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

Re: Copyleft and Fukuoka's books

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Nov 9 5:05 PM
      --- 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 2 of 25 , Nov 10 1:09 AM
        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 3 of 25 , Nov 10 2:23 AM
          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 4 of 25 , Nov 10 3:05 AM
            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 5 of 25 , Nov 10 8:13 AM
              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 6 of 25 , Nov 11 5:55 AM
                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 7 of 25 , Nov 11 8:25 AM
                  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 8 of 25 , Nov 11 9:52 AM
                    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 9 of 25 , Nov 11 11:54 AM
                      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 10 of 25 , Nov 11 1:41 PM
                        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.