[eavesdropper]

Don’t always agree with her, but leaning in the direction of her observations and predictions here. The business sector, the government officials, and the population in general just keep looking for signs that the economy has reversed course, and they’re basing those hopes on the model that prevailed in the late 90s and the early and mid-oughts. I rarely see anyone offering comprehensive analysis of the dire situation we’re in, and taking a broad-based look at all of the contributing factors. People are seizing on what might be interpreted as a positive sign in one sector, and basing predictions of a full and permanent recovery on it.

The economy tanked because there were problems with the basic business model being utilized by the financial institutions. Continuing to use a broken model, while blaming the meltdown on any one of a variety of contributing factors (depending on your political outlook), will not result in recovery. It will almost assuredly delay it, and make it a more painful and difficult process.

[eavesdropper]

Don’t always agree with her, but leaning in the direction of her observations and predictions here. The business sector, the government officials, and the population in general just keep looking for signs that the economy has reversed course, and they’re basing those hopes on the model that prevailed in the late 90s and the early and mid-oughts. I rarely see anyone offering comprehensive analysis of the dire situation we’re in, and taking a broad-based look at all of the contributing factors. People are seizing on what might be interpreted as a positive sign in one sector, and basing predictions of a full and permanent recovery on it.

The economy tanked because there were problems with the basic business model being utilized by the financial institutions. Continuing to use a broken model, while blaming the meltdown on any one of a variety of contributing factors (depending on your political outlook), will not result in recovery. It will almost assuredly delay it, and make it a more painful and difficult process.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Let me tell you a sad story of the state of the L.A. Times….
My parents use to subscribe to L.A. Times for about $80/month for 7 days. Then they started to realize they don’t really need the papers as much, so they ended up calling them and renegotiating to $40/month for 5 days…Then after about 3 weeks, they decided, they really don’t need the papers anymore since they get things from CNN.com, so they called and cancelled.

The L.A Times didn’t want to lose them as a customer (been a subscriber for 20+years). So while my parents continued to insist on cancelling, L.A. Times kept lowering the price…End result? 7 day subscription for….$1/month….
[/quote]

So figure how much money your paper is going to lose doing this. The one-dimensional strategizing by these companies boggles the mind. I keep hearing the phrase, “Think outside the box”, but it is extremely rare that I see actual employment of the concept. I don’t know what they are teaching in B-schools today, but American business executives, for the most part, appear incapable of any sort of strategic analysis of their company operations. There certainly does not appear to be any proactive crisis management; I’m guessing that’s not possible when you won’t even admit the possibility that a crisis could arise at some point in the future. No, crisis management for most of the banks, the car manufacturers, the newspapers, and the insurance companies seems to be a corporate version of the little Dutch boy who plugged a leak in the Haarlem seawall with his finger, except that these incompetents expect the taxpayers to plug their leaks (and, courtesy of an obliging government, we do).

Rupert Murdoch addressed a conference of American publishers and editors in 2005: “Mr Murdoch, who recently held a summit with his newspaper bosses about forging a new internet strategy, said the industry had “sat by and watched” as circulations had fallen over the past 40 years, complacent because of its historic monopoly on the news business…..A rise in population had masked a relative decline in the TV age, he said, while in the 1990s profitability had held up in spite of circulations falling, further lulling the industry into a false sense of security.” In the article, Mr. Murdoch admits to his own resistance to change: “”Certainly, I didn’t do as much as I should have after all the excitement of the late 1990s. I suspect many of you in this room did the same, quietly hoping that this thing called the digital revolution would just limp away. Well it hasn’t… it won’t… and it’s a fast-developing reality we should grasp as a huge opportunity to improve our journalism and expand our reach.”

He goes on to make an extraordinarily perceptive observation: “[….consumers wanted] ‘control over the media, instead of being controlled by it’, pointing to the proliferation of website diaries known as “blogs” and message boards. And newspaper editors simply cannot afford to ignore this, he said, or to look down on readers or ignore what they actually wanted.”

This was 2005, and Murdoch was blaming himself for being behind the times. Four years have passed, and publishers and editors still aren’t getting the message. The sad result is that we have a populace that is choosing the news they wish to have, courtesy of obliging bloggers. Once a generation chooses and settles into a way of getting their information, they are unlikely to change unless forced to do so (as Zeitgeist pointed out).

The news organizations had a golden opportunity for success. Utilizing the Web would have cut their costs dramatically, increased their readership, allowed them much greater flexibility in gathering and reporting news, and eventually guaranteed them significantly higher advertising revenue. Instead, they chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality. They’re now paying a high price for that ignorance, and the arrogance that fueled it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Let me tell you a sad story of the state of the L.A. Times….
My parents use to subscribe to L.A. Times for about $80/month for 7 days. Then they started to realize they don’t really need the papers as much, so they ended up calling them and renegotiating to $40/month for 5 days…Then after about 3 weeks, they decided, they really don’t need the papers anymore since they get things from CNN.com, so they called and cancelled.

The L.A Times didn’t want to lose them as a customer (been a subscriber for 20+years). So while my parents continued to insist on cancelling, L.A. Times kept lowering the price…End result? 7 day subscription for….$1/month….
[/quote]

So figure how much money your paper is going to lose doing this. The one-dimensional strategizing by these companies boggles the mind. I keep hearing the phrase, “Think outside the box”, but it is extremely rare that I see actual employment of the concept. I don’t know what they are teaching in B-schools today, but American business executives, for the most part, appear incapable of any sort of strategic analysis of their company operations. There certainly does not appear to be any proactive crisis management; I’m guessing that’s not possible when you won’t even admit the possibility that a crisis could arise at some point in the future. No, crisis management for most of the banks, the car manufacturers, the newspapers, and the insurance companies seems to be a corporate version of the little Dutch boy who plugged a leak in the Haarlem seawall with his finger, except that these incompetents expect the taxpayers to plug their leaks (and, courtesy of an obliging government, we do).

Rupert Murdoch addressed a conference of American publishers and editors in 2005: “Mr Murdoch, who recently held a summit with his newspaper bosses about forging a new internet strategy, said the industry had “sat by and watched” as circulations had fallen over the past 40 years, complacent because of its historic monopoly on the news business…..A rise in population had masked a relative decline in the TV age, he said, while in the 1990s profitability had held up in spite of circulations falling, further lulling the industry into a false sense of security.” In the article, Mr. Murdoch admits to his own resistance to change: “”Certainly, I didn’t do as much as I should have after all the excitement of the late 1990s. I suspect many of you in this room did the same, quietly hoping that this thing called the digital revolution would just limp away. Well it hasn’t… it won’t… and it’s a fast-developing reality we should grasp as a huge opportunity to improve our journalism and expand our reach.”

He goes on to make an extraordinarily perceptive observation: “[….consumers wanted] ‘control over the media, instead of being controlled by it’, pointing to the proliferation of website diaries known as “blogs” and message boards. And newspaper editors simply cannot afford to ignore this, he said, or to look down on readers or ignore what they actually wanted.”

This was 2005, and Murdoch was blaming himself for being behind the times. Four years have passed, and publishers and editors still aren’t getting the message. The sad result is that we have a populace that is choosing the news they wish to have, courtesy of obliging bloggers. Once a generation chooses and settles into a way of getting their information, they are unlikely to change unless forced to do so (as Zeitgeist pointed out).

The news organizations had a golden opportunity for success. Utilizing the Web would have cut their costs dramatically, increased their readership, allowed them much greater flexibility in gathering and reporting news, and eventually guaranteed them significantly higher advertising revenue. Instead, they chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality. They’re now paying a high price for that ignorance, and the arrogance that fueled it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Let me tell you a sad story of the state of the L.A. Times….
My parents use to subscribe to L.A. Times for about $80/month for 7 days. Then they started to realize they don’t really need the papers as much, so they ended up calling them and renegotiating to $40/month for 5 days…Then after about 3 weeks, they decided, they really don’t need the papers anymore since they get things from CNN.com, so they called and cancelled.

The L.A Times didn’t want to lose them as a customer (been a subscriber for 20+years). So while my parents continued to insist on cancelling, L.A. Times kept lowering the price…End result? 7 day subscription for….$1/month….
[/quote]

So figure how much money your paper is going to lose doing this. The one-dimensional strategizing by these companies boggles the mind. I keep hearing the phrase, “Think outside the box”, but it is extremely rare that I see actual employment of the concept. I don’t know what they are teaching in B-schools today, but American business executives, for the most part, appear incapable of any sort of strategic analysis of their company operations. There certainly does not appear to be any proactive crisis management; I’m guessing that’s not possible when you won’t even admit the possibility that a crisis could arise at some point in the future. No, crisis management for most of the banks, the car manufacturers, the newspapers, and the insurance companies seems to be a corporate version of the little Dutch boy who plugged a leak in the Haarlem seawall with his finger, except that these incompetents expect the taxpayers to plug their leaks (and, courtesy of an obliging government, we do).

Rupert Murdoch addressed a conference of American publishers and editors in 2005: “Mr Murdoch, who recently held a summit with his newspaper bosses about forging a new internet strategy, said the industry had “sat by and watched” as circulations had fallen over the past 40 years, complacent because of its historic monopoly on the news business…..A rise in population had masked a relative decline in the TV age, he said, while in the 1990s profitability had held up in spite of circulations falling, further lulling the industry into a false sense of security.” In the article, Mr. Murdoch admits to his own resistance to change: “”Certainly, I didn’t do as much as I should have after all the excitement of the late 1990s. I suspect many of you in this room did the same, quietly hoping that this thing called the digital revolution would just limp away. Well it hasn’t… it won’t… and it’s a fast-developing reality we should grasp as a huge opportunity to improve our journalism and expand our reach.”

He goes on to make an extraordinarily perceptive observation: “[….consumers wanted] ‘control over the media, instead of being controlled by it’, pointing to the proliferation of website diaries known as “blogs” and message boards. And newspaper editors simply cannot afford to ignore this, he said, or to look down on readers or ignore what they actually wanted.”

This was 2005, and Murdoch was blaming himself for being behind the times. Four years have passed, and publishers and editors still aren’t getting the message. The sad result is that we have a populace that is choosing the news they wish to have, courtesy of obliging bloggers. Once a generation chooses and settles into a way of getting their information, they are unlikely to change unless forced to do so (as Zeitgeist pointed out).

The news organizations had a golden opportunity for success. Utilizing the Web would have cut their costs dramatically, increased their readership, allowed them much greater flexibility in gathering and reporting news, and eventually guaranteed them significantly higher advertising revenue. Instead, they chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality. They’re now paying a high price for that ignorance, and the arrogance that fueled it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Let me tell you a sad story of the state of the L.A. Times….
My parents use to subscribe to L.A. Times for about $80/month for 7 days. Then they started to realize they don’t really need the papers as much, so they ended up calling them and renegotiating to $40/month for 5 days…Then after about 3 weeks, they decided, they really don’t need the papers anymore since they get things from CNN.com, so they called and cancelled.

The L.A Times didn’t want to lose them as a customer (been a subscriber for 20+years). So while my parents continued to insist on cancelling, L.A. Times kept lowering the price…End result? 7 day subscription for….$1/month….
[/quote]

So figure how much money your paper is going to lose doing this. The one-dimensional strategizing by these companies boggles the mind. I keep hearing the phrase, “Think outside the box”, but it is extremely rare that I see actual employment of the concept. I don’t know what they are teaching in B-schools today, but American business executives, for the most part, appear incapable of any sort of strategic analysis of their company operations. There certainly does not appear to be any proactive crisis management; I’m guessing that’s not possible when you won’t even admit the possibility that a crisis could arise at some point in the future. No, crisis management for most of the banks, the car manufacturers, the newspapers, and the insurance companies seems to be a corporate version of the little Dutch boy who plugged a leak in the Haarlem seawall with his finger, except that these incompetents expect the taxpayers to plug their leaks (and, courtesy of an obliging government, we do).

Rupert Murdoch addressed a conference of American publishers and editors in 2005: “Mr Murdoch, who recently held a summit with his newspaper bosses about forging a new internet strategy, said the industry had “sat by and watched” as circulations had fallen over the past 40 years, complacent because of its historic monopoly on the news business…..A rise in population had masked a relative decline in the TV age, he said, while in the 1990s profitability had held up in spite of circulations falling, further lulling the industry into a false sense of security.” In the article, Mr. Murdoch admits to his own resistance to change: “”Certainly, I didn’t do as much as I should have after all the excitement of the late 1990s. I suspect many of you in this room did the same, quietly hoping that this thing called the digital revolution would just limp away. Well it hasn’t… it won’t… and it’s a fast-developing reality we should grasp as a huge opportunity to improve our journalism and expand our reach.”

He goes on to make an extraordinarily perceptive observation: “[….consumers wanted] ‘control over the media, instead of being controlled by it’, pointing to the proliferation of website diaries known as “blogs” and message boards. And newspaper editors simply cannot afford to ignore this, he said, or to look down on readers or ignore what they actually wanted.”

This was 2005, and Murdoch was blaming himself for being behind the times. Four years have passed, and publishers and editors still aren’t getting the message. The sad result is that we have a populace that is choosing the news they wish to have, courtesy of obliging bloggers. Once a generation chooses and settles into a way of getting their information, they are unlikely to change unless forced to do so (as Zeitgeist pointed out).

The news organizations had a golden opportunity for success. Utilizing the Web would have cut their costs dramatically, increased their readership, allowed them much greater flexibility in gathering and reporting news, and eventually guaranteed them significantly higher advertising revenue. Instead, they chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality. They’re now paying a high price for that ignorance, and the arrogance that fueled it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Let me tell you a sad story of the state of the L.A. Times….
My parents use to subscribe to L.A. Times for about $80/month for 7 days. Then they started to realize they don’t really need the papers as much, so they ended up calling them and renegotiating to $40/month for 5 days…Then after about 3 weeks, they decided, they really don’t need the papers anymore since they get things from CNN.com, so they called and cancelled.

The L.A Times didn’t want to lose them as a customer (been a subscriber for 20+years). So while my parents continued to insist on cancelling, L.A. Times kept lowering the price…End result? 7 day subscription for….$1/month….
[/quote]

So figure how much money your paper is going to lose doing this. The one-dimensional strategizing by these companies boggles the mind. I keep hearing the phrase, “Think outside the box”, but it is extremely rare that I see actual employment of the concept. I don’t know what they are teaching in B-schools today, but American business executives, for the most part, appear incapable of any sort of strategic analysis of their company operations. There certainly does not appear to be any proactive crisis management; I’m guessing that’s not possible when you won’t even admit the possibility that a crisis could arise at some point in the future. No, crisis management for most of the banks, the car manufacturers, the newspapers, and the insurance companies seems to be a corporate version of the little Dutch boy who plugged a leak in the Haarlem seawall with his finger, except that these incompetents expect the taxpayers to plug their leaks (and, courtesy of an obliging government, we do).

Rupert Murdoch addressed a conference of American publishers and editors in 2005: “Mr Murdoch, who recently held a summit with his newspaper bosses about forging a new internet strategy, said the industry had “sat by and watched” as circulations had fallen over the past 40 years, complacent because of its historic monopoly on the news business…..A rise in population had masked a relative decline in the TV age, he said, while in the 1990s profitability had held up in spite of circulations falling, further lulling the industry into a false sense of security.” In the article, Mr. Murdoch admits to his own resistance to change: “”Certainly, I didn’t do as much as I should have after all the excitement of the late 1990s. I suspect many of you in this room did the same, quietly hoping that this thing called the digital revolution would just limp away. Well it hasn’t… it won’t… and it’s a fast-developing reality we should grasp as a huge opportunity to improve our journalism and expand our reach.”

He goes on to make an extraordinarily perceptive observation: “[….consumers wanted] ‘control over the media, instead of being controlled by it’, pointing to the proliferation of website diaries known as “blogs” and message boards. And newspaper editors simply cannot afford to ignore this, he said, or to look down on readers or ignore what they actually wanted.”

This was 2005, and Murdoch was blaming himself for being behind the times. Four years have passed, and publishers and editors still aren’t getting the message. The sad result is that we have a populace that is choosing the news they wish to have, courtesy of obliging bloggers. Once a generation chooses and settles into a way of getting their information, they are unlikely to change unless forced to do so (as Zeitgeist pointed out).

The news organizations had a golden opportunity for success. Utilizing the Web would have cut their costs dramatically, increased their readership, allowed them much greater flexibility in gathering and reporting news, and eventually guaranteed them significantly higher advertising revenue. Instead, they chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality. They’re now paying a high price for that ignorance, and the arrogance that fueled it.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]……I don’t think I can find the white vinyl rabbit fur concoction anymore but can probably find the Dittos on the internet, one size up, of course, and my youngest can loan me the other accessories. I’d love to come back and visit! Haven’t asked but perhaps my (ex) brother-in-law and nephews would host me![/quote]

White vinyl AND rabbit fur…in the SAME jacket??!! bg, you’re killing me! That must have been one awesome exhibition of truly bad taste – so bad that it’s good. However, you must realize what a heroine you’d be to your daughter and her friends if you still had it.

It’s probably fortunate that you don’t. If you wore it in DC, you’d be picked up by some congressman still holding on to adolescent fantasies of Fanne Foxe romping in the Tidal Basin.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]……I don’t think I can find the white vinyl rabbit fur concoction anymore but can probably find the Dittos on the internet, one size up, of course, and my youngest can loan me the other accessories. I’d love to come back and visit! Haven’t asked but perhaps my (ex) brother-in-law and nephews would host me![/quote]

White vinyl AND rabbit fur…in the SAME jacket??!! bg, you’re killing me! That must have been one awesome exhibition of truly bad taste – so bad that it’s good. However, you must realize what a heroine you’d be to your daughter and her friends if you still had it.

It’s probably fortunate that you don’t. If you wore it in DC, you’d be picked up by some congressman still holding on to adolescent fantasies of Fanne Foxe romping in the Tidal Basin.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]……I don’t think I can find the white vinyl rabbit fur concoction anymore but can probably find the Dittos on the internet, one size up, of course, and my youngest can loan me the other accessories. I’d love to come back and visit! Haven’t asked but perhaps my (ex) brother-in-law and nephews would host me![/quote]

White vinyl AND rabbit fur…in the SAME jacket??!! bg, you’re killing me! That must have been one awesome exhibition of truly bad taste – so bad that it’s good. However, you must realize what a heroine you’d be to your daughter and her friends if you still had it.

It’s probably fortunate that you don’t. If you wore it in DC, you’d be picked up by some congressman still holding on to adolescent fantasies of Fanne Foxe romping in the Tidal Basin.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]……I don’t think I can find the white vinyl rabbit fur concoction anymore but can probably find the Dittos on the internet, one size up, of course, and my youngest can loan me the other accessories. I’d love to come back and visit! Haven’t asked but perhaps my (ex) brother-in-law and nephews would host me![/quote]

White vinyl AND rabbit fur…in the SAME jacket??!! bg, you’re killing me! That must have been one awesome exhibition of truly bad taste – so bad that it’s good. However, you must realize what a heroine you’d be to your daughter and her friends if you still had it.

It’s probably fortunate that you don’t. If you wore it in DC, you’d be picked up by some congressman still holding on to adolescent fantasies of Fanne Foxe romping in the Tidal Basin.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=bearishgurl]……I don’t think I can find the white vinyl rabbit fur concoction anymore but can probably find the Dittos on the internet, one size up, of course, and my youngest can loan me the other accessories. I’d love to come back and visit! Haven’t asked but perhaps my (ex) brother-in-law and nephews would host me![/quote]

White vinyl AND rabbit fur…in the SAME jacket??!! bg, you’re killing me! That must have been one awesome exhibition of truly bad taste – so bad that it’s good. However, you must realize what a heroine you’d be to your daughter and her friends if you still had it.

It’s probably fortunate that you don’t. If you wore it in DC, you’d be picked up by some congressman still holding on to adolescent fantasies of Fanne Foxe romping in the Tidal Basin.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Russell]Eavesdropper,

If I understand your situation, you have land and are really into good produce and a garden enviornment but not so much the work to have it?

If the acreage in Virgina is not too far from an urban area I think you could enlist some help in exchange for sharing the land and produce grown? Does that sound like it could work?[/quote]

We’re in an resort/ agricultural area. The people who live in the resort area just want to play bridge and golf, and get landscapers to cut their fifth of an acre of grass.

The other residents are farmers or else folks who have enough land of their own to garden. We’re close enough to an urban area for it to be convenient when serious health care is required, or we want a little culture, or when we’re forced to patronize a big-box store, but not nearly close enough for city residents to come and work our land.

What we’ve been doing is allowing the neighboring rancher to graze his cattle there (We keep about two acres for the homesite, and that’s plenty). I don’t charge him to use the land. It would be a hardship for us to have to mow it and care for it, and we don’t need it for anything right now. I figure cooperation is a good thing, and it’s worked out well. We had record-breaking snows in Virginia and Maryland this year, and I never had to pay to have my road to the house plowed out. He sent some of his farmhands over to help with the digging last year, and he’s helped out with a couple other things.

The work of a vegetable garden doesn’t bother me so much, but, since we only get down there every other weekend at the most, I’d need help with the watering, picking, and pest control in between. But you’ve given me an idea: I have a couple neighbors who are about our age. They do a lot of flower gardening, and their lot is gorgeous. I’m going to see if they’d be interested in a cooperative veggie garden on either their lot or mine. Cool beans. Thanks, Russell!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Russell]Eavesdropper,

If I understand your situation, you have land and are really into good produce and a garden enviornment but not so much the work to have it?

If the acreage in Virgina is not too far from an urban area I think you could enlist some help in exchange for sharing the land and produce grown? Does that sound like it could work?[/quote]

We’re in an resort/ agricultural area. The people who live in the resort area just want to play bridge and golf, and get landscapers to cut their fifth of an acre of grass.

The other residents are farmers or else folks who have enough land of their own to garden. We’re close enough to an urban area for it to be convenient when serious health care is required, or we want a little culture, or when we’re forced to patronize a big-box store, but not nearly close enough for city residents to come and work our land.

What we’ve been doing is allowing the neighboring rancher to graze his cattle there (We keep about two acres for the homesite, and that’s plenty). I don’t charge him to use the land. It would be a hardship for us to have to mow it and care for it, and we don’t need it for anything right now. I figure cooperation is a good thing, and it’s worked out well. We had record-breaking snows in Virginia and Maryland this year, and I never had to pay to have my road to the house plowed out. He sent some of his farmhands over to help with the digging last year, and he’s helped out with a couple other things.

The work of a vegetable garden doesn’t bother me so much, but, since we only get down there every other weekend at the most, I’d need help with the watering, picking, and pest control in between. But you’ve given me an idea: I have a couple neighbors who are about our age. They do a lot of flower gardening, and their lot is gorgeous. I’m going to see if they’d be interested in a cooperative veggie garden on either their lot or mine. Cool beans. Thanks, Russell!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Russell]Eavesdropper,

If I understand your situation, you have land and are really into good produce and a garden enviornment but not so much the work to have it?

If the acreage in Virgina is not too far from an urban area I think you could enlist some help in exchange for sharing the land and produce grown? Does that sound like it could work?[/quote]

We’re in an resort/ agricultural area. The people who live in the resort area just want to play bridge and golf, and get landscapers to cut their fifth of an acre of grass.

The other residents are farmers or else folks who have enough land of their own to garden. We’re close enough to an urban area for it to be convenient when serious health care is required, or we want a little culture, or when we’re forced to patronize a big-box store, but not nearly close enough for city residents to come and work our land.

What we’ve been doing is allowing the neighboring rancher to graze his cattle there (We keep about two acres for the homesite, and that’s plenty). I don’t charge him to use the land. It would be a hardship for us to have to mow it and care for it, and we don’t need it for anything right now. I figure cooperation is a good thing, and it’s worked out well. We had record-breaking snows in Virginia and Maryland this year, and I never had to pay to have my road to the house plowed out. He sent some of his farmhands over to help with the digging last year, and he’s helped out with a couple other things.

The work of a vegetable garden doesn’t bother me so much, but, since we only get down there every other weekend at the most, I’d need help with the watering, picking, and pest control in between. But you’ve given me an idea: I have a couple neighbors who are about our age. They do a lot of flower gardening, and their lot is gorgeous. I’m going to see if they’d be interested in a cooperative veggie garden on either their lot or mine. Cool beans. Thanks, Russell!

[Author]

Posts