Re: Shiva on rice?, archive 3703
- To: Rick Roush <firstname.lastname@example.org>,vrije lijst <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Shiva on rice?, archive 3703
- From: steef van duin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:44:55 +0100
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
- Organization: z
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-From: email@example.com
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0
you are darned right about that!
Rick Roush wrote:
Thanks for your note. To be honest, it matters little whether Shiva
recognises rice or not, however amusing the story is to those of us who
work in agriculture. Most upper class folks probably wouldn't recognise a
number of key crops. What's more important is whether those who would
define agriculture actually have to do the hard work to make it so.
Of course, 'All right, Rick'.
Some philosophers/historians/econometrists follow, as Herman and I do,
your discussions on this part of the net. Allthough we seldom mix ourselves
up in technical discussions, the reason is we were not educated on these
matters so we read them to learn; we try to be keen on the ethical part of
what you - technicians -discuss. To be concrete: if you had written in the
first message on this texas-business what you wrote me (us) now, I would
never have racted the way I did. So I still think you went a bit wrong on
this point. We (I) reacted this way because we (I) appreciate for most
times the manner on which you and - par exemple - wytze de lange discuss
biotech and other important matters. Interesting for us is the fact that
you - of course - do not constraint yourself on technical points of the
discussions, even not when you try to do so.
Of course 'a laugh' is out of our point of view allways there (relativists
as we are) and allways wellcome.
with kind regards and respect,
steef van duin