"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in
message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in
message
...
..
the reason I didn't press this point was in one of the brawls
that
aaev have that sprawl all over the web, it appears that pearl is
an
'alternative therapist' who claimed to have cured someone from
cancer

I have never claimed that.

I was very careful to ensure that I didn't say you did

Careful, jim... look at the crosspost. Thar's anglers here..

and the significance of that remark is?

A very strange squirm. So the readers' interpretation of your
usage of the word "appears" shouldn't be "came into (your)
view", but, "seems to be"-"has the appearance of". Which
definition do you think the most fitting to making a specific
claim?

what I have written, I have written

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."
~ Omar Khayyam

actually John 19

Uhuh. Interesting anyway....

19
8 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross.
It read, "Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews."
20
Now many of the Jews read this inscription, because the
place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it
was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
21
So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write
'The King of the Jews,' but that he said, 'I am the King of the
Jews.'"
22
Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."
...
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john19.htm - The
USCCB is an assembly of the Catholic Church hierarchy.

That you saw visible evidence; or what seems to be?
The specific nature of the content makes it understood as
the first, and your slimy sophism has you wriggling wildly.




I'm sure that you've cross posted enough before now for them to know
all
about you

Jim Webster

Oh yeah.. Why ask what my job is, if you already knew?

because it so so funny watching you wiggle embarassed by it.

On the contrary. I just don't like casting pearls before swine.

And the way you are too embarassed to give the ingredients of your diet

Not at all. However, the ingredients were, in the context of
the argument, not relevant, and you wanted to sieze upon
any details in order to divert the discussion away from the
main issues, namely: expropriation of land, hunger, overuse
and unsustainable use of natural resources, and the effects.

wriggle wriggle wriggle

We can see that you are. You haven't stopped wriggling yet.

Because most of your food ingredients are actually imported from water
deficient countries you get awfully embarassed

What are you talking about? Let's have some examples. Anyhoo..

'Water, wheat and beef

All farming needs water. But the amount of water needed to produce
a pound of beef is far greater than that required for a pound of wheat.

Water usage

Earth is two-thirds water, and only 0.06 per cent of this is fresh
water and even less of this is available as drinking water.

Animal agriculture uses huge amounts of water, energy and chemicals,
often with little regard for the long-term adverse effects. Between
1960 and 2000 worldwide usage of water doubled (25). Agriculture
uses 70 per cent of all water, while in many developing countries the
figure is as high as 85 to 95 per cent (26). Many irrigation systems
are pumping water from underground reservoirs much faster than
they can ever be recharged.

The production of meat is an inefficient use of such a vital limited
resource. [...] The University of California studied water use in
their state, where most agricultural land is irrigated, and said it uses
between 20 to 30 gallons of water to produce vegetables such as
tomatoes, potatoes and carrots to create an edible pound of food.
It takes 441 gallons of water to make a pound of beef (28).

Fresh water, once a seemingly abundant resource, is now becoming
scarce in many regions and that poses a real threat to the stability
of the world. Numerous countries are in dispute over water supplies,
and the seeds of future wars are clearly beginning to germinate.
...'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/planetonaplate.htm

In the US:

'Feed-grain farming guzzles water, too. In California, now the
United States' leading dairy state, livestock agriculture consumes
nearly one-third of all irrigation water. Similar figures apply across
the western United States, including areas using water from
dwindling aquifers. The beef feedlot center of the nation -- Colorado,
Kansas, Nebraska, and the Texas panhandle -- relies on crops raised
with water pumped out of an underground water source called the
Ogallala aquifer, portions of which have been severely depleted.
With half of the grain and hay fed to American beef cattle growing
on irrigated land, water inputs for beef production mount. More
than 3,000 liters of water are used to produce a kilogram of
American beef. (Reisner & Bates 1990; Sweeten 1990; Weeks et al.
1988; Oltjen 1991; Ward, Dept. Animal Sciences)
...'
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/env_animalfarming.htm

and then the really funny way you are so embarassed by your posts you are
ashamed to post under your own name

Ridiculous. It is you who should be embarassed, but
you are too foolish to realise just how foolish you are.

I'm not the one too embarrassed by my bizarre beliefs to post under my own
name

You should be. Like I said.

nearly as funny as your inner earth beings

What do you know about it?

only all the stuff you posted some years ago

And you find it funny for some reason. Ok..