alt.energy.renewable

On Mar 10, 1:46=A0pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 2:27 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >> Fran wrote:
> >>> On Mar 9, 5:24 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >>>> Fran wrote:
> >>>>> When will the shills for the Global Polluters Club stop spamming our=

> >>>>> news groups with disinformation?
> >>>> BAwhawhawhawhaw! Now, that is funny!
> >>>> When did usenet become 'your' newsgroup?
> >>> Never heard of the commons?
> >> You can't have it both ways. Your question begs for law enforcement.
>
> > Your objection was based on an inference that my use of the first
> > person plural possessive 'our' amounted to assertion of ownership by
> > me.
>
> 'Our' implies a 'them' and 'us' in the context you wrote it. And you
> were clearly in the 'our' group.

Everybody is in the 'our' group. It's part of the commons. Some of
'us' are clearly spruiking some commercial interest or another. That's
spamming, but it doesn'rt exclude spammers from being amongst 'us' or
spoiling the commons.

Consider a communal house. I've lived in a few. Let's say someone is
slack cleaning up their mess in the kitchen. One might say at a house
meeting "when will the inconsiderate stop messing up our kitchen after
they've eaten?"

The 'our' does not exclude, but it does attack those seeking to misuse
the commons to get private advantage.

> So it clearly implies an intent of
> 'ownership'. To move the goal post to 'me' is irrelevant as 'me' is a
> part of your 'our'.
>
> > Even going no further than the syntax, this was silly. I said
> > nothing at all about 'law enforcement' nor implied it.
>
> 'Our' implies ownership.

It implies a common interest, which is not necessarily the same as
ownership. When speaking of America's marines in Iraq, would you call
them 'our troops'? If so, does that imply you own them, or that you
control them, or that you simply see them in a corporate sense as
expressing in some way, your interests?

What about public roads? Are they 'our roads'? Does our imply shared
space or owned space?


> Ownership requires enforcement. And that
> clearly contradicts, 'common'. Go figure.....
>

Not necessarily, unless one wants to include in enforcement, social
pressure, taboo and so forth. The laws against littering are rarely
enforced, but many people observe them anyway, especially if they
think others are watching because they don't like the idea of
embarrassment. There's no law about how close behind somebody one may
stand at an ATM, but almost everybody stays at least 6 feet back
because closer would seem threatening. People shush their kids in
theatres, hold lift doors for people running and negotiate changes in
laned traffic according to cultural convention. Neither rules nor
enforcement are always necessary.

So too it is with this place. I'd like the spammers to stop. I can't
stop them though and don't wink at coercion. I do believe that when
the financial interests of the global polluters club are dissipated,
that almost all of this anti-biofuel anti-AGW spamming will stop.

> > I know there's
> > no formal way to bar spammers from usenet, and believe that any
> > attempted remedy would be worse than the disease.
>
> Your 'spammer' may be another's Messiah. Some other 'our'.
>

No, the spammer is one of us, as long as it's here.

> > I merely implied
> > that the motivation for such spamming would decline when we finally
> > made sustainability and inclusive goverance the starting point for
> > human activity.
>
> Gads. I would love to see a world singing Kumbaya. Might, on one hand,
> be boring. But would be my 'personal' pick for my children.
>

To each their own. After five stanzas of Kumbaya I'd be bored too, but
metaphorically, if everyone played nice, the world would be a better
place, and if it was occasionally boring as a consequence, I'd wear
that more easily than the horrors one sees.

> >>>> You really are a retard.
> >>> You ought to think more before you post.
> >> I hope that is only your opinion as usenet is lawless.
>
> >> Join a moderated group so you can demand enforced rejection of those yo=
u
> >> don't want to hear from....
>
> > You're barking up the wrong tree here. There's a none too subtle
> > distinction between objecting to someone's ideas or their conduct and
> > demanding proscription. You seem to have missed it.
>
> If you insist on the possessive, 'our', you missed it

No, you just think 'our' implies something else. Perhaps it's an
American thing. Americans do seem to be in a rather greater hurry to
put owners' names on everything.

Fran