00 AM

Peter Webb wrote:
> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce CO2
>>> emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>
>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>
> OK.
>
> Is it binding?
>

No. It's a statement of intention.

> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?
>

No. It's a statement of intention.

> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?
>

No. It's a statement of intention.

> Exactly which part of "World's nations unanimously make non-binding
> agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some future
> time." do you think is incorrect?

No. It's a statement of intention.

Peter, Peter, Pontificator can't see the wood for the trees again.

....and the idiot thinks he thinks something about diplomacy.

Stop looking at the details, and please, for the love of your chosen deity,
please try to embrace the bigger picture.

I'm not holding my breath.

[snip rest of irrelevance]

dechucka

12/13/2010 4:09:00 AM

"asdf" <asdf@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message
news:xuOdnUO-B86lB5jQnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
> Peter Webb wrote:
>> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce CO2
>>>> emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>>
>>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Is it binding?
>>
>
> No. It's a statement of intention.
>
>> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?
>>
>
> No. It's a statement of intention.

Do individual Countries make the reduction levels?

>
>> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?
>>
>
> No. It's a statement of intention.

I wonder if individual countries do?
>
>> Exactly which part of "World's nations unanimously make non-binding
>> agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some future
>> time." do you think is incorrect?
>
>
> No. It's a statement of intention.
>
> Peter, Peter, Pontificator can't see the wood for the trees again.
>
> ...and the idiot thinks he thinks something about diplomacy.
>
> Stop looking at the details, and please, for the love of your chosen
> deity, please try to embrace the bigger picture.
>
> I'm not holding my breath.
>
> [snip rest of irrelevance]
>

asdf

12/13/2010 4:20:00 AM

dechucka wrote:
> "asdf" <asdf@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message
> news:xuOdnUO-B86lB5jQnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>> Peter Webb wrote:
>>> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
>>>> message news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce
>>>>> CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Is it binding?
>>>
>>
>> No. It's a statement of intention.
>>
>>> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?
>>>
>>
>> No. It's a statement of intention.
>
> Do individual Countries make the reduction levels?
>
>>
>>> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?
>>>
>>
>> No. It's a statement of intention.
>
> I wonder if individual countries do?

That wasn't the question.

>>
>>> Exactly which part of "World's nations unanimously make non-binding
>>> agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some
>>> future time." do you think is incorrect?
>>
>>
>> No. It's a statement of intention.
>>
>> Peter, Peter, Pontificator can't see the wood for the trees again.
>>
>> ...and the idiot thinks he thinks something about diplomacy.
>>
>> Stop looking at the details, and please, for the love of your chosen
>> deity, please try to embrace the bigger picture.
>>
>> I'm not holding my breath.
>>
>> [snip rest of irrelevance]

--

Peter Webb

12/13/2010 4:36:00 AM

"dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mbednSCxkPKLB5jQnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4d059658$0$3033$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce CO2
>>>> emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>>
>>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Is it binding?
>
> No
>>
>> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?
>
> Yes
>

What emmission reduction did Australia agree to?

>>
>> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?
>
> Haven't seen all the pledges so don't know
>

So, it is non-binding, does not specify the cuts which countries must meet,
and is not required by any particular time?

>>
>> Exactly which part of "World's nations unanimously make non-binding
>> agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some future
>> time." do you think is incorrect?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Very good basis but isn't going to fully limit the global warming
>>> occuring now
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/un-deal-sets-pace-for-emissions-20101212-...
>>>
>>> UN deal sets pace for emissions Adam Morton and Simon Mann IN CANCUN
>>> December 13, 2010
>>> .A LAST-MINUTE agreement at United Nations talks has increased pressure
>>> on the Gillard government to lift its ambition in tackling climate
>>> change, with the Greens saying Labor has ''no choice'' not to set a more
>>> ambitious target than a 5 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
>>>
>>> A final overnight session ended with UN negotiators for the first time
>>> backing an agreement that formally included targets from the US, China
>>> and India.
>>>
>>> Advertisement: Story continues below The deal included arrangements for
>>> protecting rainforests and a planned $US100 billion ($101 billion) green
>>> climate fund to help the most vulnerable nations cope with the effects
>>> of climate change.
>>>
>>> The Cancun agreement included steps to ensure transparency in emissions
>>> measurement and reporting - a key sticking point for China and the US at
>>> last year's disastrous conference in Copenhagen.
>>>
>>> But while representatives from more than 190 countries agreed to seek
>>> ''deep cuts'' in emissions, the deal does not include targets big enough
>>> to meet the goal of limiting the global temperature rise since
>>> industrialisation to 2 degrees.
>>>
>>> Researchers for the Climate Action Tracker estimated the emissions
>>> pledges would set the world on course for 3.2 degrees warming - enough,
>>> scientists say, to cause droughts, crop failure, species extinction and
>>> increased damage from floods and storms.
>>>
>>> Despite this, climate activists welcomed the deal as a step forward that
>>> could lay the groundwork for a binding treaty in South Africa next year,
>>> or Rio de Janeiro in 2012.
>>>
>>> The Climate Institute deputy chief executive, Erwin Jackson, said it was
>>> a more significant result than the 2007 Bali climate conference, when
>>> wealthy nations recognised they should cut emissions by 25-40 per cent
>>> by 2020.
>>>
>>> ''It has broken the back of starting to capture all the major emitters
>>> in a legally binding framework,'' he said.
>>>
>>> The Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, said the conference was a
>>> ''historic step forward'' but that a lot of work remained if there was
>>> to be a single treaty covering all big emitters.
>>>
>>> The Greens deputy leader, Christine Milne, said the agreement would
>>> raise the stakes in the Australia climate debate as the multi-party
>>> climate committee sought a deal to introduce carbon price legislation
>>> next year.
>>>
>>> She said Labor had no choice but to increase its ''inexcusably weak''
>>> pledge to cut emissions by between 5 and 25 per cent below 2000 levels
>>> by 2020.
>>>
>>> ''The world's poorest countries made very significant concessions in
>>> these negotiations in order to keep the UN process alive,'' Senator
>>> Milne said. ''Next time around rich countries like Australia will be
>>> expected to make similarly substantial contributions.''
>>>
>>> The Coalition climate action spokesman, Greg Hunt, said the results at
>>> Cancun were modest, and would not sway it from opposing a carbon price.
>>>
>>> The agreement bought more time for nations to negotiate a second
>>> commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, although that
>>> process remains fraught.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Non-binding. No emission reduction requirements. No date.
>>
>> As long as they all had a good time, that's the main thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But really, the weather in Cancun looked delightful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

asdf

12/13/2010 4:39:00 AM

Peter Webb wrote:
> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mbednSCxkPKLB5jQnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4d059658$0$3033$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
>>>> message news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce
>>>>> CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Is it binding?
>>
>> No
>>>
>>> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>
> What emmission reduction did Australia agree to?
>

It's a statement of intention.

>
>>>
>>> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?
>>
>> Haven't seen all the pledges so don't know
>>
>
> So, it is non-binding, does not specify the cuts which countries must
> meet, and is not required by any particular time?
>

It's a statement of intention.

>
>>>
>>> Exactly which part of "World's nations unanimously make non-binding
>>> agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some
>>> future time." do you think is incorrect?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Very good basis but isn't going to fully limit the global warming
>>>> occuring now
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/un-deal-sets-pace-for-emissions-20101212-...
>>>>
>>>> UN deal sets pace for emissions Adam Morton and Simon Mann IN
>>>> CANCUN December 13, 2010
>>>> .A LAST-MINUTE agreement at United Nations talks has increased
>>>> pressure on the Gillard government to lift its ambition in
>>>> tackling climate change, with the Greens saying Labor has ''no
>>>> choice'' not to set a more ambitious target than a 5 per cent cut
>>>> in greenhouse gas emissions. A final overnight session ended with UN
>>>> negotiators for the first
>>>> time backing an agreement that formally included targets from the
>>>> US, China and India.
>>>>
>>>> Advertisement: Story continues below The deal included
>>>> arrangements for protecting rainforests and a planned $US100
>>>> billion ($101 billion) green climate fund to help the most
>>>> vulnerable nations cope with the effects of climate change.
>>>>
>>>> The Cancun agreement included steps to ensure transparency in
>>>> emissions measurement and reporting - a key sticking point for
>>>> China and the US at last year's disastrous conference in
>>>> Copenhagen. But while representatives from more than 190 countries
>>>> agreed to
>>>> seek ''deep cuts'' in emissions, the deal does not include targets
>>>> big enough to meet the goal of limiting the global temperature
>>>> rise since industrialisation to 2 degrees.
>>>>
>>>> Researchers for the Climate Action Tracker estimated the emissions
>>>> pledges would set the world on course for 3.2 degrees warming -
>>>> enough, scientists say, to cause droughts, crop failure, species
>>>> extinction and increased damage from floods and storms.
>>>>
>>>> Despite this, climate activists welcomed the deal as a step
>>>> forward that could lay the groundwork for a binding treaty in
>>>> South Africa next year, or Rio de Janeiro in 2012.
>>>>
>>>> The Climate Institute deputy chief executive, Erwin Jackson, said
>>>> it was a more significant result than the 2007 Bali climate
>>>> conference, when wealthy nations recognised they should cut
>>>> emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020.
>>>>
>>>> ''It has broken the back of starting to capture all the major
>>>> emitters in a legally binding framework,'' he said.
>>>>
>>>> The Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, said the conference was a
>>>> ''historic step forward'' but that a lot of work remained if there
>>>> was to be a single treaty covering all big emitters.
>>>>
>>>> The Greens deputy leader, Christine Milne, said the agreement would
>>>> raise the stakes in the Australia climate debate as the multi-party
>>>> climate committee sought a deal to introduce carbon price
>>>> legislation next year.
>>>>
>>>> She said Labor had no choice but to increase its ''inexcusably
>>>> weak'' pledge to cut emissions by between 5 and 25 per cent below
>>>> 2000 levels by 2020.
>>>>
>>>> ''The world's poorest countries made very significant concessions
>>>> in these negotiations in order to keep the UN process alive,''
>>>> Senator Milne said. ''Next time around rich countries like
>>>> Australia will be expected to make similarly substantial
>>>> contributions.'' The Coalition climate action spokesman, Greg Hunt,
>>>> said the
>>>> results at Cancun were modest, and would not sway it from opposing
>>>> a carbon price. The agreement bought more time for nations to negotiate
>>>> a second
>>>> commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, although
>>>> that process remains fraught.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Non-binding. No emission reduction requirements. No date.
>>>
>>> As long as they all had a good time, that's the main thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But really, the weather in Cancun looked delightful.

It's a statement of intention.

Peter Webb

12/13/2010 4:42:00 AM

"asdf" <asdf@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message
news:xuOdnUO-B86lB5jQnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
> Peter Webb wrote:
>> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce CO2
>>>> emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>>
>>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Is it binding?
>>
>
> No. It's a statement of intention.
>

"Non-binding"

>> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?
>>
>
> No. It's a statement of intention.
>

"unspecified levels"

>> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?
>>
>
> No. It's a statement of intention.
>

"unspecifed future time"

Sounds like I was spot-on.

>> Exactly which part of "World's nations unanimously make non-binding
>> agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some future
>> time." do you think is incorrect?
>
>
> No. It's a statement of intention.
>
> Peter, Peter, Pontificator can't see the wood for the trees again.
>
> ...and the idiot thinks he thinks something about diplomacy.
>
> Stop looking at the details, and please, for the love of your chosen
> deity, please try to embrace the bigger picture.

Of course you don't want people to look at the details.

The detail is that the agreement is non-binding, does not specify CO2
reductions, and provides no date for this unspecified cuts to be made by.

>
> I'm not holding my breath.
>
> [snip rest of irrelevance]

And Combet called this a "breakthrough" !

asdf

12/13/2010 4:44:00 AM

Peter Webb wrote:
> "asdf" <asdf@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message
> news:xuOdnUO-B86lB5jQnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>> Peter Webb wrote:
>>> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
>>>> message news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce
>>>>> CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Is it binding?
>>>
>>
>> No. It's a statement of intention.
>>
>
> "Non-binding"
>
>
>>> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?
>>>
>>
>> No. It's a statement of intention.
>>
>
> "unspecified levels"
>

It's a statement of intention.

>
>>> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?
>>>
>>
>> No. It's a statement of intention.
>>
>
> "unspecifed future time"
>
> Sounds like I was spot-on.
>

It's a statement of intention.

>
>
>>> Exactly which part of "World's nations unanimously make non-binding
>>> agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to unspecified levels at some
>>> future time." do you think is incorrect?
>>
>>
>> No. It's a statement of intention.
>>
>> Peter, Peter, Pontificator can't see the wood for the trees again.
>>
>> ...and the idiot thinks he thinks something about diplomacy.
>>
>> Stop looking at the details, and please, for the love of your chosen
>> deity, please try to embrace the bigger picture.
>
> Of course you don't want people to look at the details.
>

It's a statement of intention.

> The detail is that the agreement is non-binding, does not specify CO2
> reductions, and provides no date for this unspecified cuts to be made
> by.

It's a statement of intention.

>
>
>>
>> I'm not holding my breath.
>>
>> [snip rest of irrelevance]
>
> And Combet called this a "breakthrough" !

--

dechucka

12/13/2010 4:51:00 AM

"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4d05a2d1$0$3035$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mbednSCxkPKLB5jQnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4d059658$0$3033$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> "dechucka" <vomit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:BaudnZL9ftew5pjQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:4d04f2ab$0$20240$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> World's nations unanimously make non-binding agreement to reduce CO2
>>>>> emissions to unspecified levels at some future time.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't really seem to be what your cite is saying.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Is it binding?
>>
>> No
>>>
>>> Does it specify the CO2 emmissions level?
>>
>> Yes
>>
>
> What emmission reduction did Australia agree to?

haven't seen their pledge but the Greens hope it is more than the current 5%

>
>
>>>
>>> Does it specify a date by which these cuts will be implemented?
>>
>> Haven't seen all the pledges so don't know
>>
>
> So, it is non-binding, does not specify the cuts which countries must
> meet, and is not required by any particular time?

No but the individual countries have agreed

microsoft.public.axapta.programming

Amount differs after Packing Slip

vishnu

Ankit Rajvanshi

dechucka

asdf

dechucka

asdf

Peter Webb

asdf

Peter Webb

asdf

dechucka

x Login to ForumsZone