Now you backtrack on your statement on wanting to enjoy the show. Not a lot of
intellectual honesty happening in you statements, I am afraid. You seem to
really want to to see the status quo become untenable. So do I. It is just that
somewhere done the line, you lost the ability, or desire, to influence. I have
not. And that is were we differ.
What are you doing to influence those high risers that can be such a challenge
to you? It appears that you would prefer to look down your nose at them. I still
think they can be influenced. It takes something more from all of us than we
have been prepared to give, up to now. Let us foment a revolution of mind, so
that the goals we have in common become acceptable. Because they are not now.
That is you fault, and mine.
Maybe we should stop revelling in other peoples ignorance and potential
misfortune. It is all about communication of our valid ideas.
Dan Hook wrote:
> I agree with everything written below. Oh and when I said I was going to
> enjoy "the show" I didn't mean sitting in my castle eating a side of beef
> while the wold burns I meant enjoy the fizzling out of this Y2k frenzy. Oh
> my neighbors in the high rises; I was refering to those by choice. They
> could choose now or in the past to pursue a more sustainable life even
> tiny steps like buy local as noted in "Farm of the Future Revisited". I
> still am not worried big business has more invested than I. Should this be
> a wake up call to John and Jane Q. Public that their lifestyle is a little
> fragile, yup. Will it probably not. Beth
> >Dear Gary,
> >Your posting on y2k was not enough to convince me. It seems to me as if it
> >is in big biz's best interest to anticipate any potential problems and fix
> >them so they can continue running that wheel of capital across the land.
> >dispute over the matter will be resolved soon enough.
> >I must take issue with your use of one word in particular:
> >>The technical boys ... jury rigged a computer system over the past 35
> years not
> >>thinking there might be anything so niggardly as a century change to
> >>come down the pike.
> >"Niggardly" is a very old-fashioned word that means "grudgingly reluctant
> >spend or grant" or "stingy." Because of its close association with the word
> >"nigger", an extremely offensive epithet, I would avoid its use unless
> >were absolutely no other word that would convey the same meaning.
> >Unfortunately, the way you use it isn't even correct. I wonder what exactly
> >you do mean by that word.
> >I appreciate your social perspective and desire for change, yet some of
> >language put up red flags for me.
> >Jane Sooby
> >University of Nebraska-Lincoln alternative crops research technician
> >Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society western organizer
> >High Plains Ag Lab
> >3257 Rd. 109
> >Sidney, NE 69162
> >308-254-2402 (FAX)
> >308-254-0725 (HOME)
> To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: