I wasn't honestly aware of any ad hominems, you know I hate that sort of
thing, but if you say so, then it is so, and I'm already falling on my
sword, Maximus Michaelimus.
As for Gene, I'm afraid he misunderstood Bartlett completely, and obviously
misunderstands the issue too.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 01 January 1601 00:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20741] Re: RE: Re: RE: RE:"We used 10 times as much
> energy in the 20th century as in the 1,000 previousyears" (fwd)
>
>
> Mark, rarely has anybody included so many ad hominems in one post.
> Perhaps this is a record. Please. We are keeping that sort of discussion
> off this list.
>
> On another note, I don't understand why you are disagreeing with Gene.
> Isn't it true that you and I consume many more resources than the typical
> person on the planet? We need to control population, but first start with
> the population of the rich.
>
> >
> >
> > Eugene Coyle wrote:
> > > Don't you see that Bartlett is defending Capitalism?
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > There are 2 kinds of people: those who understand the problem
> and those who
> > are part of it. Bartlett understands the problem. If you read
> what he says,
> > he says inter alia that 'there is no population problem: there is an
> > AMERICAN population problem because Americans use 30x as much energy as
> > everybody else'. Bartlett understands that the problem is
> capitalism, even
> > if he might have a difficulty which only Doyle Saylor could anaylse, in
> > actually pronouncing the word 'capitalism'.
> >
> > Daydreamers like Dennis Redmond and Doug Henwood are having
> amiably inane
> > conversations about 'the next great upswing', while the planet
> is burning
> > around them. Mine Doyran is twitching her bottom on a library stool
> > somewhere because someone mentioned the word population. I used
> to have the
> > same argument with the beloved Yoshie who once called me a
> racist because I
> > wrote about 'surplus population', until I pointed out that the
> coinage was
> > Marx's; I guess she must of went away and read Marx because now she too
> > talks about 'surplus population'. Doug is a political voyeur,
> who reported
> > on Seattle, DC, etc, and then came back and reported equally well on
> > Tulipomania, the latest silly headlines, Zizek's latest silly
> 'text' etc,
> > instead of doing what he should and could do, ie, show
> commitment and start
> > ORGANISING. Michael Perelman, whose book Invention of
> Capitalism I'm just
> > serialising on the CrashList, so let no-one say I don't like
> him, I do, I
> > really do, nonetheless has arguments about energy which go like
> this: what
> > is a waterfall? What is differential rent? What is absolute
> rent? Gimme a
> > break, Michael.
> >
> > Get with the programme, all of you. Get with the programme.
> >
> > Mark Jones
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
