PMWS pork entering food chain

"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/

"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? 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?

"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





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

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

nearly as funny as your inner earth beings

Jim Webster

"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

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.

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.

nearly as funny as your inner earth beings

What do you know about it?

In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant230241313BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

No meanderings here.

You just did another one.

?

Look up 'meander'.

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.

In that case post your copied verbiage once and once only. Don't
reinstate the stuff that already bored us all.

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

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

I checked the UN article when you first referred to it. No need to
quote -any- of it here.

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

The underlying reasons are political, price manipulation by a command
economy. To maintain the distorted market the USSR had to import
grain - it couldn't feed itself.

This is all in the UN document you quoted - but blinded by the numbers
you don't seem to appreciate that this entirely negates your own
argument.

Current production is hampered by the remnants of the collective
system leaving ownership and access to too many people who have not
the resources to work the land. Where thay have been bought out the
new farms are far more productive than the old collectives.

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.

You raised the topic of recycled material. Or do you not know the
meaning of 'shoddy'?

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.

At least -read- the stuff you quote and try to understand it before you rant.

Well done, moody.

fx: Bows modestly.

Always the clown.

fx: Whirls illuminated bow tie and squirts water from fake rose

Cheerio,

--


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

"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

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



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


nearly as funny as your inner earth beings

What do you know about it?

only all the stuff you posted some years ago

Jim Webster

"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.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:10:58 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


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



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're too stupid to comprehend that you should be!

There have been many times you regretted it, and resorted to feeble
sock puppets. There have been many things you did in your own name, so
outrageous, that we were forced to ensure you were reined in. Don't
you remember the bullying, abuse, libel and defamation in the Country
Landowners Assoc name! We do!

At least we can now force you and your idiot friends back into line,
and death threats, and physical violence seems to have stopped coming
from your end. Possibly because you never had the balls to carry them
out, much preferring defenseless creatures. Your bluff was called and
you wimped out. Don't take it so hard Dimbo.

"Derek Moody" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant230241313BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

No meanderings here.

You just did another one.

?

Look up 'meander'.

I know what the word means. I don't see how it applies to me.

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.

In that case post your copied verbiage once and once only. Don't
reinstate the stuff that already bored us all.

Quite the control freak, aren't you. A serial bully / psychopath.

If you're bored by my posts, you know what you can do, right?

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

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

I checked the UN article when you first referred to it. No need to
quote -any- of it here.

LOL. Clearly there is.

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

The underlying reasons are political, price manipulation by a command
economy. To maintain the distorted market the USSR had to import
grain - it couldn't feed itself.

'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

This is all in the UN document you quoted - but blinded by the numbers
you don't seem to appreciate that this entirely negates your own
argument.

See above.

Current production is hampered by the remnants of the collective
system leaving ownership and access to too many people who have not
the resources to work the land.

Huh?

Where thay have been bought out the
new farms are far more productive than the old collectives.

'The IMF has helped foster a severe depression in Russia

Russia in the 1990s has witnessed a peacetime economic contraction
of unprecedented scale. Many believe much of the blame for the social
and economic catastrophe rests with the IMF, which has had a central
role in designing and supervising Russia's economic policy since 1992.

The number of Russians in poverty has risen from 2 million to 60
million since the IMF came to post-Communist Russia. Male life
expectancy has dropped sharply from 65 years to 57. Economic
output is down by at least 40 percent.

The IMF's shock therapy - sudden and intense structural
adjustment - helped bring about this disaster

"In retrospect, its hard to see what could have been done wrong
that wasn't," Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research told a Congressional committee in late 1998.
"First there was an immediate de-control of prices. Given the
monopoly structure of the economy, as well as the large amount
of cash savings accumulated by Russian households, inflation
soared 520 percent in the first three months. Millions of people
saw their savings and pensions reduced to crumbs."

"Then the IMF and Russian policymakers compounded their
mistakes," Weisbrot explained. "In order to push inflation
down, the authorities slammed on the monetary and fiscal
brakes, bringing about a depression. Privatization was carried
out in a way that enriched a small class of people, while the
average persons income fell by about half within four years."

Meanwhile, Russia kept its economy functioning with an influx
of foreign funds, lent at astronomically high interest rates
because of the strong possibility of default. In 1998, with the
Asian crisis still unfolding and with Russian default seemingly
near, the IMF agreed to a $23 billion loan package to Russia,
seeking to maintain the rubles overvalued exchange rate. An
initial $4.8 billion portion of the loan left the country immediately
[...] some used to pay off foreign lenders, much of it stolen by
Russian politicians.

- IMF versus Russia by Vladimir Shestakov.

http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html

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.

You raised the topic of recycled material. Or do you not know the
meaning of 'shoddy'?

'shod·dy

1. Made of or containing inferior material.
2a. Of poor quality or craft.
b. Rundown; shabby.
3. Dishonest or reprehensible: ..
4. Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.

http://www.answers.com/shoddy&r=67

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.

At least -read- the stuff you quote and try to understand it before you rant.

There you go. You just can't help yourself, can you.

Well done, moody.

fx: Bows modestly.

Always the clown.

fx: Whirls illuminated bow tie and squirts water from fake rose

Cheerio,

--


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

"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..