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

Re: Copyleft and Fukuoka's books

Expand Messages
  • laurie (Mother Mastiff)
    Dieter, What an eloquent post! My hat is off to you. You put the issue in a greater framework. I hope everyone got as much out of it as I did! Thank you so
    Message 1 of 25 , Nov 9, 2008
      Dieter,

      What an eloquent post! My hat is off to you. You put the issue in a
      greater framework. I hope everyone got as much out of it as I did!
      Thank you so much.

      P.S., To the person who cited them as heroes of free intellectual
      material, did you not read the entire article?

      The Radiohead album was only "choose your price" for two months, then
      it was marketed as a higher-than-average priced luxury set, and now at
      a year old, it appears to be offered as an ordinary CD at the same
      pricing as any other CD.

      So the give-away was very short-lived and didn't preclude a hefty
      profit for the group. Their give-away was more a clever marketing
      gimmick than a true freebie.

      If it were a true freebie, the album would ALWAYS be available at any
      price the buyer wanted.

      laurie (Mother Mastiff)
      Southeastern USA (NC and FL)



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • ai3131
      I have both copies on my flash drive, for my own personal use. Since these books are hard to find, having them available on the library at soilandhealth.org is
      Message 2 of 25 , Nov 9, 2008
        I have both copies on my flash drive, for my own personal use. Since
        these books are hard to find, having them available on the library at
        soilandhealth.org is a great service to the public.

        Not only that, but why even raise the copyright issue in the first
        place? Of course I do believe in respecting copyright laws, but I do
        not recall Fukuoka-sensei ever giving anyone exclusive rights over his
        method to anyone. (He never said it was "his" method.) His vision was
        that EVERYONE would practice natural farming. And since natural farming
        is an ancient method that has been practiced throughout the ages and
        the world in one way or another, stamping a copyright on it is not
        feasible.

        - Arian I.


        --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, Anders Skarlind
        <Anders.Skalman@...> wrote:
        >
        > Two of Fukuoka's books, One Straw Revolution and The Natural Way of
        > Farming can be downloaded from The Soil and Health Library, on the
        > conditions that apply to this library. I e you will get, as a loan, a
        > personalised copy. You will have to give your full name and email
        > address. I recommend this service fully. Click on Agriculture
        > Library, then on the book you want to loan, and follow instructions.
        >
        > http://www.soilandhealth.org/
        >
      • vruiz.jurado
        ... Heroes? I was trying to explain the use of Free as in Freedom vs Free as in No Cost. Two more links. The staff of the oldest digital library:
        Message 3 of 25 , Nov 9, 2008
          --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "laurie \(Mother Mastiff\)"
          <mother@...> wrote:
          > P.S., To the person who cited them as heroes of free intellectual
          > material, did you not read the entire article?

          Heroes? I was trying to explain the use of Free as in Freedom vs Free
          as in No Cost.

          Two more links. The staff of the oldest digital library:
          http://www.gutenberg.org/
          doing their explanation:
          http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Cost_or_Freedom%3F

          Dieter, sorry, I wasn't defending soviets, freely taking or the
          abolishing of property. Also I'm not searching for personalized copies
          of books, but thanks for the link (that I read before in this thread).

          And Jean, I agree with you when you talk about common sense use and to
          understand nature.

          BR,

          Vicente
        • Dieter Brand
          Jean,   You are certainly right in that there are innumerable unsung heroes in the history of agriculture.   Would you be prepared to share the recipe for
          Message 4 of 25 , Nov 10, 2008
            Jean,

            You are certainly right in that there are innumerable unsung heroes in the history of agriculture.

            Would you be prepared to share the recipe for your fermented juices and how to apply them?

            Here in Portugal, tilling and manure is the traditional way of farming, but most farmers use synthetic fertilizers nowadays.

            In the beginning, I used some manure from a neighbouring cattle farmer, now I only use what grows on-site; mostly mulching and cover cropping and a bit of composting, but mostly in-place-composting.� Anyways, this is just on a small scale (the area I can irrigate during the summer).� To do farming on a larger scale, I would have to till, no-till is difficult in an arid region.� But lack of rain is not a problem you are likely to have in the Philippines.


            Dieter Brand
            Portugal



            --- On Sun, 11/9/08, Jean Villafuerte <dayjean455@...> wrote:

            From: Jean Villafuerte <dayjean455@...>
            Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
            To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 3:45 AM

            Hooolooo everyone and greetings from Ormoc City, Philippines!

            I've been reading threads on Fukuoka Farming and the debate on acquiring,
            distributing and reading the Fukuoka book on natural farming. Although I
            haven't read the book but the summary of his work in the fukuoka farming web
            site is enough for us to know what the fukuoka farming method is all about.

            I believe Fukuoka was not alone in doing natural farming during his lifetime.
            Only the others did not write down their experiences. Fukuoka did and his
            supporters made it famous the world over.

            However, anybody passionate on natural farming must not stop on the fukuoka
            method. While doing farming yourself, and researching in agriculture websites,
            you'll know what to do. A lot of our "giving" scientists publish
            their findings in their own websites. We get ideas from them too.

            In our small "Ecology Farm" we get ideas from here and there and use
            our common sense in the application of such ideas. Since this farm is supposed
            to be a showcase for peasant filipino families, we try our very best to show
            them how to raise food for their tables and raise extra to sell for cash.

            Actually, we started with green manuring, composting, then manufacturing the
            famous fermented juices. But, to understand farming is to understand ecology
            and Genesis where everything was created for a purpose. Pests are there to be
            the food for other insects, so why kill them when they have their own predators
            by nature?

            There are websites that publish the kind of plants that are hosts to insects
            that eat other insects that have become pests to our favorite plants.
            jean
            www.ammado.com/pfi
            www.ormocwomen.blogspot.com
            www.evyouth.blogspot.com
            www.tcfoc.blogspot.com
            www.pfi.blogspot.com
            www.geocities.com/pfft_2000

            visit my blogs and leave your comments.





            ________________________________
            From: Dieter Brand <diebrand@...>
            To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 11:01:24 PM
            Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books

            Vincente,

            Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka�s books from Steve
            Solomon�s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org? Steve operates his
            site like a virtual lending library, which means you get a personalized PDF file
            with your name on the understanding that you won�t redistribute it for
            commercial gain. I don�t know if this is completely in accord with
            international copyright law, but so far there seem to be no objections. I think
            this is a good way of making out of print books available to the public.

            Personally, I�m mainly interested in Natural Farming and I had hoped that
            this list would serve as a place to share and discuss our experience, but
            perhaps that hope was in vain.

            To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the truth
            as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who never
            made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka�s
            books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has
            often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out
            that to use another person�s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his
            work is neither legal nor moral.

            To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other person
            is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to propagate
            our own ideology.

            We also need to maintain a minimum level of mutual respect and civility, which,
            in my opinion, includes introducing yourself to a group you join and letting the
            group know who you are, what you do and what interest you have in Natural
            Farming. And if we do want to tell others about our ideas, I think it is
            preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the arguments of others
            by the PC�s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.

            If you had been interested in a serious discussion (as you claim), you could
            have commented on my reply to Jeff, in which I explained the function and the
            benefits to society of intellectual property rights. Since you did not, I have
            to assume that you are primarily interested in spreading an ideology and not in
            discussions. Hence, there is no point in repeating my arguments.

            Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are after),
            �real socialism�, the sole experiment of doing away with private property
            known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens of
            millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty and
            humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high degree of
            penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural resources and
            destroying the environment in a big way.

            If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural Farming
            you know that a farmer needs to �own� his land; it needs to be his property.
            To rebuild soil that has been depleted by conventional farming can easily take
            10 or 20 years of backbreaking labor. No farmer is going to do that without a
            degree of assurance that he or she will be able to continue working on the land
            for the foreseeable future. The nature romantics from the city who make a day
            excursion to the country, on the other hand, take it all for granted, mistake
            the cultured land created by generations of farmers for nature pure, like to
            trample down the wheat and start wild fires by throwing away cigarette buts or
            by crowning their Sunday afternoon excursion with a barbecue in the middle of a
            forest. Then it�s back to the city and nobody cares about the damage that may
            have been done. Why should they? It is not their own property.

            Intellectual property is no different from other forms of property. At least
            in socialism there is the idea of taking away from those who have much to give
            to those who have little. By abolishing intellectual property, on the other
            hand, we take away from those who have little, from all those creators who
            barely make a living by scrubbing other people�s floors.

            Lastly, already the Bible mentioned something about �giving� being nobler
            than �taking�. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made
            it very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by
            others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown
            levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?

            Dieter Brand
            Portugal





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links








            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dieter Brand
            Laurie,   Thanks for your support.   Regarding the article you mentioned, I didn t read it at all, I only replied to Vincente s post.  I live in a remote
            Message 5 of 25 , Nov 10, 2008
              Laurie,

              Thanks for your support.

              Regarding the article you mentioned, I didn't read it at all, I only replied to Vincente's post.� I live in a remote region with much nature but without infrastructure and a very bad Internet connection, which doesn't allow me to follow-up most Internet links.� Also, with advancing age, eyesight and time become less, which makes us concentrate on what is important in life.

              Regarding intellectual property rights, many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is to restrict information; in fact, the opposite is the case.� Put in a nutshell, a patent, for example, is a contract between an inventor and society, which guaranties the inventor the right to commercially use his invention for 20 years.� In exchange, the inventor has to make public his invention so that others can use it, not commercially, but to improve on the invention, for example.� Without such a contract, the inventor would be forced to hide the invention as long as possible to prevent the fruit of his labor being stolen by others.� In most countries, an invention is made public�18 months after the patent application and usually long before a patent is even granted.� Copyright works a little different, but the purpose is the same.

              That, of course, doesn�t mean that there isn�t any abuse of the system, but abuse would be still worse without any rules.

              Dieter Brand
              Portugal



              --- On Sun, 11/9/08, laurie (Mother Mastiff) <mother@...> wrote:

              From: laurie (Mother Mastiff) <mother@...>
              Subject: [fukuoka_farming] Re: Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
              To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 3:35 PM






              Dieter,

              What an eloquent post! My hat is off to you. You put the issue in a
              greater framework. I hope everyone got as much out of it as I did!
              Thank you so much.

              P.S., To the person who cited them as heroes of free intellectual
              material, did you not read the entire article?

              The Radiohead album was only "choose your price" for two months, then
              it was marketed as a higher-than- average priced luxury set, and now at
              a year old, it appears to be offered as an ordinary CD at the same
              pricing as any other CD.

              So the give-away was very short-lived and didn't preclude a hefty
              profit for the group. Their give-away was more a clever marketing
              gimmick than a true freebie.

              If it were a true freebie, the album would ALWAYS be available at any
              price the buyer wanted.

              laurie (Mother Mastiff)
              Southeastern USA (NC and FL)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jean Villafuerte
              Willingly, Dieter. I will soon publish them on my blog, the ormocwomen blog. But the original recipe is not ours, we got them from TACDRUP, I forgot the full
              Message 6 of 25 , Nov 10, 2008
                Willingly, Dieter. I will soon publish them on my blog, the ormocwomen blog. But the original recipe is not ours, we got them from TACDRUP, I forgot the full name but of course I will mention them in my blog. Sorry, I can't have it here now. I'm in a hurry.

                jean
                www.ammado.com/pfi
                www.ormocwomen.blogspot.com
                www.evyouth.blogspot.com
                www.tcfoc.blogspot.com
                www.pfi.blogspot.com
                www.geocities.com/pfft_2000

                visit my blogs and leave your comments.





                ________________________________
                From: Dieter Brand <diebrand@...>
                To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 5:09:54 PM
                Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books

                Jean,

                You are certainly right in that there are innumerable unsung heroes in the history of agriculture.

                Would you be prepared to share the recipe for your fermented juices and how to apply them?

                Here in Portugal, tilling and manure is the traditional way of farming, but most farmers use synthetic fertilizers nowadays.

                In the beginning, I used some manure from a neighbouring cattle farmer, now I only use what grows on-site; mostly mulching and cover cropping and a bit of composting, but mostly in-place-composting. Anyways, this is just on a small scale (the area I can irrigate during the summer). To do farming on a larger scale, I would have to till, no-till is difficult in an arid region. But lack of rain is not a problem you are likely to have in the Philippines.


                Dieter Brand
                Portugal



                --- On Sun, 11/9/08, Jean Villafuerte <dayjean455@...> wrote:

                From: Jean Villafuerte <dayjean455@...>
                Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
                To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 3:45 AM

                Hooolooo everyone and greetings from Ormoc City, Philippines!

                I've been reading threads on Fukuoka Farming and the debate on acquiring,
                distributing and reading the Fukuoka book on natural farming. Although I
                haven't read the book but the summary of his work in the fukuoka farming web
                site is enough for us to know what the fukuoka farming method is all about.

                I believe Fukuoka was not alone in doing natural farming during his lifetime.
                Only the others did not write down their experiences. Fukuoka did and his
                supporters made it famous the world over.

                However, anybody passionate on natural farming must not stop on the fukuoka
                method. While doing farming yourself, and researching in agriculture websites,
                you'll know what to do. A lot of our "giving" scientists publish
                their findings in their own websites. We get ideas from them too.

                In our small "Ecology Farm" we get ideas from here and there and use
                our common sense in the application of such ideas. Since this farm is supposed
                to be a showcase for peasant filipino families, we try our very best to show
                them how to raise food for their tables and raise extra to sell for cash.

                Actually, we started with green manuring, composting, then manufacturing the
                famous fermented juices. But, to understand farming is to understand ecology
                and Genesis where everything was created for a purpose. Pests are there to be
                the food for other insects, so why kill them when they have their own predators
                by nature?

                There are websites that publish the kind of plants that are hosts to insects
                that eat other insects that have become pests to our favorite plants.
                jean
                www.ammado.com/pfi
                www.ormocwomen.blogspot.com
                www.evyouth.blogspot.com
                www.tcfoc.blogspot.com
                www.pfi.blogspot.com
                www.geocities.com/pfft_2000

                visit my blogs and leave your comments.





                ________________________________
                From: Dieter Brand <diebrand@...>
                To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2008 11:01:24 PM
                Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books

                Vincente,

                Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka�s books from Steve
                Solomon�s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org? Steve operates his
                site like a virtual lending library, which means you get a personalized PDF file
                with your name on the understanding that you won�t redistribute it for
                commercial gain. I don�t know if this is completely in accord with
                international copyright law, but so far there seem to be no objections. I think
                this is a good way of making out of print books available to the public.

                Personally, I�m mainly interested in Natural Farming and I had hoped that
                this list would serve as a place to share and discuss our experience, but
                perhaps that hope was in vain.

                To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the truth
                as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who never
                made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka�s
                books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has
                often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out
                that to use another person�s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his
                work is neither legal nor moral.

                To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other person
                is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to propagate
                our own ideology.

                We also need to maintain a minimum level of mutual respect and civility, which,
                in my opinion, includes introducing yourself to a group you join and letting the
                group know who you are, what you do and what interest you have in Natural
                Farming. And if we do want to tell others about our ideas, I think it is
                preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the arguments of others
                by the PC�s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.

                If you had been interested in a serious discussion (as you claim), you could
                have commented on my reply to Jeff, in which I explained the function and the
                benefits to society of intellectual property rights. Since you did not, I have
                to assume that you are primarily interested in spreading an ideology and not in
                discussions. Hence, there is no point in repeating my arguments.

                Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are after),
                �real socialism�, the sole experiment of doing away with private property
                known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens of
                millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty and
                humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high degree of
                penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural resources and
                destroying the environment in a big way.

                If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural Farming
                you know that a farmer needs to �own� his land; it needs to be his property.
                To rebuild soil that has been depleted by conventional farming can easily take
                10 or 20 years of backbreaking labor. No farmer is going to do that without a
                degree of assurance that he or she will be able to continue working on the land
                for the foreseeable future. The nature romantics from the city who make a day
                excursion to the country, on the other hand, take it all for granted, mistake
                the cultured land created by generations of farmers for nature pure, like to
                trample down the wheat and start wild fires by throwing away cigarette buts or
                by crowning their Sunday afternoon excursion with a barbecue in the middle of a
                forest. Then it�s back to the city and nobody cares about the damage that may
                have been done. Why should they? It is not their own property.

                Intellectual property is no different from other forms of property. At least
                in socialism there is the idea of taking away from those who have much to give
                to those who have little. By abolishing intellectual property, on the other
                hand, we take away from those who have little, from all those creators who
                barely make a living by scrubbing other people�s floors.

                Lastly, already the Bible mentioned something about �giving� being nobler
                than �taking�. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made
                it very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by
                others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown
                levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?

                Dieter Brand
                Portugal





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links








                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Steven McCollough
                Dieter, I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted infrequently
                Message 7 of 25 , Nov 10, 2008
                  Dieter,

                  I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
                  past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
                  infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
                  with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
                  successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
                  list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
                  certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
                  nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
                  given the subject line similarity.

                  Please see specific comments below.

                  Dieter Brand wrote:
                  > Vincente,
                  >
                  > Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka’s books from Steve Solomon’s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
                  >
                  This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
                  the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
                  books an avenue to get knowledge.

                  > To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka’s books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out that to use another person’s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his work is neither legal nor moral.
                  >
                  I agree with this totally.
                  >
                  > To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to propagate our own ideology.
                  >
                  It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as an
                  opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about anyone
                  one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
                  can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
                  Your views on dry land no till for example.

                  > I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the arguments of others by the PC’s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.
                  >
                  I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
                  discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
                  higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
                  novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
                  feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
                  with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
                  for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.

                  > Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are after), “real socialism”, the sole experiment of doing away with private property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
                  >
                  The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
                  rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
                  defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
                  different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
                  environment.
                  >
                  > If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural Farming you know that a farmer needs to “own” his land;
                  >
                  I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
                  now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
                  aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
                  natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
                  blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
                  > Bible mentioned something about “giving” being nobler than “taking”. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made it very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
                  >
                  I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
                  others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
                  to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
                  available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
                  infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
                  reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
                  here? Yes.

                  This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
                  list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you can
                  with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
                  you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be visible to
                  you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
                  farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
                  initiator or responder.

                  Steven McCollough
                • Dieter Brand
                  Steven,   Thanks for your comments and critique.    Whether or not to include quoted messages and how is a matter for debate.  I know one ML with a very
                  Message 8 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
                    Steven,

                    Thanks for your comments and critique.�

                    Whether or not to include quoted messages and how is a matter for debate.� I know one ML with a very high quality of discussion that strictly censors quoted text to the effect of cutting it to a bare minimum or excluding it altogether. �Personally, I don�t have any strong views on this.� And even though this list doesn�t seem to have any particular rules, I usually try to formulate my messages as well as possible so that others may read them with ease.� If I was a little careless in this one case, it may have been because I didn�t know if anyone would actually read it since I often don�t get a response to my arguments, or, if reaction there is, it goes off on a tangent.� In that respect your response is encouraging.

                    Do I act like a �proctor�, or is my aim to win arguments?� Well, I will try to think about this.� But what do you mean by my �ideology�, or ideology of dry-land farming?� You really lost me there.� Living in a region where food crops have been grown for centuries by dry-land farming, I have attempted to adapt Natural Farming to this environment by field work for nearly five years.� I have also tried to research the question in the literature and on the net.� Among other things, I have described my work and the results on this and half a dozen other lists in the hope of generating a debate or of getting some new input.� Where in all of this do you see an ideology?

                    You are of course right in that we all use �parts of other people�s� speech to present our own views.� To reply to every single statement would generate endless worms of messages that would be completely unreadable.� But I think there is a fundamental difference between picking out one argument of a message in the middle of a thread dating back several months to use it out of context for propagating a �general idea� of free sharing, or whatever, that may or may not be valid and without presenting any arguments (hence �ideology�), on one the hand, and a qualified reply that tries, however imperfectly, to take into consideration the �gist� of what another person is trying to say, on the other hand.� Hence, I do take issue, with your claim that I �try to propagate an ideology more than anyone else on this list�.� If you make such sweeping accusation, the very least you have to do is to give some specific examples.

                    Steven, this is getting too long and I don�t have time to answer your other points at present.� But perhaps you have misunderstood what I said or misinterpreted my intention.� It may also be that I didn�t express my thoughts as effectively as I would have liked to, or that, being of different cultural background and experience, my way of expressing myself feels a bit alien to you.� Please don�t forget that different varieties of English, using different modes of expression, are spoken around the World.� Hence, we need to treat each other with a degree of tolerance.� If I did criticize some willful or arbitrary posts in the past, it is not because I enjoy criticizing others, but because, for much of the time, the level of debate on this list really is rock bottom (if you think this is only my view, you are wrong).

                    To finish, just let me say a word about the �gist� of what I�m trying to say (the part you forgot to quote): �I�m mainly interested in Natural farming�, how (or if) it can be practiced in environments different from that in which it was conceived, �and a constructive discussion of the same�.� Natural Farming probably means something different to each one of us.� Personally, I�m not interested in Natural Farming as an ideology or in Fukuoka�s philosophy; even though I have translated some of it to offer it to the group as a basis for discussion (that never happened). �I do subscribe to a number of Japanese groups on Natural Farming and know that there are people who, ideology aside, do develop practical methods for growing food for subsistence or market farming and gardening by what can broadly be described as �natural� means.� In different climates, these methods are of limited use; hence, I had hoped that this list would
                    serve as a platform to discuss such issues.� Unfortunately I feel, that in all the years I have been subscribed to this list, discussions have rarely gone to the core of the matter, and arguments, if there are, are all too often presented as items of believe that cannot be discussed.

                    Dieter Brand
                    Portugal

                    PS:� I will be off the net for a couple of weeks for �technical� reasons.� But will be back soon for further discussions.

                    --- On Mon, 11/10/08, Steven McCollough <steb@...> wrote:

                    From: Steven McCollough <steb@...>
                    Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
                    To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 4:13 PM

                    Dieter,

                    I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
                    past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
                    infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
                    with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
                    successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
                    list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
                    certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
                    nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
                    given the subject line similarity.

                    Please see specific comments below.

                    Dieter Brand wrote:
                    > Vincente,
                    >
                    > Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka�s books from Steve
                    Solomon�s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
                    >
                    This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
                    the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
                    books an avenue to get knowledge.

                    > To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the
                    truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who
                    never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka�s
                    books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has
                    often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out
                    that to use another person�s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his
                    work is neither legal nor moral.
                    >
                    I agree with this totally.
                    >
                    > To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other
                    person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to
                    propagate our own ideology.
                    >
                    It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as an
                    opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about anyone
                    one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
                    can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
                    Your views on dry land no till for example.

                    > I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the
                    arguments of others by the PC�s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.
                    >
                    I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
                    discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
                    higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
                    novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
                    feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
                    with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
                    for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.

                    > Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are
                    after), �real socialism�, the sole experiment of doing away with private
                    property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens
                    of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty
                    and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high
                    degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural
                    resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
                    >
                    The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
                    rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
                    defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
                    different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
                    environment.
                    >
                    > If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural
                    Farming you know that a farmer needs to �own� his land;
                    >
                    I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
                    now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
                    aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
                    natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
                    blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
                    > Bible mentioned something about �giving� being nobler than
                    �taking�. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made it
                    very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by
                    others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown
                    levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
                    >
                    I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
                    others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
                    to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
                    available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
                    infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
                    reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
                    here? Yes.

                    This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
                    list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you can
                    with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
                    you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be visible
                    to
                    you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
                    farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
                    initiator or responder.

                    Steven McCollough

                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links








                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Steven McCollough
                    Dieter, Thank you for taking this in the context of improving the discussions on the list. ... I should have said, as much as anyone on the list. By ideology
                    Message 9 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
                      Dieter,

                      Thank you for taking this in the context of improving the discussions on
                      the list.

                      Dieter Brand wrote:
                      > Steven,
                      >
                      > Thanks for your comments and critique.
                      >
                      > But what do you mean by my “ideology”
                      > Hence, I do take issue, with your claim that I “try to propagate an ideology more than anyone else on this list”. If you make such sweeping accusation, the very least you have to do is to give some specific examples.
                      >
                      I should have said, "as much as anyone on the list." By ideology I mean
                      those core values and impressions we have built up over the years that
                      inform our perceptions of the world and natural farming in this case.
                      From this one post I can point to (and did) the ideologies you are
                      working under. A protective interest in defending personal property, a
                      dislike of socialism, land ownership, etc.. These are not, you must
                      admit, precepts of natural farming and are a distraction to the main
                      topic. At the very least, they make the discussion expand to the extent
                      we lose site of the original topic. Since your posts are also lengthy,
                      these diversions are doubly deviating from the topic.
                      > it is not because I enjoy criticizing others, but because, for much of the time, the level of debate on this list really is rock bottom (if you think this is only my view, you are wrong).
                      >
                      I can agree the discussions fall short of what they could be. Rock
                      bottom and I would have left long ago. My point is this post of yours is
                      no better in this respect. I believe we would have been better served if
                      you would have pointed out the availability of the books on the Journey
                      to Forever site, its implications for copyright issues and left it at
                      that. On the other hand, your posts have more meat as a rule than the
                      average so please don't leave.
                      >
                      > To finish, just let me say a word about the “gist” of what I’m trying to say (the part you forgot to quote)
                      I didn't quote that because it was a sideline issue to your post. While
                      probably the most important issue it was not your main point. From my
                      earlier post: "I would like to see more discussion of natural farming
                      just as you suggested."
                      > : “I’m mainly interested in Natural farming”, how (or if) it can be practiced in environments different from that in which it was conceived, “and a constructive discussion of the same”. Natural Farming probably means something different to each one of us.
                      This is a great summary of what we all want. Unfortunately, there is
                      precious little I can add so I lurk most of the time.
                      > I do subscribe to a number of Japanese groups on Natural Farming and know that there are people who, ideology aside, do develop practical methods for growing food for subsistence or market farming and gardening by what can broadly be described as “natural” means. In different climates, these methods are of limited use; hence, I had hoped that this list would
                      > serve as a platform to discuss such issues.
                      We need a person or persons that can bring this valuable information to
                      our list, as I remember you have done on occasion.
                      > Unfortunately I feel, that in all the years I have been subscribed to this list, discussions have rarely gone to the core of the matter, and arguments, if there are, are all too often presented as items of believe that cannot be discussed.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      I have noticed this also, it seems the natural farming concept on the
                      list is suffering from the same problems of dogma you see in organic
                      gardening circles. It has come to the point organic growers can't
                      certify because of an entrenchment of the concepts, at least in America.
                      You can't have organic chicken that is fed meat, for example, even if
                      the feed is organic and meat is part of their natural diet. You have
                      argued a need to till in semi arid farming and have taken flak for
                      breaking Fukuoka's four principles, while receiving precious little help
                      from the list on how you might have overlooked something. Best of luck
                      in your natural farming and thank you for informative posts.

                      With respect

                      Steve McCollough
                      > From: Steven McCollough
                      > Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
                      > To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 4:13 PM
                      >
                      > Dieter,
                      >
                      > I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
                      > past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
                      > infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
                      > with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
                      > successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
                      > list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
                      > certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
                      > nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
                      > given the subject line similarity.
                      >
                      > Please see specific comments below.
                      >
                      > Dieter Brand wrote:
                      >
                      >> Vincente,
                      >>
                      >> Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka’s books from Steve
                      >>
                      > Solomon’s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      > This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
                      > the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
                      > books an avenue to get knowledge.
                      >
                      >
                      >> To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the
                      >>
                      > truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who
                      > never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka’s
                      > books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has
                      > often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out
                      > that to use another person’s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his
                      > work is neither legal nor moral.
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      > I agree with this totally.
                      >
                      >>
                      >> To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other
                      >>
                      > person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to
                      > propagate our own ideology.
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      > It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as an
                      > opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about anyone
                      > one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
                      > can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
                      > Your views on dry land no till for example.
                      >
                      >
                      >> I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the
                      >>
                      > arguments of others by the PC’s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      > I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
                      > discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
                      > higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
                      > novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
                      > feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
                      > with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
                      > for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.
                      >
                      >
                      >> Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are
                      >>
                      > after), “real socialism”, the sole experiment of doing away with private
                      > property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens
                      > of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty
                      > and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high
                      > degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural
                      > resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      > The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
                      > rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
                      > defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
                      > different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
                      > environment.
                      >
                      >>
                      >> If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural
                      >>
                      > Farming you know that a farmer needs to “own” his land;
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      > I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
                      > now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
                      > aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
                      > natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
                      > blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
                      >
                      >> Bible mentioned something about “giving” being nobler than
                      >>
                      > “taking”. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made it
                      > very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by
                      > others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown
                      > levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      > I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
                      > others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
                      > to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
                      > available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
                      > infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
                      > reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
                      > here? Yes.
                      >
                      > This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
                      > list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you can
                      > with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
                      > you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be visible
                      > to
                      > you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
                      > farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
                      > initiator or responder.
                      >
                      > Steven McCollough
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      >
                      >
                      > No virus found in this incoming message.
                      > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                      > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1779 - Release Date: 11/10/2008 7:53 AM
                      >
                      >
                    • laurie (Mother Mastiff)
                      Steven, It was my impression that both Dieter and I were objecting to someone coming to the group and posting nothing BUT other s information, including an
                      Message 10 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
                        Steven,

                        It was my impression that both Dieter and I were objecting to someone
                        coming to the group and posting nothing BUT other's information,
                        including an expressed desire to violate copyright laws.

                        Let's talk about farming again, OK?

                        laurie (Mother Mastiff)
                        Southeastern USA (NC and FL)



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado
                        ... Copyleft is based on copyright law and is totally legal. Always is the decision of authors. If I share my works (something that I always do), I don t
                        Message 11 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
                          laurie (Mother Mastiff) escribió:
                          > including an expressed desire to violate copyright laws.

                          Copyleft is based on copyright law and is totally legal. Always is the
                          decision of authors. If I share my works (something that I always do), I
                          don't violate nothing.

                          Good collection of misunderstandings.

                          > Let's talk about farming again, OK?

                          yes, please.
                          --
                          Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado

                          http://homes.ourproject.org/~vjrj/blog
                          http://ourproject.org

                          "Recently, someone asked me if I believed in astrology. He seemed
                          somewhat puzzled when I explained that the reason I don't is that I'm a
                          Gemini." [Raymond Smullyan]
                        • Dieter Brand
                          Steven,   What do you mean by ideology?  The occasional joke aside, I m prepared to defend every single word I said on this and any other list by argument,
                          Message 12 of 25 , Nov 11, 2008
                            Steven,

                            What do you mean by ideology?� The occasional joke aside, I'm prepared to defend every single word I said on this and any other list by argument, and if you or anyone�can show�my arguments to be erroneous, I'm prepared to say thank you, I was wrong, I see what you mean.� Is that ideology?

                            >�From this one post I can point to (and did) the ideologies you are
                            > working under. A protective interest in defending personal property, a
                            > dislike of socialism, land ownership, etc..

                            These are your assumptions.� I'm not prepared to publish my personal curriculum vitae on the list (nobody should), but from the time I can remember, my heart has always beaten "on the left", and I don't mean "left" in the US sense of progressive democrat, but in the European sense.

                            But I have never been prepared to confine my thinking to little boxes, and when I see somebody talking nonsense about the virtues of collective ownership and the like, I don't see why I should not call a spade a spade.

                            >�These are not, you must�admit, precepts of natural farming and
                            > are a distraction to the main�topic.

                            Remember, the distraction was not from me, my initial argument went unanswered, and the post I replied to was dug out by someone with his own agenda months later.� You really try hard to find fault with me personally.� I think we should not discuss each other's personality in public on this list.� If there is something that bothers you, you are welcome to contact me off-list.

                            > while receiving precious little help from the list on how you
                            > might have overlooked something.

                            Here we go again!� The assumption (or ideology) that a method has absolute validity, in any place and always, even if that has not been demonstrated and even though you haven't told us if you have ever carried out that method anywhere.�And if somebody reports facts that�do not match the theory, well then he�must have "overlooked" something and we must fiddle around with�the facts�until they�correspond to the theory.� I take my hat off to Fukuoka the _farmer_, who after 30 years of practice was able to say: "the proof is growing right in front of your eyes".� I don't have the same respect for people who, having read a book, claim that they know it all and that farmers who don't see it their way are really stup*d .� And please, don't start with talk about "methodless methods" or other such meaningless meaning as we have heard on this list before.

                            Dieter Brand
                            Portugal

                            PS: I'm�still not�through with�the reflection you�have�told me to do.� But I may have a first hunch about��wanting to win an argument".��This is�really only a hunch, so don't take it too seriously: I think the competitive instinct is universal, we wouldn't be here otherwise.� Further, to present a clear well reasoned argument�is a bit like putting on a clean shirt and trousers to present a positive image in public so as to maintain our self-esteem and to show respect to others.� Nobody wants to be with a stinking old jerk.� I think a lot depends on what we try to do.�Do we try to help others, provide information, provide our ideas about how we see things and promote the discussion on Natural Farming?� Or do we only reply to criticize and find fault with somebody?� I think, with a few exceptions, there is a lot of goodwill and desire to help others on this list.�It is only the framework of discussions that makes things go awry at
                            times.



                            --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Steven McCollough <steb@...> wrote:

                            From: Steven McCollough <steb@...>
                            Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
                            To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 4:25 PM

                            Dieter,

                            Thank you for taking this in the context of improving the discussions on
                            the list.

                            Dieter Brand wrote:
                            > Steven,
                            >
                            > Thanks for your comments and critique.
                            >
                            > But what do you mean by my �ideology�
                            > Hence, I do take issue, with your claim that I �try to propagate an
                            ideology more than anyone else on this list�. If you make such sweeping
                            accusation, the very least you have to do is to give some specific examples.
                            >
                            I should have said, "as much as anyone on the list." By ideology I
                            mean
                            those core values and impressions we have built up over the years that
                            inform our perceptions of the world and natural farming in this case.
                            From this one post I can point to (and did) the ideologies you are
                            working under. A protective interest in defending personal property, a
                            dislike of socialism, land ownership, etc.. These are not, you must
                            admit, precepts of natural farming and are a distraction to the main
                            topic. At the very least, they make the discussion expand to the extent
                            we lose site of the original topic. Since your posts are also lengthy,
                            these diversions are doubly deviating from the topic.
                            > it is not because I enjoy criticizing others, but because, for much of the
                            time, the level of debate on this list really is rock bottom (if you think this
                            is only my view, you are wrong).
                            >
                            I can agree the discussions fall short of what they could be. Rock
                            bottom and I would have left long ago. My point is this post of yours is
                            no better in this respect. I believe we would have been better served if
                            you would have pointed out the availability of the books on the Journey
                            to Forever site, its implications for copyright issues and left it at
                            that. On the other hand, your posts have more meat as a rule than the
                            average so please don't leave.
                            >
                            > To finish, just let me say a word about the �gist� of what I�m
                            trying to say (the part you forgot to quote)
                            I didn't quote that because it was a sideline issue to your post. While
                            probably the most important issue it was not your main point. From my
                            earlier post: "I would like to see more discussion of natural farming
                            just as you suggested."
                            > : �I�m mainly interested in Natural farming�, how (or if) it can be
                            practiced in environments different from that in which it was conceived, �and
                            a constructive discussion of the same�. Natural Farming probably means
                            something different to each one of us.
                            This is a great summary of what we all want. Unfortunately, there is
                            precious little I can add so I lurk most of the time.
                            > I do subscribe to a number of Japanese groups on Natural Farming and know
                            that there are people who, ideology aside, do develop practical methods for
                            growing food for subsistence or market farming and gardening by what can broadly
                            be described as �natural� means. In different climates, these methods are
                            of limited use; hence, I had hoped that this list would
                            > serve as a platform to discuss such issues.
                            We need a person or persons that can bring this valuable information to
                            our list, as I remember you have done on occasion.
                            > Unfortunately I feel, that in all the years I have been subscribed to this
                            list, discussions have rarely gone to the core of the matter, and arguments, if
                            there are, are all too often presented as items of believe that cannot be
                            discussed.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            I have noticed this also, it seems the natural farming concept on the
                            list is suffering from the same problems of dogma you see in organic
                            gardening circles. It has come to the point organic growers can't
                            certify because of an entrenchment of the concepts, at least in America.
                            You can't have organic chicken that is fed meat, for example, even if
                            the feed is organic and meat is part of their natural diet. You have
                            argued a need to till in semi arid farming and have taken flak for
                            breaking Fukuoka's four principles, while receiving precious little help
                            from the list on how you might have overlooked something. Best of luck
                            in your natural farming and thank you for informative posts.

                            With respect

                            Steve McCollough
                            > From: Steven McCollough
                            > Subject: Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books
                            > To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
                            > Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 4:13 PM
                            >
                            > Dieter,
                            >
                            > I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
                            > past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
                            > infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
                            > with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
                            > successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
                            > list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
                            > certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
                            > nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
                            > given the subject line similarity.
                            >
                            > Please see specific comments below.
                            >
                            > Dieter Brand wrote:
                            >
                            >> Vincente,
                            >>
                            >> Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka�s books from Steve
                            >>
                            > Solomon�s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
                            >
                            >>
                            >>
                            > This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
                            > the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
                            > books an avenue to get knowledge.
                            >
                            >
                            >> To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell
                            the
                            >>
                            > truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a
                            person, who
                            > never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell
                            Fukuoka�s
                            > books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which
                            has
                            > often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to
                            point out
                            > that to use another person�s labor to make a commercial profit by
                            selling his
                            > work is neither legal nor moral.
                            >
                            >>
                            >>
                            > I agree with this totally.
                            >
                            >>
                            >> To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the
                            other
                            >>
                            > person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity
                            to
                            > propagate our own ideology.
                            >
                            >>
                            >>
                            > It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as
                            an
                            > opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about
                            anyone
                            > one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
                            > can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
                            > Your views on dry land no till for example.
                            >
                            >
                            >> I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with
                            the
                            >>
                            > arguments of others by the PC�s copy and paste commands or by Internet
                            links.
                            >
                            >>
                            >>
                            > I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
                            > discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
                            > higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
                            > novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
                            > feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
                            > with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
                            > for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.
                            >
                            >
                            >> Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are
                            >>
                            > after), �real socialism�, the sole experiment of doing away with
                            private
                            > property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions
                            after tens
                            > of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme
                            poverty
                            > and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high
                            > degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural
                            > resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
                            >
                            >>
                            >>
                            > The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
                            > rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
                            > defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
                            > different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
                            > environment.
                            >
                            >>
                            >> If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural
                            >>
                            > Farming you know that a farmer needs to �own� his land;
                            >
                            >>
                            >>
                            > I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
                            > now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
                            > aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
                            > natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
                            > blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
                            >
                            >> Bible mentioned something about �giving� being nobler than
                            >>
                            > �taking�. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made
                            it
                            > very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by
                            > others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to
                            unknown
                            > levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
                            >
                            >>
                            >>
                            > I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
                            > others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
                            > to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
                            > available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
                            > infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
                            > reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
                            > here? Yes.
                            >
                            > This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
                            > list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you
                            can
                            > with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
                            > you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be
                            visible
                            > to
                            > you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
                            > farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
                            > initiator or responder.
                            >
                            > Steven McCollough
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            >
                            >
                            > No virus found in this incoming message.
                            > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
                            > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1779 - Release Date: 11/10/2008
                            7:53 AM
                            >
                            >

                            ------------------------------------

                            Yahoo! Groups Links








                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.