Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
gregpresley wrote:
"Bob Peterson" wrote in Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence of anything other than left wing kookiness. If you want to trust your life to something that nutty then do so, otherwise have some animal products in your diet. A short biography of Frances Moore Lappe is found at the following website:http://www.bookbrowse.com/index.cfm?...r&authorID=801 If you are capable of reading it, you'll see that, among other things, she has been a faculty member at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which, as we all know, is famed for handing out faculty positions to people with no credentials whatsoever, other than general left-wing kookiness. Well, Paul Samuelson had some credentials in economics, but he *was* a leftwing kook, and his Keynesian prescriptives - doctrinaire big government, always and everywhere - are thoroughly discredited. (Never mind her 15 honorary doctorates, including one from University of Michigan). Honorary doctorates?! You must be kidding. Those ARE handed out for various types of kookiness, and academia just LOVES leftwing kookiness. Christall****ingmighty, you dumbass, the "Rev." Al Sharpton has an honorary doctorate! [...] Incidentally, for those who leaped on Ms. Lappe for being a vegan I didn't even know she was "vegan", but it probably was a safe assumption. You, being an ardent hardcore angry leftist and probably a "vegan" as well, are simply blind. "veganism" IS fundamentally the politicization of diet. Lappe's rationale for advocating extreme vegetarianism is completely leftwing; the text of that fluff piece you linked to above is larded with leftist anti-market language: "...whether we can go beyond today’s consumerism and the isolation of me-first capitalism and find paths we each can walk that will heal our lives and the planet." "Consumerism", "me-first capitalism", "heal..the planet": these are ALL leftist totems, you ****ing moron. That bullshit page references an institute she and some other ardent leftist named Joseph Collins founded, the Institute for Food and Development Policy, otherwise known as Food First. I went to their page, www.foodfirst.org (how did I know?), and there I found reference after reference to leftist anti-market political ideology. I also found the only word that matters: "progressive", the happy-face word of choice leftists prefer. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this
discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. ..........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
gregpresley wrote:
I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, Not relevant to a discussion of the author's blatant poltical bias, which shows up not only in the book in question but throughout her other books and her institutional affiliations. as well as those of your cohorts Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling ignorance. who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Junk science based on extremist political agendas usually advertises itself outside of its text. Lappe's crap is no exception. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. So: you're happy to indicate that you are a raging, dogmatic leftist, too. It figures you'd snip out the material about her founding of, and affiliation with, openly leftist groups, and not just leftist, but extremist as well. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
"gregpresley" wrote in
: I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. .........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's political analysis. Lappe attributes the existence of hunger to an economy that fails to offer everyone opportunity. She fails to note that the majority of these economies are really socialist dictatorships or countries where islam is the dominant culture. Poverty & food is used as a weapon to keep enough people enslaved to the leadership of the country in order to maintain control. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh & Cuba are examples of the control & cultures I speak about. She talks about the plight of landless and land-poor people and the need for land reform. Of course there is no definition of land reform, which usually means taking land away from owners to give someone else. this is another means of control like the Mexican revloution's land reform and subsequent 70 years of one party rule. The nonsense you refer to about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons is laughable. One doesn't get tenure in a university unless they toe the politically correct line, or kiss up to the egotists in the department. Reams of research gets shelved because the results aren't what the professor wanted. I've spent enough time working in universities to know. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... gregpresley wrote: I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, Not relevant to a discussion of the author's blatant poltical bias, which shows up not only in the book in question but throughout her other books and her institutional affiliations. We were discussing her conclusion, based on copious scientific research, that a diet without meat can satisfy the essential nutritional requirements, and since she did NOT advocate a VEGAN diet which avoids milk and eggs, but instead included them, every nutrient is completely covered by her diet. Bob Petersen attacked her as a left-wing kook and you fell right in line, without ever addressing that conclusion. A little problem with reading comprehension here, I fear....since her politics are not at all germane to her conclusion, in spite of your blathering unsupported comments. There is NO scientific research that contradicts her conclusion, which, however, you were too lazy to discover on your own. as well as those of your cohorts Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling ignorance. Cohort: n. 2. A band or group 3. A companion or follower When two people spout virtually the same nonsense or end up echoing one another's arguments in close succession on the internet, they can easily be said to be members of a cohort, and when others join in with similar philosophies but direct their responses to unrelated elements of the thread, they can said to be in a cohort as well. That cohort will, of necessity, be a different one, but one person can be a member of more than one, just as I may be a member of the opera orchestra and a member of a rock band. In this case, there are a number of cohorts in which your views give you membership participating in this thread. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. So: you're happy to indicate that you are a raging, dogmatic leftist, too. I'm happy that your failure to supply credentials indicated a lack of same which might give you any credibility, so that I can abandon this thread to you, secure in the knowledge that you have nothing of value to say. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
"Ayrshire" wrote in message ... "gregpresley" wrote in : I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. .........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's political analysis. Excuse me, I wasn't aware that I had supplied a political analysis. Perhaps you'll cut and paste something to show me that I did and merely forgot about it....... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage
gregpresley wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... gregpresley wrote: as well as those of your cohorts Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling ignorance. Cohort: n. 2. A band or group 3. A companion or follower Not to pick nits, but my Websters Collegiate Dictionary (fifth edition) defines Cohort: Cohort: , n [L, cohors, prop, an enclosure] 1. In the Roman Army, one of ten divisions of a legion. 2. A company or band, esp., of Warriors. Well we seem to do a lot of fighting on this board and if two people are fighting for the same cause cannot they be considered as band of warriors, so the word Cohort in this sense might be accurate. The Independent When two people spout virtually the same nonsense or end up echoing one another's arguments in close succession on the internet, they can easily be said to be members of a cohort, and when others join in with similar philosophies but direct their responses to unrelated elements of the thread, they can said to be in a cohort as well. That cohort will, of necessity, be a different one, but one person can be a member of more than one, just as I may be a member of the opera orchestra and a member of a rock band. In this case, there are a number of cohorts in which your views give you membership participating in this thread. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. So: you're happy to indicate that you are a raging, dogmatic leftist, too. I'm happy that your failure to supply credentials indicated a lack of same which might give you any credibility, so that I can abandon this thread to you, secure in the knowledge that you have nothing of value to say. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
gregpresley wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... gregpresley wrote: I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, Not relevant to a discussion of the author's blatant poltical bias, which shows up not only in the book in question but throughout her other books and her institutional affiliations. We were discussing her conclusion, based on copious scientific research, that a diet without meat can satisfy the essential nutritional requirements, No, we were not, dummy. That conclusion is not challenged, and is not important; of course one can meet "essential nutritional requirements" via a diet that doesn't contain any meat or other animal products. What we're talking about is her politically motivated MORAL PRESCRIPTION that we "ought" to follow such a diet. Get a ****ing clue, will you? and since she did NOT advocate a VEGAN diet which avoids milk and eggs, but instead included them, every nutrient is completely covered by her diet. That's lovely. Now, WHY is she advocating such a diet? Bob Petersen attacked her as a left-wing kook Correctly and with full justification. If she wants to follow such a diet, she is free to do so. For her to be prescribing it for others is NOT based in science in any way; it's based in moral prescription, an ENTIRELY unscientific endeavor. HER prescriptions originate in her leftist political sentiment. and you fell right in line, No, I reached the conclusion years ago. without ever addressing that conclusion. The conclusion is trivial, and is not what she is really on about. You know this; you're dissembling. A little problem with reading comprehension here, I fear No, you know and fear nothing of the kind. Instead, what you fear is that her moralizing political prescriptions are being rubbished. You fear that with good reason: they are, and the basis for rubbishing them is rock solid. ....since her politics are not at all germane to her conclusion, Since her politics is EVERYTHING, and since the conclusion is scientifically uninteresting... in spite of your blathering unsupported comments. There is NO scientific research that contradicts her conclusion, Strawman. which, however, you were too lazy to discover on your own. No, liar; I did discover it on my own. I also discovered that it is uninteresting, and not what she is really all about. You stupid fat ****: she is taking a scientifically uninteresting conclusion, and using it as a flimsy basis for a totalitarian political prescription. Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling ignorance. Cohort: n. 2. A band or group 3. A companion or follower 3.a. is incorrect. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
Ayrshire wrote:
"gregpresley" wrote in : I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. .........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's political analysis. You seem to have Greg and me mixed up; further evidence for that is that you misattribute his comment about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons to me. Greg is not offering a political analysis; I am. Greg is refusing to accept mine, as he is cynically trying to pretend that "Diet For a Small Planet" is about science, not polemical agenda advancement. He is wrong. The "scientific" conclusion offered in "DFSP" is unimportant to the point of being utterly trivial. What IS important in it is Lappe's sense - her UNSCIENTIFIC, ideologically driven sense - that hunger in the world is due to "injustice", and that the "injustice" is due to the market. Quite unintentionally, she points out that world hunger, to the extent it is driven by the misguided protectionist agricultural policies of the developed western nations, is caused by a *refusal* to let the market work. The subsidies she decries, and that I decry, are the result of ANTI-market forces at work. Lappe attributes the existence of hunger to an economy that fails to offer everyone opportunity. Which is at least partly a bogus charge, and is motivated solely by her leftist ideology. Her scientific credentials, whatever they are, do not entitle her to make such a judgment. She fails to note that the majority of these economies are really socialist dictatorships or countries where islam is the dominant culture. Lappe is more interested in criticizing, polemically and NOT scientifically, the market economies of the developed nations. Poverty & food is used as a weapon to keep enough people enslaved to the leadership of the country in order to maintain control. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh & Cuba are examples of the control & cultures I speak about. If you go to the page of Lappe's UNscientifically founded, leftist political agenda-motivated organization to which I earlier provided a link, www.foodfirst.org, you will find that they are FULL of effusive praise for Cuba. In other words, we are dealing here with garden variety 1960s activists who don't realize they LOST. She talks about the plight of landless and land-poor people and the need for land reform. Of course there is no definition of land reform, which usually means taking land away from owners to give someone else. this is another means of control like the Mexican revloution's land reform and subsequent 70 years of one party rule. The nonsense you refer to You mean the nonsense the ardent leftist Greg refers to... about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons is laughable. One doesn't get tenure in a university unless they toe the politically correct line, or kiss up to the egotists in the department. Reams of research gets shelved because the results aren't what the professor wanted. I've spent enough time working in universities to know. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
Ayrshire wrote:
"gregpresley" wrote in : I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. .........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's political analysis. You seem to have Greg and me mixed up; further evidence for that is that you misattribute his comment about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons to me. Greg is not offering a political analysis; I am. Greg is refusing to accept mine, as he is cynically trying to pretend that "Diet For a Small Planet" is about science, not polemical agenda advancement. He is wrong. The "scientific" conclusion offered in "DFSP" is unimportant to the point of being utterly trivial. What IS important in it is Lappe's sense - her UNSCIENTIFIC, ideologically driven sense - that hunger in the world is due to "injustice", and that the "injustice" is due to the market. Quite unintentionally, she points out that world hunger, to the extent it is driven by the misguided protectionist agricultural policies of the developed western nations, is caused by a *refusal* to let the market work. The subsidies she decries, and that I decry, are the result of ANTI-market forces at work. Lappe attributes the existence of hunger to an economy that fails to offer everyone opportunity. Which is at least partly a bogus charge, and is motivated solely by her leftist ideology. Her scientific credentials, whatever they are, do not entitle her to make such a judgment. She fails to note that the majority of these economies are really socialist dictatorships or countries where islam is the dominant culture. Lappe is more interested in criticizing, polemically and NOT scientifically, the market economies of the developed nations. Poverty & food is used as a weapon to keep enough people enslaved to the leadership of the country in order to maintain control. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh & Cuba are examples of the control & cultures I speak about. If you go to the page of Lappe's UNscientifically founded, leftist political agenda-motivated organization to which I earlier provided a link, www.foodfirst.org, you will find that they are FULL of effusive praise for Cuba. In other words, we are dealing here with garden variety 1960s activists who don't realize they LOST. She talks about the plight of landless and land-poor people and the need for land reform. Of course there is no definition of land reform, which usually means taking land away from owners to give someone else. this is another means of control like the Mexican revloution's land reform and subsequent 70 years of one party rule. The nonsense you refer to You mean the nonsense the ardent leftist Greg refers to... about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons is laughable. One doesn't get tenure in a university unless they toe the politically correct line, or kiss up to the egotists in the department. Reams of research gets shelved because the results aren't what the professor wanted. I've spent enough time working in universities to know. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
Ayrshire wrote:
"gregpresley" wrote in : I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. .........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's political analysis. You seem to have Greg and me mixed up; further evidence for that is that you misattribute his comment about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons to me. Greg is not offering a political analysis; I am. Greg is refusing to accept mine, as he is cynically trying to pretend that "Diet For a Small Planet" is about science, not polemical agenda advancement. He is wrong. The "scientific" conclusion offered in "DFSP" is unimportant to the point of being utterly trivial. What IS important in it is Lappe's sense - her UNSCIENTIFIC, ideologically driven sense - that hunger in the world is due to "injustice", and that the "injustice" is due to the market. Quite unintentionally, she points out that world hunger, to the extent it is driven by the misguided protectionist agricultural policies of the developed western nations, is caused by a *refusal* to let the market work. The subsidies she decries, and that I decry, are the result of ANTI-market forces at work. Lappe attributes the existence of hunger to an economy that fails to offer everyone opportunity. Which is at least partly a bogus charge, and is motivated solely by her leftist ideology. Her scientific credentials, whatever they are, do not entitle her to make such a judgment. She fails to note that the majority of these economies are really socialist dictatorships or countries where islam is the dominant culture. Lappe is more interested in criticizing, polemically and NOT scientifically, the market economies of the developed nations. Poverty & food is used as a weapon to keep enough people enslaved to the leadership of the country in order to maintain control. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh & Cuba are examples of the control & cultures I speak about. If you go to the page of Lappe's UNscientifically founded, leftist political agenda-motivated organization to which I earlier provided a link, www.foodfirst.org, you will find that they are FULL of effusive praise for Cuba. In other words, we are dealing here with garden variety 1960s activists who don't realize they LOST. She talks about the plight of landless and land-poor people and the need for land reform. Of course there is no definition of land reform, which usually means taking land away from owners to give someone else. this is another means of control like the Mexican revloution's land reform and subsequent 70 years of one party rule. The nonsense you refer to You mean the nonsense the ardent leftist Greg refers to... about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons is laughable. One doesn't get tenure in a university unless they toe the politically correct line, or kiss up to the egotists in the department. Reams of research gets shelved because the results aren't what the professor wanted. I've spent enough time working in universities to know. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
Ayrshire wrote:
"gregpresley" wrote in : I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. .........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's political analysis. You seem to have Greg and me mixed up; further evidence for that is that you misattribute his comment about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons to me. Greg is not offering a political analysis; I am. Greg is refusing to accept mine, as he is cynically trying to pretend that "Diet For a Small Planet" is about science, not polemical agenda advancement. He is wrong. The "scientific" conclusion offered in "DFSP" is unimportant to the point of being utterly trivial. What IS important in it is Lappe's sense - her UNSCIENTIFIC, ideologically driven sense - that hunger in the world is due to "injustice", and that the "injustice" is due to the market. Quite unintentionally, she points out that world hunger, to the extent it is driven by the misguided protectionist agricultural policies of the developed western nations, is caused by a *refusal* to let the market work. The subsidies she decries, and that I decry, are the result of ANTI-market forces at work. Lappe attributes the existence of hunger to an economy that fails to offer everyone opportunity. Which is at least partly a bogus charge, and is motivated solely by her leftist ideology. Her scientific credentials, whatever they are, do not entitle her to make such a judgment. She fails to note that the majority of these economies are really socialist dictatorships or countries where islam is the dominant culture. Lappe is more interested in criticizing, polemically and NOT scientifically, the market economies of the developed nations. Poverty & food is used as a weapon to keep enough people enslaved to the leadership of the country in order to maintain control. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh & Cuba are examples of the control & cultures I speak about. If you go to the page of Lappe's UNscientifically founded, leftist political agenda-motivated organization to which I earlier provided a link, www.foodfirst.org, you will find that they are FULL of effusive praise for Cuba. In other words, we are dealing here with garden variety 1960s activists who don't realize they LOST. She talks about the plight of landless and land-poor people and the need for land reform. Of course there is no definition of land reform, which usually means taking land away from owners to give someone else. this is another means of control like the Mexican revloution's land reform and subsequent 70 years of one party rule. The nonsense you refer to You mean the nonsense the ardent leftist Greg refers to... about universities only hiring highly credentialed persons is laughable. One doesn't get tenure in a university unless they toe the politically correct line, or kiss up to the egotists in the department. Reams of research gets shelved because the results aren't what the professor wanted. I've spent enough time working in universities to know. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
Ayrshire wrote:
"gregpresley" wrote in : I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. .........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in No, Johnathan, See my other reply about mixing me up with Greg. In this reply, I am telling you I don't appreciate your ****ing around with the group headers. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
Ayrshire wrote:
"gregpresley" wrote in : I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance. .........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster...... "Jonathan Ball" wrote in No, Johnathan, See my other reply about mixing me up with Greg. In this reply, I am telling you I don't appreciate your ****ing around with the group headers. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)
Jonathan Ball wrote:
(Never mind her 15 honorary doctorates, including one from University of Michigan). Honorary doctorates?! You must be kidding. Those ARE handed out for various types of kookiness, and academia just LOVES leftwing kookiness. Christall****ingmighty, you dumbass, the "Rev." Al Sharpton has an honorary doctorate! Mike Tyson (da big, dumb boxer) has an honary doctorate... -- Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba. Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Edible Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Gardening | |||
Right wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
Right wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Gardening |