From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: Wolf Summit in Alaska
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:36:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.151311.28795@ncsu.edu>, roberson@eos.ncsu.edu (JAMES D ROBERSON) writes:
>
>In article <724467031snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au
>(Gil Hardwick) writes:
>> Dumb question time.
>> 
>> What has a propaganda campaign against shooting wolves in Alaska to
>> do
>> with sustainable agriculture that discussion on internecine warfare
>> taking up farmland as its battlefield doesn't?
>> 
>> That the former is allowed openly to occupy space here that the
>> latter
>> is so rudely and hysterically denied?
>> 
>
>Not so much a dumb question as the dumb answer you give to your own
>question.  I've refrained from responding to your posts in the past,
>because I felt that you would eventually contribute to the discussion,
>but so far I've been disappointed.  

Well, Sir, if you're not happy with the quality of posts on this newsgroup,
or if you feel that posters here aren't contributing anything useful,
then why do you read it? 

If the answer to this question is that you are interested in sustainable
agriculture, then you may indeed be in the right newsgroup.... but I fail
to understand how you interpret the post being questioned by Mr. Hardwick
to be relevant to that topic.

>It appears that anything that even
>remotely hints that there might be an alternative to what _you_ hold as
>the best method is automatically given the adjectives that you love so
>well - 'rude and hysterical'.

Everybody is entitled to their own point of view, are they not? I have been
reading this newsgroup since its creation, and in my opinion, Mr. Hardwick
has contributed substantially to the discussion. It appears that somehow
the term `sustainable agriculture' has become synonymous with `alternative
agriculture'... Mr. Hardwick's contribution has been to provide an alternative
point of view to others in the group. In all fairness, sustainable agriculture
is _NOT_ about just one point of view... there are many, and they are _ALL_
legitimate in one way or another. To insist differently (as do some in this
group) is indeed, in my opinion, `rude and hysterical'.

 
>I've never put anyone in my kill file, but you have sorely tempted me.

Kill files are a childish way of dealing with opinions that don't agree with
those of the reader. By denying others their freedom of expression, the
users of these `kill files' are contributing to the problem we see in
communication. 

>Try responding with something other than venom and vitriol and by
>contributing some ideas and views rather than merely taking potshots at
>what you disagree with.

I think this is good advice... in fact, I think it is advice that every
person reading this newsgroup should pay a bit of attention to. It is the
`venom and vitriol' expressed on all sides that is preventing the 
powers that be from taking a clear direction... they read things like the
blather on this newsgroup and they dismiss the whole topic as garbage...
each side says the same things about the other, and the result is a zero
contribution. To give an example, all I need to do is refer to your own
post... you don't agree with Mr. Hardwick, so you shoot off a batch of 
your own `venom and vitriol'... 

Make no mistake... these so-called `powers that be' read things like this
newsgroup... their objective may well be to get new ideas and insights into
what they can contribute in their executive capacity... but what they
actually get to read is little more than people `taking potshots' at any
thing they disagree with... and/or one-sided bibliographic references...
`ACTION ALERT' bulletins in relation to killing wolves in Alaska... 

So when these people turn off their terminals and shake their heads, and
when they conclude that sustainable is a noble objective... but that there
are relatively few truly viable ideas being expressed, can we really blame
them? One side expresses its views and the other takes pot shots... 

They conclude that the best direction that they can take is the one they
are on... in large measure because of the fact that they're tired of listening
to the narrow-minded assertions of individuals who are unable to see any
more than a very small part of a very large picture. 


//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture