FishingBanter - View Single Post

**Alan Holmes**

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Derek Moody" wrote in message
...
In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message
news:ant220047bc8BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

He removed the groups because none of them had shown any interest in
your
meanderings.

No meanderings here.

You just did another one.

?

You are right in one thing

I'm right in all of it.

however:

'The USSR was the largest grain importer in the world in the 1980s,
importing an average of 36 million tonnes per year, much of which

That's what jim was claiming. You snipped the rest of it because
it shows the reason *why* imports went up from *near zero*:

- actually, from self-sufficiency | + | , as noted.

I snipped the rest of it because I am able to scroll upthread if I
want to review. You have once more demonstrated that you cannot.

What a silly allegation. I'm using OE. It's very easy to use, really.

it had numbers in btw, not an explanation of the underlying reasons.

oooh, numbers. Look, this part has even more numbers -

'Soviet grain production increases (predominantly in Russia and
Kazakhstan) of about 60 million tonnes per year from the early
1960s to the late 1970s was not sufficient to support the increase
in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year
in the 1980s (Shend, 1993).
..'
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5069e/y5069e03.htm

Scroll up, as your sooo good at it (and it's no mean
feat with a sore hand), and look at the bit you left in.

The underlying reasons are all-important. Review
the thread to your heart's content, and ponder that.

Jim has yet to learn that you are incapable of
understanding -anything- with
a number in it, anything with a logical argument in it, and that
although
everyone else is capable of scrolling upthread to review an argument
you are
not.

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

I'm not the one arguing from recycled rags of second hand opinion.

You seem to be implying that I do, which I do not.
I argue with facts. I'll give my own opinion from
time to time, and I sometimes quote others' views.

You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have
an argument. All you do is distort, lie and insult.

Well done, moody.

fx: Bows modestly.

Always the clown.

Cheerio,

--

http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

Please, please, please, stop crossposting this crap, just answer to the
group you have read it in.