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/

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/

"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/

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"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/




Why the hell don't you restrict your posts to the newsgroup you read them
in, rather than keep distributing this rubbish over so many unrelated groups

Alan Holmes wrote:
"pearl" wrote in message
...

an awful lot of rubbish, which I don't bother to read

Why the hell don't you restrict your posts to the newsgroup you read them
in, rather than keep distributing this rubbish over so many unrelated groups

I have told you Alan, Pearl doesn't read, she just posts. Typically she
posts the rubbish about which you are complaining *and* cross posts it
to many irrelevant groups.

If you don't like seeing it, killfile her.

Oh, if you ask a question you might:

a. snip the post

b. leave your group in so that you receive any responses.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant231514064BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

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

LOL. Clearly there is.

No.

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.

in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year

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.

See above.

Yes, it negates your 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.

Huh?

Each individual owns too little to be worked economically.

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

snip text you haven't understood. As I said, price manipulation by a
command economy. When the brakes came off everything fell apart.

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

So you don't know what shoddy is.

N. Wool from shredded rags: cloth made from it, alone or mixed.
Chambers Dictionary.

Useful stuff, especially where oakum is too coarse.

Cheerio,

--


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

"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.