Hello again Graeme - and here was me thinking you had gone all mellow and were in danger of becoming a little less anti to radionics! thanks for not disappointing me.
> I think I have stated my position pretty clearly about radionics. > i.e. that it has nothing to do with biodynamics as described by > Steiner - and nothing to do with the organic BD preps. Where exactly did Steiner write to specifically exclude the use of radionics? I think the use of radionic treatments fits his stated aim (to Pfeiffer) of spreading it over as much of the earth as possible, pretty neatly. I have just returned from a trip to Queensland where several properties are using field broadcasters to treat extended areas of semi timbered grazing land, one family with twelve thousand acres of quite rough country, running a thousand cattle, wholeheartedly convinced of the benefits of biodynamics (from spraying a small area of irrigation, which they will continue to do), they want to get some of the effect of the preps out onto the rough land, - and before someone suggests using a plane to do it - these are brahman cattle and would most likely pull up in the next county if they were given a close encounter with an ag plane - the field broadcaster (or some similar radionic treatment) is the only realistic way of doing this. I just wish you would approach all this with an open mind instead of making derogatory remarks about voodoo at every chance. I never hear any of the radionic crowd making snide and disparaging statements about the use of stir and spray preps. Why not give us the same consideration we give to the conventional system? Cheers Lloyd Charles _______________________________________________ BDNow mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can unsubscribe or change your options at: http://lists.envirolink.org/mailman/listinfo/bdnow
