alt.energy.renewable

On Mar 12, 5:35=A0pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 5:27 am, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >> Fran wrote:
> >>> Not necessarily. Perhaps those who violate will take the hint without
> >>> sanction.
> >> Come on Fran. Either there is enforcement or there isn't. What you are
> >> doing is akin to being a little pregnant.
>
> > The nuance is important, because even on the commons, there were local
> > rules about how one used them.
>
> See, rules, this has nothing to do with 'commons'.
>
> >>> Indeed, which means that your blog is not part of the commons. Yet the=

> >>> general access given to unmoderated newsgroups makes them part of the
> >>> commons.
> >> Exactly. So thier posting is legitimate. And when you say, 'When will
> >> the shills for the Global Polluters Club stop spamming our news groups
> >> with disinformation?', then you are only expressing your personal
> >> opinion in an interesting way?
>
> > Yes ... it's rhetorical.
>
> Ok.
>
> >>> There is a kind of governance of course. In some states of
> >>> the US laws about cyber bullying and stalking are being developed. One=

> >>> can, in theory be sued for defamation. Criminal use of the medium is
> >>> also possible in areas like national security, pornography etc.
> >> Then usenet is _not_ a common in the classical sense.
>
> > I don't see why not. What is targeted is behaviour.
>
> Do look up the spirit of 'commons' before you pass judgment.
>
> > Even in one's
> > private space, the arm of the law applies. I can't use my home to
> > engage in criminal conduct and expect indemnity from prosecution. In
> > most cases, I have as much and as little indemnity as if my acts are
> > in a public place. (there are some exceptions for acts that are
> > specified as criminal when conducted in public but not in private, but
> > the point stands).
>
> See above. I have no time to decrypt your obfuscation.
>
>

Hmm the feeling is mutual. You plainly have a different view of whta
constitutes the commons. It's not clear that exploring how you
developed this eccentric view will lead anywhere interesting ... so




>
> >>> The health of the biosphere is a top order concern...
> >> It is for you. And I wrote about fisheries, air, and farming going on a=

> >> decade ago in other venues. But I have come to realize that humans can
> >> not be 'tamed'. Do you have a car?
>
> > Yes. There are two in our household.
>
> And how much fuel, just for your cars, do you use a year?
>

About 4000 litres p.a.

> >> And I'm not out to ask an obfuscating
> >> question so much as to make a point. I'm sure you do your best. But I'm=

> >> also sure you use more energy than the average East Indian. Correct me
> >> if I'm wrong.
>
> > Doubtless. The average East Indian lives in circumstances that I find
> > to be well below what is minimally necessary for human welfare....
>
> Ahh, but they live. And you are on a pedestal. You really don't get it,
> do you?
>

I get that they are entitled to live better -- as well as I live at
least.

> > I live
> > quite a bit above it.
>
> But bitch your head off.

Err ... I criticise current arrangements .... is that what you mean?

> Do you see the hypocorism?
>

No ... I don't. I call for arrangements that would improve the
circumstances of East Indians, if necessary, at the expense of
Australians, including me.

> >>>> As far as biofuels from
> >>>> crops, I think it is a sham. And I think that because of what the
> >>>> numbers say.
> >>> Well I don't believe biofuels are the whole answer by any means.
> >>> Plainly, we humans have to start finding ways to consume less each.
> >>> Biofuels could be a transitional technology, bridging the growing gap
> >>> between crude oil availability and demand for it.
> >> Look at the numbers and put crop fuels into context. Look at the cost o=
f
> >> food lately.
>
> > It has nothing to do with biofuels, and much to do with the structures
> > through which food is marketed..
>
> Do show your study....
>


Well you could look at the faiulure of the Dohar round for a start ...

> >>> They are, along with a number
> >>> of other measures, a 'keeping wolf from the door' technology.
> >> Real world, we will not be replacing oil with alternatives at any rate
> >> that has meaning. When the decline gets going we are talking 1,2,3
> >> million barrels a day per year. Economic growth in the world will be
> >> impossible. Our economic system is ill fit for this epoch.
>
> > I share much of your concern here.
>
> But...
>
> > I'm not throwing in the towel though. Australia has masses of highly
> > insolated land, and masses of sub-potable water. We also have
> > something called 'the great artesian basin' sitting underneath most of
> > that desert....
>
> I see, to hell with the rest of the world. Australia will survive after
> 3 billion die.
>

You left out all of the material connecting my claim with your
conclusions: a copy and paste error no doubt, which I'm sure you're
anxious to correct.

Fran

> So, you are just like all the rest. Your own ass is what really counts.
>
> Are you not special?....
>
> Now, you should quit pretending you care......