"La Puce" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:

I haven't seen any post where you mentioned similarities. I've
seen
one post where you made an erroneous statement but none where you
mentioned any specific similarities.

Erroneous statement! Listen to you. Who do you think you are?

You clearly don't want to admit it but you DID make erroneous
statements. And you have been told this by 3 people.

Biodynamics is based on the work of Steiner: Permaculture is not.
And since you ask (in what many people would consider to be an
offensive manner) "who I think I am", then I'll tell you that I think,
and know, that I am someone who knows the difference between
Biodynamics and Permaculture. Both have an organic focus but
Permaculture is not based on the work of Steiner and nor do
Permaculturalists rely on the various Formula 500-508 and other
techniques that the Biodynamics adherants do.

You
confuse reading books with actually doing something.

I thought that explaining to you in a manner that would enable you to
check on what I say might help you to clear up your misunderstanding.
I can see now that I was wrong to try to give you facts. You have a
particular view and being given the facts and thus being able to check
them doesn't appear to matter to you.

I've read you on a
few forums, notably alt.permaculture a long while ago - I'm sure you
are devoted to what you're doing, but please do drop the aggression
or
I'm not bothering replying to you.

I have also read you here. I've also read you when you very nastily
chose to stalk Janet into another ng where she posted. You have acted
offensively, aggressively and very nastily in other places. A real
case of pot, kettle black.

Read my second post in this thread - you will then understand where
I'm
coming from. Also lets mention that you are a great pal of Janet and
you will do all you can to be abusive to me.

Janet and I have posted in a number of differing ngs for years. I've
found her to be straight down the line. No dissembling or lying.

If I recall correctly, you were treated aggressively and abusively by
all decent and normal residents of that other newsgroup when you
deliberately and nastily chose to stalk Janet. I consider it ill
manners at the very least to stalk anyone either in the flesh or by
way of the internet. Such behaviour deserves a certain amount of
aggression in response as that is the only mechanism open in this
la-la land of the ether. It's the only form of moderation of
appalling behaviour that is available.

You made the choice to stalk someone and got what you deserve.

I have made a mistake with
a word - if you were that interested you will have forgiven me. But
you
are more interested with having a conflict with me.

You didn't merely make a mistake with a word. You made erroneous
statements. You may not have understood or been confused but if given
facts in a response and you can then check those facts for yourself
and you see this as aggression, then so be it.

Nope. I have "Permaculture One"

Yes, you have a couple of books and I have many projects under my
belt,
lots of fantastic contacts with beautiful people across Europe and a
permaculture certificate. When you can talk about what *you* have
done,
and what *you* have experienced rather than quote from your books
and
references, then I'll talk with you.

Well that excuse saves you from having to check your understanding of
the topic but it doesn't enhance your reputation for being accurate or
correct.

Farm1 wrote:
You clearly don't want to admit it but you DID make erroneous
statements. And you have been told this by 3 people.

Yes, and who are these 3 people but the same ones who go on at me at
every opportunity? Is it a crime to say the wrong word? I have said
that I shouldn't have used the word 'based'. Why do you persist on
going on and on about it? Even Uncle pointed out that I had put the
wrong word. What do you want me to say?

Both have an organic focus but

Yes, and that was solely my point. I had also said this to you but you
said you didn't see my post. But it seems that you now have. So perhaps
you ought to apologise?

Permaculture is not based on the work of Steiner and nor do
Permaculturalists rely on the various Formula 500-508 and other
techniques that the Biodynamics adherants do.

No they don't indeed. I have however pointed out to other similarities.
The work I did in the permaculture trust in Middlewood Lancaster run a
Steiner school since the 60s. This I have seen and it is not the first
time that I see Steiner being close to permaculture and biodynamics -
because of the ecological similaries. I'm young and excited about all
this - and when it comes up I get involved. In France we call
biodynamics 'ecology' and we call permaculture 'ecology' because at the
root of it all that's what it is and these was my first words in my
first post on this thread.

I thought that explaining to you in a manner that would enable you to
check on what I say might help you to clear up your misunderstanding.

Thank you for 'helping me clear up my understanding'. I don't feel that
I don't understand. Quoting book's references when I am discussing
actual experiences in permaculture trust, projects and events is not
'helping me' but rather is trying to undermind once again what I know
and experience. But thanks again.

I have also read you here. I've also read you when you very nastily
chose to stalk Janet into another ng where she posted.

Thank you. This is very much what I wanted you to come to it. You are
having a go at me precisely because of this and not because of the
subject at hand. I knew that you had ulterior motives. It was also
pointed out to you on the other ng that if people resorts to having to
'stalk' another poster it's because they are angry.

You can go back to your books now.

"La Puce" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:
You clearly don't want to admit it but you DID make erroneous
statements. And you have been told this by 3 people.

Yes, and who are these 3 people but the same ones who go on at me at
every opportunity? Is it a crime to say the wrong word? I have said
that I shouldn't have used the word 'based'. Why do you persist on
going on and on about it?

Sorry but that excuse doesn't wash. After saying that you shouldn't
have used the word "based" you then said you should have said
"influenced" by Steiner and Steiner was not an influence. Odum was.
P.A. Yeomans was also and Ken Kern.

Even Uncle pointed out that I had put the
wrong word. What do you want me to say?

I would like you to stop blaming, or dragging in, everyone but
yourself. Be responsible for what you write: be accurate and don't
lie to excuse yourself.

Both have an organic focus but

Yes, and that was solely my point. I had also said this to you but
you
said you didn't see my post. But it seems that you now have. So
perhaps
you ought to apologise?

You never "said" any such thing! You have never even mentioned the
word "organic" in this thread. Perhaps you should apologise for
continually changing your story?

Permaculture is not based on the work of Steiner and nor do
Permaculturalists rely on the various Formula 500-508 and other
techniques that the Biodynamics adherants do.

No they don't indeed. I have however pointed out to other
similarities.
The work I did in the permaculture trust in Middlewood Lancaster run
a
Steiner school since the 60s. This I have seen and it is not the
first
time that I see Steiner being close to permaculture and
biodynamics -
because of the ecological similaries. I'm young and excited about
all
this - and when it comes up I get involved. In France we call
biodynamics 'ecology' and we call permaculture 'ecology' because at
the
root of it all that's what it is and these was my first words in my
first post on this thread.

I can understand you being young and excited about something but that
does not excuse a lack of accuracy when called to account for making
wrong statements and continuing to compound on those wrong statements.

I thought that explaining to you in a manner that would enable you
to
check on what I say might help you to clear up your
misunderstanding.

Thank you for 'helping me clear up my understanding'. I don't feel
that
I don't understand. Quoting book's references when I am discussing
actual experiences in permaculture trust, projects and events is not
'helping me'

That's a pity. If you actually went away and did some research then
you might sound like you know what you are talking about. At the
moment you sound like you haven't a clue.

I have also read you here. I've also read you when you very
nastily
chose to stalk Janet into another ng where she posted.

Thank you. This is very much what I wanted you to come to it. You
are
having a go at me precisely because of this and not because of the
subject at hand. I knew that you had ulterior motives.

My ulterior motive and why I am having a "go" at you, is that you are
wrong on this subject and keep making wrong statements but worst of
all, you then make up lies to excuse your comments. You can't say
that you chose to use the wrong word in choosing "based" on Steiner,
when you simply changed the word to "influenced" by Steiner. Steiner
isn't part of the "base" or "influence" on Permaculture.

It was also
pointed out to you on the other ng that if people resorts to having
to
'stalk' another poster it's because they are angry.

If you are/were angry at Janet then that is your problem and you
should have taken it up with her in whichever forum where you first
got angry. Other readers on the forum can act as arbiters and how
they react to your anger might just let you know if your anger is
reasonable or if you are merely being a pillock. Going stalking to
another forum where there is already an established community is not
aceptable for a number of reasons. You got jumped on and deservedly
so and no doubt that just fed your anger.

You can go back to your books now.

Pity you don't appreciate books. They may be able to teach you
something, but I'm not confident of that.