I have to admit using mine pits as an organizational theme worked better than expected. Seemed like a loser tactic looking for content in holes in the ground, but we don’t find if we don’t look, do we?

As the title suggests I’m inclining toward being a progressive pronoun person regarding use of my and our/ours.

But not right off because first I want to side tour around some other word use that I find clearly questionable.

Why do seemingly well prepared voices go unchallenged when claiming to “know” something when they do not know it and are offering an opinion or belief?

The difference between knowing and thinking something is so should be mastered by Grade 10. It is not that difficult to recognize the difference.

Similarly, contending something might or could happen isn’t factually useful. Like this. The assailant posed a deadly threat based on the victim’s fear the bag of marshmallows had been treated with liquid nitrogen. Rock solid marshmallows could do serious damage denied the ordinary marshmallow.

Many of the times I hear someone say “I thought I was going to die” the dramatic hyperbole makes me sorrow that they did not, though I admit a show of histrionics can amuse when the person performing the act believes their display is convincingly sincere.

I tire of claims of “actual proof” in the form of something that’s actually a copy of something that may or may not be an authentic copy

And maybe you can explain why the expression “exciting new news” is worth saying at all.

Is “exciting” added as evidence of new news, or does it add “exciting” to draw more attention?

Being fair to the expression, it is often termed as “exciting new development,” which means new news when fresh information would be more informative.

Could be users of new to describe news think we’ve the minds of toddlers needing to be coo-cooed into following their bouncing rabbit with increased attention based on the hope of seeing new news at its newest. This “hype” feature is a byproduct of news as a sales device. With much competition for audience attention the more spectacular the wrapper the more marketable the news.

Really, it’s a problem that gets in the way of understanding events. Events have to help sell whatever’s being offered alongside the news, and not infrequently disguised as or stuck in a newsy article.

If my cousin were to read this she’d say I was being pompous and egotistical. To be accurate, which I prefer she should say pompous and egotistical bastard to fill out the description, but I forgive her simplification because adding/removing words is a useful way to consider not only context for content but the language context used to set and skew a staged meaning.

Recall the critical comment about people unwilling to give up their guns and bibles? It was mostly received as justifiable criticism, wasn’t it?

Consider the same thrust with different staging critical of those who won’t give up their guns and Talmud or guns and Manifestos or guns and Korans.

The stage set seems to accept critical views in some directions and not in others. For understanding and fairness that isn’t kangaroo court staging the words used as well as the assumptions behind them should be examined and mulled.

How on earth can a conscientious citizen understand better if the climate is hype meant to grab attention for selling?

Does anyone believe the shrieking whores of Babylon are interested in promotion of fidelity or restraint?
A marketplace approach that is fine for some products is a flop promoting thoughtful consideration. Techniques fine for selling shoes or adornment are poor choices for advancing civic responsibility.

Would you like Citizenship Sales or Voting Rights Specials at election time? I see flaws in swapping citizen with consumer.

Now go back. To whom does the pit belong?

If I say “my pit” because I live right next to it am I accepting responsibility for it, the fence surrounding, for access, etc.?

I don’t own the pit nor do I want to take on the task of supervising its water level or body removal following a drowning.

If I want to be careful about what I imply I might go to referring to the pit as ours in the sense of a collective or community resource.

Does that mean ownership of the terrain and legal liability?

It might, but we might never know who owns what until there is a liability claim that sends the other my and our pitiful pit people scurrying to distance themselves from costly association. Somewhat akin to the crazed Queen in Alice Our Pit means whatever we’re told it means in a given situation. Easier than that to figure out, “our” pit remains the child of “my” pit.

My personal understanding or definition of the pit carries over so when I say “our” I base that on “my” basis. Saying “our” pit sounds more generous and community minded, but at heart it may be nothing of the sort.

Issue over “our” meaning “my” is of recent concern as speakers tout “our” democracy with a clearly implied sense of meaning democracy is a result of winning a democratic election.

Or simply, democracy when I (“my view”) wins and not if I lose.

Time out (not a newsy activity) to review definitions of democracy can help us (am I tricking you there?) decide whether democracy is a process, a result, or both.

Applying lipstick to camel lips some forms of one party rule promote themselves as democratic republics. This does make things sound better, more responsive to citizens, but is, I believe, a case of authoritarianism saying its view is that of everyone.

The basis of something simple sounding as “our freedom” rests on particular meanings or understandings which can be spread all over the horizon.

“Our freedom” can span from pluralistic society to a one-party system. Working out the details can be daunting and damnably frustrating. Not doing so, letting meaning slide or be assumed has effects needing serious consideration.