Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Whatever understanding I developed then is all I have to work from and that has been steadily degrading so I can't do much more than offer pithy one-liners nowadays.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 130892 times) previous topic - next topic

superhoop, Sea Star, Testy Calibrate (+ 1 Hidden) and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26750
No, the problem is you don't read carefully. Notice I said "10 dairy guys"  and although I didn't say it explicitly, I expected you to be smart enough to figure out that there might be 10 Sally Maes... Or 50... Or 100.  I would expect that in a community of 500, pretty much every household makes their own bread, or if they're really good at it and like to make bread, maybe they make enough for two or three households.

You're going to run out of '10s' pretty quickly in a community of 500. Are you going to have 10 or 50 millers? 10 or 50 butchers with cooling/freezing/storage facilities? Kind of inefficient, isn't it?

Back to breadmaking. It took my mother most of every Saturday to make bread for a family of four for a week - and we often ran out beforehand. She would make biscuits or bonnach to take us through to Saturday. What's happening to your figures regarding workloads in your idyllic community?

You are imagining a mediaeval village without even the advantages and efficiencies of a mediaeval village.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26751
 Yes it's true that Walter posted some more efficient figures a couple weeks ago.  I already addressed this, but I keep forgetting what type of knives we have in the drawer, so I'll say it again.  Possibly he is focusing more on higher calorie foods like potatoes. Also he has probably gotten more efficient with time.  So let's say he can produce 2000 food calories per hour of labor now or even 3000,  instead of the 1200 per hour or so that he reported in 2009. That is still significantly less than what I can do with my animal food system. 

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26752
You are an idiot Dave
Coming from you, I wear this as a badge of honor.
You should, Testy was giving you the benefit of the doubt, whatever little there is.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26753
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
And to me it's even more amazing how lockers are not needed at all with a rabbit meat production system  due to the small body size of a rabbit.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26754
Yes it's true that Walter posted some more efficient figures a couple weeks ago.  I already addressed this, but I keep forgetting what type of knives we have in the drawer, so I'll say it again.  Possibly he is focusing more on higher calorie foods like potatoes. Also he has probably gotten more efficient with time.  So let's say he can produce 2000 food calories per hour of labor now or even 3000,  instead of the 1200 per hour or so that he reported in 2009. That is still significantly less than what I can do with my animal food system. 
Prove it, present the data! 

Oh, wait, you don't have any records, do you?
Are we there yet?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26755
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
And to me it's even more amazing how lockers are not needed at all with a rabbit meat production system  due to the small body size of a rabbit.
You're kind of missing the point here, Hawkins.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26756
Yes it's true that Walter posted some more efficient figures a couple weeks ago.  I already addressed this, but I keep forgetting what type of knives we have in the drawer, so I'll say it again.  Possibly he is focusing more on higher calorie foods like potatoes. Also he has probably gotten more efficient with time.  So let's say he can produce 2000 food calories per hour of labor now or even 3000,  instead of the 1200 per hour or so that he reported in 2009. That is still significantly less than what I can do with my animal food system. 
Why don't you use the actual figures he posted, rather than "let's just say"s?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26757
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
And to me it's even more amazing how lockers are not needed at all with a rabbit meat production system  due to the small body size of a rabbit.
When I was a kid, I had to pluck the chicken for Sunday dinner. It's a lousy job.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26758
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
And to me it's even more amazing how lockers are not needed at all with a rabbit meat production system  due to the small body size of a rabbit.
You're kind of missing the point here, Hawkins.
That's something of an understatement.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26759
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
And to me it's even more amazing how lockers are not needed at all with a rabbit meat production system  due to the small body size of a rabbit.
You're kind of missing the point here, Hawkins.
That's something of an understatement.
So is that.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26760
 Just saw this posted by a Facebook friend. Love to know more about the person who said it.

"One of America's greatest agrarians and founders had this to say in response to  those who wanted the nation to turn away from agriculture and toward manufacturing as an economic engine. What a different country we would have if his ideas had won the day  

"Still more hopeless is the promise of the manufacturing mania, "that it will make us independent of foreign nations," when combined with its other promise of providing a market for agriculture.  The promise of a market, as we see in the experience of England, can only be made good, by reducing the agricultural class to a tenth part of the nation, and increasing manufacturers by great manufactural exportations.  This reduction can only be accomplished by driving or seducing above nine-tenths of the agricultural class, into other classes, and the increase by a brave and patriotic navy.  Discontent and misery will be the fruits of the first operation, and these would constitute the most forlorn hope for success in the second.  By exchanging hardy, honest and free husbandmen for the classes necessary to reduce the number of agriculturalists, low enough to raise the prices of their products shall we become more independent of foreign nations?  What!  Secure our independence by bankers and capitalists?  Secure our independence by impoverishing discouraging and annihilating nine-tenths of our sound yeomanry?  By turning them into swindlers, and dependents on a master capitalist for daily bread?

    The manufacturing mania accuses the agricultural spirit of avarice and want of patriotism, whilst it offers to bribe it by  a prospect of better prices, whittles down independence into cargoes of fancy goods, and proposes to metamorphose nine-tenths of the hardy sons of the forest into everything but heroes, for the grand end of gratifying the avarice of a capitalist, monied or paper interest"

John Taylor
Arator, #4

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26761
I will talk about methane again later...
Sure you will.
Will that be before or after you set us straight on avian origins?
Quote
Suffice to say now that it's not a problem with HMG.
Oh? "HMG" cows don't produce methane?

Quote
That's already been studied.
fyp
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26762
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
And to me it's even more amazing how lockers are not needed at all with a rabbit meat production system  due to the small body size of a rabbit.
When I was a kid, I had to pluck the chicken for Sunday dinner. It's a lousy job.
I agree. Which is why I am raising rabbits for meat instead of chickens.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26763
OK let's revisit this ....
Quote
I'm not saying nobody should keep a goat if they like fresh goat's milk.  I'm saying that your idea that "hyperlocal food production" is some desirable end goal is full of flaws.  This is because:

    Food production takes a lot of space, and animal food production more so that veggies.  Whereas other kind of production (whether of goods and services) typically takes a lot less.
    It is relatively easy, with veggie production especially, for farmers to produce more than they need for themselves


Therefore it makes sense for farmers to spread out on agricultural land and non-farmers (good and services providers) to cluster in market towns and cities.  Sure it's great if those town/city dwellers also produce some of their own food - and many do.  And it's also great if they mainly get their food from local (not hyperlocal necessarily) sources, e.g. the farmers in the surrounding land.

So I'm saying that there is something wrong with "hyperlocal" food prediction as a general principle - too much "hyperlocal" food production would be very counter-productive in terms of sustainability.

Pingu's argument seems to be ...

1) All food production takes lots of space ... but veggie less than animal ...

Yes, generally.  If you want lots of calories per acre, you are best growing veg.  Not all veg will produce more calories per acre then dairy, but the best veg (i.e. plant food) outperforms the best animal food production by a lot.  And some of the less calorie-dense vegetable foods include foods with really important nutrients including folic acid.

2) Veggie (including grains?) food production is relatively easy

I don't know if it's overall easier or harder than animal food production, Dave.  It is very seasonal work.  Harvesting is probably harder than milking or slaughtering.  On the other hand storage is generally easier. 

Therefore only a few should do it and make surpluses for the rest who don't do it.

That follows from the first premise, not the second.  Unless you include hydroponic LED outfits, which actually stack many units of area on top of each other, producing food is land consumptive.  That's obvious when you look at a population density map.  Agricultural land takes up most of the space in a country like the UK - by a long way.  Cities take up much less - yet house most of the population.  This is BECAUSE to produce people you need lots of land and not very many people (because people can grow more food than they eat).  Whereas to produce most other things (goods and services) you need a lot less land, but often lots of people (although for highly mechanised plants, you need increasingly fewer people as well).

So it makes sense to plan your settlements around those FACTs - space out the farmers so they can grow extra food with the extra land, and have the rest of us living close together so that we save energy (and time) on getting from home to work, leisure, services and MARKETS.  Which include places where the farmers sell their surplus food.

First, if we are talking about "non-industrial veggie food production" I don't think it's that easy to produce surpluses.  Walter Haugen produced 3.8 million food calories (enough for 4 people) in 2009 on 3000 hours of labor (1266 food calories per hour).  That's a hell of a lot of labor.  I myself have NO desire whatsoever to spend that much time each year on food production for myself or for anyone else.  My current system produces 400,000 cal on about 1 hour per day (365 per year) (1095 food calories per hour and it's not even close to being optimized.  When I add the cow, I should be around 2 million food calories per year on the same labor (5479 food cal per hr).  Joe Hopping produces at least 30 million food calories per year on 500 hours of labor. (Say 1500 if you add slaughtering and packaging each animal so it's ready to cook and eat ... say 2500 if you add in the cooking and food prep labor so we compare apples to apples with milk food calories) ... so that's 12,000 food calories per hour.

Well, your figures don't seem to be correct.  Plenty of people over millennia have produced surplus food, which is why we have cities.  And while some involved slave labour, by your own definition of slavery, most didn't.  And in any case, mechanisation solves a lot of the problem, and if you are worried about GHGs, farmers are also well-placed to generate renewables.  Most farms I see these days have a wind-turbine or three.  And if you are REALLY worried about GHGs, then you need to consider your ruminant farts.  And no, HMG does NOT solve the problem of ruminant farts.  Check it out.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that my model of 80% of everyone producing 80% of their own food would create logistics nightmares.  I don't see that.

I know,  It's weird.  It's like you cannot see that five farmers carrying food to dense little village of with 500 people will result in less total travel than less than 500 people all spread out, having to travel to lots of different places to get what they need (food they want to trade, artefacts, leisure etc).

If I live in a "Sustainable Subdivision" with say 500 residents where all subdivision services are within walking distance (or biking) and I'm one of 10 "dairy guys" (or gals) in the subdivision and there are 10 meat producers and 10 honey producers and so on ... why would it create logistical problems for me to walk over to Joe's to buy (or trade for) meat?  Or to Fred's to buy honey?  Or to Sally Mae's to buy her award winning breads?

Why not draw a diagram and see if you can work it out?

I've attached one:


  • Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 08:00:08 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26764
Just saw this posted by a Facebook friend. Love to know more about the person who said it.

"One of America's greatest agrarians and founders had this to say in response to  those who wanted the nation to turn away from agriculture and toward manufacturing as an economic engine. What a different country we would have if his ideas had won the day 

"Still more hopeless is the promise of the manufacturing mania, "that it will make us independent of foreign nations," when combined with its other promise of providing a market for agriculture.  The promise of a market, as we see in the experience of England, can only be made good, by reducing the agricultural class to a tenth part of the nation, and increasing manufacturers by great manufactural exportations.  This reduction can only be accomplished by driving or seducing above nine-tenths of the agricultural class, into other classes, and the increase by a brave and patriotic navy.  Discontent and misery will be the fruits of the first operation, and these would constitute the most forlorn hope for success in the second.  By exchanging hardy, honest and free husbandmen for the classes necessary to reduce the number of agriculturalists, low enough to raise the prices of their products shall we become more independent of foreign nations?  What!  Secure our independence by bankers and capitalists?  Secure our independence by impoverishing discouraging and annihilating nine-tenths of our sound yeomanry?  By turning them into swindlers, and dependents on a master capitalist for daily bread?

    The manufacturing mania accuses the agricultural spirit of avarice and want of patriotism, whilst it offers to bribe it by  a prospect of better prices, whittles down independence into cargoes of fancy goods, and proposes to metamorphose nine-tenths of the hardy sons of the forest into everything but heroes, for the grand end of gratifying the avarice of a capitalist, monied or paper interest"

John Taylor
Arator, #4
... says the guy who enthusiastically voted for Donald J. Trump.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26765
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
And to me it's even more amazing how lockers are not needed at all with a rabbit meat production system  due to the small body size of a rabbit.
When I was a kid, I had to pluck the chicken for Sunday dinner. It's a lousy job.

Jesus Christ yes. I helped a friend pluck and clean 24 chickens one day a few years ago. She scalded the birds first to make plucking easier, but the stench of hot chicken feathers was overwhelming, even outdoors.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26766
OK let's revisit this ....
Quote
I'm not saying nobody should keep a goat if they like fresh goat's milk.  I'm saying that your idea that "hyperlocal food production" is some desirable end goal is full of flaws.  This is because:

    Food production takes a lot of space, and animal food production more so that veggies.  Whereas other kind of production (whether of goods and services) typically takes a lot less.
    It is relatively easy, with veggie production especially, for farmers to produce more than they need for themselves


Therefore it makes sense for farmers to spread out on agricultural land and non-farmers (good and services providers) to cluster in market towns and cities.  Sure it's great if those town/city dwellers also produce some of their own food - and many do.  And it's also great if they mainly get their food from local (not hyperlocal necessarily) sources, e.g. the farmers in the surrounding land.

So I'm saying that there is something wrong with "hyperlocal" food prediction as a general principle - too much "hyperlocal" food production would be very counter-productive in terms of sustainability.

Pingu's argument seems to be ...

1) All food production takes lots of space ... but veggie less than animal ...

Yes, generally.  If you want lots of calories per acre, you are best growing veg.  Not all veg will produce more calories per acre then dairy, but the best veg (i.e. plant food) outperforms the best animal food production by a lot.  And some of the less calorie-dense vegetable foods include foods with really important nutrients including folic acid.

2) Veggie (including grains?) food production is relatively easy

I don't know if it's overall easier or harder than animal food production, Dave.  It is very seasonal work.  Harvesting is probably harder than milking or slaughtering.  On the other hand storage is generally easier. 

Therefore only a few should do it and make surpluses for the rest who don't do it.

That follows from the first premise, not the second.  Unless you include hydroponic LED outfits, which actually stack many units of area on top of each other, producing food is land consumptive.  That's obvious when you look at a population density map.  Agricultural land takes up most of the space in a country like the UK - by a long way.  Cities take up much less - yet house most of the population.  This is BECAUSE to produce people you need lots of land and not very many people (because people can grow more food than they eat).  Whereas to produce most other things (goods and services) you need a lot less land, but often lots of people (although for highly mechanised plants, you need increasingly fewer people as well).

So it makes sense to plan your settlements around those FACTs - space out the farmers so they can grow extra food with the extra land, and have the rest of us living close together so that we save energy (and time) on getting from home to work, leisure, services and MARKETS.  Which include places where the farmers sell their surplus food.

First, if we are talking about "non-industrial veggie food production" I don't think it's that easy to produce surpluses.  Walter Haugen produced 3.8 million food calories (enough for 4 people) in 2009 on 3000 hours of labor (1266 food calories per hour).  That's a hell of a lot of labor.  I myself have NO desire whatsoever to spend that much time each year on food production for myself or for anyone else.  My current system produces 400,000 cal on about 1 hour per day (365 per year) (1095 food calories per hour and it's not even close to being optimized.  When I add the cow, I should be around 2 million food calories per year on the same labor (5479 food cal per hr).  Joe Hopping produces at least 30 million food calories per year on 500 hours of labor. (Say 1500 if you add slaughtering and packaging each animal so it's ready to cook and eat ... say 2500 if you add in the cooking and food prep labor so we compare apples to apples with milk food calories) ... so that's 12,000 food calories per hour.

Well, your figures don't seem to be correct.  Plenty of people over millennia have produced surplus food, which is why we have cities.  And while some involved slave labour, by your own definition of slavery, most didn't.  And in any case, mechanisation solves a lot of the problem, and if you are worried about GHGs, farmers are also well-placed to generate renewables.  Most farms I see these days have a wind-turbine or three.  And if you are REALLY worried about GHGs, then you need to consider your ruminant farts.  And no, HMG does NOT solve the problem of ruminant farts.  Check it out.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that my model of 80% of everyone producing 80% of their own food would create logistics nightmares.  I don't see that.

I know,  It's weird.  It's like you cannot see that five farmers carrying food to dense little village of with 500 people will result in less total travel than less than 500 people all spread out, having to travel to lots of different places to get what they need (food they want to trade, artefacts, leisure etc).

If I live in a "Sustainable Subdivision" with say 500 residents where all subdivision services are within walking distance (or biking) and I'm one of 10 "dairy guys" (or gals) in the subdivision and there are 10 meat producers and 10 honey producers and so on ... why would it create logistical problems for me to walk over to Joe's to buy (or trade for) meat?  Or to Fred's to buy honey?  Or to Sally Mae's to buy her award winning breads?

Why not draw a diagram and see if you can work it out?

I've attached one@



Bit what is 5he most efficient way to transport all the surplus if town has 7 bridges?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26767
Boats, Testy, boats.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26768
Bit what is 5he most efficient way to transport all the surplus if town has 7 bridges?


You know, I nearly stuck a river in there.  Then I thought, KISS.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26769
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26770
:facepalm:
Hey, you the guy who thinks converting plants to meat is 100% efficient. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to that process!

(It's horrendously inefficient.)
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26771
Just saw this posted by a Facebook friend. Love to know more about the person who said it.

"One of America's greatest agrarians and founders had this to say in response to  those who wanted the nation to turn away from agriculture and toward manufacturing as an economic engine. What a different country we would have if his ideas had won the day 

"Still more hopeless is the promise of the manufacturing mania, "that it will make us independent of foreign nations," when combined with its other promise of providing a market for agriculture.  The promise of a market, as we see in the experience of England, can only be made good, by reducing the agricultural class to a tenth part of the nation, and increasing manufacturers by great manufactural exportations.  This reduction can only be accomplished by driving or seducing above nine-tenths of the agricultural class, into other classes, and the increase by a brave and patriotic navy.  Discontent and misery will be the fruits of the first operation, and these would constitute the most forlorn hope for success in the second.  By exchanging hardy, honest and free husbandmen for the classes necessary to reduce the number of agriculturalists, low enough to raise the prices of their products shall we become more independent of foreign nations?  What!  Secure our independence by bankers and capitalists?  Secure our independence by impoverishing discouraging and annihilating nine-tenths of our sound yeomanry?  By turning them into swindlers, and dependents on a master capitalist for daily bread?

    The manufacturing mania accuses the agricultural spirit of avarice and want of patriotism, whilst it offers to bribe it by  a prospect of better prices, whittles down independence into cargoes of fancy goods, and proposes to metamorphose nine-tenths of the hardy sons of the forest into everything but heroes, for the grand end of gratifying the avarice of a capitalist, monied or paper interest"

John Taylor
Arator, #4
I'm not sure you'll like everything you find.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26772
Sure he will. He only finds what he likes. That's the beauty of  ctrl+f
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26773
:facepalm:
Hey, you the guy who thinks converting plants to meat is 100% efficient. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to that process!

(It's horrendously inefficient.)

Some clever person (might have been Pingu) wrote that growing vegetables for food cuts out the middle cow.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26774
Just saw this posted by a Facebook friend. Love to know more about the person who said it.

"One of America's greatest agrarians and founders had this to say in response to  those who wanted the nation to turn away from agriculture and toward manufacturing as an economic engine. What a different country we would have if his ideas had won the day  

"Still more hopeless is the promise of the manufacturing mania, "that it will make us independent of foreign nations," when combined with its other promise of providing a market for agriculture.  The promise of a market, as we see in the experience of England, can only be made good, by reducing the agricultural class to a tenth part of the nation, and increasing manufacturers by great manufactural exportations.  This reduction can only be accomplished by driving or seducing above nine-tenths of the agricultural class, into other classes, and the increase by a brave and patriotic navy.  Discontent and misery will be the fruits of the first operation, and these would constitute the most forlorn hope for success in the second.  By exchanging hardy, honest and free husbandmen for the classes necessary to reduce the number of agriculturalists, low enough to raise the prices of their products shall we become more independent of foreign nations?  What!  Secure our independence by bankers and capitalists?  Secure our independence by impoverishing discouraging and annihilating nine-tenths of our sound yeomanry?  By turning them into swindlers, and dependents on a master capitalist for daily bread?

    The manufacturing mania accuses the agricultural spirit of avarice and want of patriotism, whilst it offers to bribe it by  a prospect of better prices, whittles down independence into cargoes of fancy goods, and proposes to metamorphose nine-tenths of the hardy sons of the forest into everything but heroes, for the grand end of gratifying the avarice of a capitalist, monied or paper interest"

John Taylor
Arator, #4
That's in the second edition of his book in 1814, so it predates that.

Of course nothing has changed in agriculture or manufacturing or any other relevant fields in the last 200-odd years.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins