Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Anatomy of a Seedball Last Post on Fukuoka's Book because of objections

Expand Messages
  • animaphile
    ... objections from Jason and Jamie I will have no more to say--after this post--on this forum about Fukuoka s Ultimatum, though it seems unfair to the rest
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, Robert Monie
      <bobm20001@y...> wrote:
      > Hello Everybody,
      > I appreciate the kind words from John and Les, but because of
      objections from Jason and Jamie I will have no more to say--after
      this post--on this forum about Fukuoka's "Ultimatum," though it
      seems unfair to the rest of the group to discontinue discussion of
      an important work that, for the time being, they may have no other
      way of knowing.
      > For the record, I am not a "Fukokian" farmer or follower; I garden
      my own way, influenced here and there by Fukuoka and many others.
      Fukuoka is probably the only true "Fukokian" farmer. Of course I am
      not his equal; I am only an amateur gardener.
      > At the very least, it should be generally understood how Fukuoka
      describes the making of clay pellets or "seedballs" in "Ultimatum."
      > The peculiar requirement of Jason and Jamie that commentators
      should be the equal of the text they chose to comment on is surely
      something new under the sun. If this rule were strictly enforced,
      it would ruin American Constitutional Law, since few judges and
      other commentators would claim to be the equal of Madison,
      Jefferson, Hamilton, and Jay. What architect would dare comment on
      Wright, Bernini, or Michelangelo? No one could write a textbook on
      calculus because someone would object "do you presume to be Newton's
      equal?" Art historians would forever be barred from commentary on
      Da Vinci. Such restrictions would indeed bring on a sad and
      somber "silent spring."

      On the contrary, if one reads my text, rather than Bob's above
      (further) distortion this time around of *my* text, in addition to
      Fukuoka's text. There was nothing new about what i asked for as i
      asked for, in other words "good faith". Of course, don't beleive in
      enforcing or restricting personal communications standards, i have
      never heard such an absurd thing, if i could take this make believe
      about restrictions or enforcement attributed to me, seriously, i
      would call such restrictions or enforcement, fascist. It *seems* to
      me Bob's commentary on Fukuoka's "Ultimatum..." was partly his
      emotional response while he was only partly aware that it was his
      emotional repsonse. And then when the Internet's helpfulness to poor
      communication kicked in, in the variety of interpretations of Bob's
      commentary and my objection to the form of his commentary, Bob was
      pressured to cover for himself and us all, hose down the potential
      conflict and as part of this paint a straw man up for me in the
      above writing. Obviously and clearly i didn't attack Bob. i said
      equable. I write in as much as possible straight, normal
      (international) english when writing general sentences, and so if i
      wanted to say "equal" i would obviously, Bob, have written "equal",
      i wrote equable which means equable. It is a unique word, which i
      mean as combination of even-handed, equality of treatment in ones
      communication, moderate in comparisons of humans. Is it too much to
      ask people who read a word they don't fully know to look it up
      themselves in their dictionary as i always do myself, rather than
      making up a meaning out of make believe for what i said. Pointedly,
      i wish for people including Bob to communicate about Fukuoka and his
      writings with as much support or promotion, as we people give
      ourselves (at least), and if this means you need to give yourself
      more support to get as much support as Fukuoka gets and does
      deserves then i for one really want you to give yourself more
      support until you have as much self worth and respect as Fukuoka
      obviously does. This is one of the keys to where i'm coming from in
      communications with some people on this group, i feel sorry for some
      of you, including sometimes myself, particularly for one of various
      groups of people i feel sorry for, those of us who might fit Michael
      Moore's definition of "Stupid White Men" for a very topical
      instance. African victims of the flow on effects of past european
      colonisation suffering starvation, social-breakdown, disease and so
      on actually are a group of peoples i don't personally have contact
      with but also feel deeply sorry for, and so on to some of my
      personal friends and relations.

      Must i for Bob, who is popularly regarded as scholarly and wise on
      this group, lower us down to the level of explaining what the
      word "equable" means, i take "scholarly & wise" in a relative way,
      as being relative to, westerners in this group, who are the people
      who call him wise including myself, but i don't regard him as *the*
      wise *leader* on this group. Deb & Michiyo must get my emphasis in
      the words within this group as wise persons more than emphsising
      Bob's wiseness.
      For the record below is the concise Oxford dictionary's definition
      of "equable", and i wish i didn't have to bring this group to words
      peripheral to Fukuoka's - definitions. What is the materialist human
      parts of the world coming to? i begs my despair, sadness and sorrow
      for people including Bob and even more so Stephen Inniss in his
      recent judgementalisms and misunderstanding of my issues of emphasis
      which he seemed to mistake for black and white issues, which i refer
      to as judgementalisms. i don't believe in black and white views at
      equable adj. 1 even; not varying. 2 uniform and moderate (an
      equable climate). 3 (of a person) not easily disturbed or angered.
      **equability n. equably adv. [L aequabilis (as EQUATE)]

      Animaphile -
      Jason Stewart
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.