the Perfect Foil lied:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
oups.com...

the Perfect Foil lied:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

the Perfect Foil lied:


Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?

Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.


Nah, I give up.

You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
never quit, and quitters never win.


The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.

It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.


Aesthetic? No.

Yes.

of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again.

No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.


And do that by tearing down my
home?

You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
longer such. The implication for your residence is
clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
bulldoze it.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.


I think everyone agrees it's
a distribution problem.

No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
They're wrong.

Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
you're wrong.


The grain/beans

Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
stupid ****.

to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.


Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

Doubt all you want.

My doubts are well grounded.


It's your loss.

Hardly. You could scorch water.


but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.

No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.


She has never faulted me for
my time use like you do.

*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.


And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.

A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.


Huh? Your implication
perception is way off.

My ability to detect logically necessary implications
is unsurpassed.


going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time.

It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.


Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.

By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

You are a ****ing idiot.


No,

Yes.

just someone who doesn't
get what the above has to do
with boats.

Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.

The philosophy
group I can understand, as we
discuss morals regarding the
use of food and animals, but
boats? Oh well, trying to figure
out how your mind works is
boggling. You say and do
the weirdest things.

No.

THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
your ****ing worthless life.

Market driven? Yeah right ... and check out those fine specimens to the left
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html Supersize? You betcha :-)

" The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
is perfectly legitimate and proper.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message oups.com...
the Scented Nectar wrote:
..
She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.

For this crosspost, from yesterday:

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message ...
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
Scented Nectar wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...

pearl wrote:

Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
materials and capital and labor that go into making a
Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
'waste'.

This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
the world.


Tell that to the hungry people in
the world,

They would be hungry EVEN IF all North Americans and
Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
has ****-all to do with our resource allocation.
They're hungry because THEIR economies are ****ed up,
and their countries are run by murderers.

Hunger and Food Insecurity Reach Chronic Highs [November 2004]
...
In 2003 the number of American households experiencing hunger rose
26% over comparable 1999 data, according to a newly released U.S.
Department of Agriculture report, Household Food Security in the
United States, 2003. Based on data from the December 2003 Food
Security Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 36.3 million
Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food
insecurity, cutting back on needed food requirements due to a lack of
adequate income. This represents an increase of more than 5 million
people since 1999, and includes more than 13 million children.

"This is an unexpected and even stunning outcome," noted center
director Dr. J. Larry Brown, a leading scholarly authority on domestic
hunger. "This chronic level of hunger so long after the recession ended
means that it is a man-made problem. Congress and the White House
urgently need to address growing income inequality and the weakening
of the safety net in order to get this epidemic under control"
http://tinyurl.com/8zvmy (pdf)

'Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain
and soybeans eaten by U.S. livestock: 1,300,000,000
http://www.kindplanet.org/hunger.html

But then we'd be able to give them
our excess food and help them
to get back on their feet and be
eventually self-sufficient. Not that
this is likely to happen in reality,
but ideally this would be great
for everyone.

"While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese
and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to
two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people
have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own
country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not
surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets
abroad."

Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and
suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised
countries has supported such free trade and free market policies.
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm

'Worldwatch states that 75% of the Third World imports of corn,
barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals and not people. "In
country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is
squeezing out staple production for the poor." The demand for
meat among the rich takes precedence over grain production for
the poor since "cash" crops come first. Two-thirds of the grain
exported from North America goes to feed livestock which then
filters back to only feeding the ones who can afford that type of food.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutri...iet/vworld.htm
......

'rudy's response:

"Load of ****, from a non-stop ****-spewer.

Poor people will always have problems."

That first sentence is projection, as usual.

"Rudy Canoza" lied wrote in message nk.net...
Scented Nectar wrote:
..
Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.

Absolutely not.

By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

I say may Scented enjoy all the veganic feasts she wishes,
and when you & co. stop eat the equivalent of 16lbs of grain
to feed your addiction with 1lb of beef, so will every person
on this planet. In addition to that, the vast expanses grazed
can revert to natural habitat, and many species your diet has
now driven to the edge of extinction will be able to recover.


Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
you make which contains personal slurs against my person
will be used in a court action against you. You have been
advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message nk.net...
Capt. Neal® wrote:

How big are your zucchinis this year, Rudy?

Haven't planted any yet. But the corn's as high as an elephant's eye.



Those latin women eat lots of corn, I hear tell. That's why so many of them are obese.
Seems most latin women look good up till they reach about twenty years old or when
they have their first baby then they turn into butter hogs - it's enough to keep a
fog horn going almost constantly.

CN






CN

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message oups.com...

the Perfect Foil wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...
the Perfect Foil wrote:

Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?


Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net...

pearl wrote:


Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by

people.

Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by

cycling

grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is

devoted to

beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.


It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.


of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again.


No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.


She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.

The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

Doubt all you want.


My doubts are well grounded.

but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.


No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.

And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.


A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.

going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time.


It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.

And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.


You are a ****ing idiot.

pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message oups.com...

the Scented Nectar wrote:

..

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.


For this crosspost, from yesterday:

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message ...

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...

Scented Nectar wrote:


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
hlink.net...


pearl wrote:


Scented, you asked for this info;

'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
materials and capital and labor that go into making a
Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
'waste'.

This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
the world.


Tell that to the hungry people in
the world,

They would be hungry EVEN IF all North Americans and
Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
has ****-all to do with our resource allocation.
They're hungry because THEIR economies are ****ed up,
and their countries are run by murderers.


Hunger and Food Insecurity Reach Chronic Highs [November 2004]
..
In 2003 the number of American households experiencing hunger rose
26% over comparable 1999 data, according to a newly released U.S.
Department of Agriculture report, Household Food Security in the
United States, 2003.

Load of ****, from a non-stop ****-spewer. Poor people
will always have problems.

Lesley oozed:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote wrote in message nk.net...

Scented Nectar wrote:

..

Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.


Absolutely not.

Implicitly, you are, you stupid lying foot masseuse.
You have suggested that any resource used beyond the
minimum necessary for elementary human nutrition is
wasted. That includes time.


you make which contains personal slurs against my person
will be used in a court action against you.

**** yourself with a broken bottle. You have no
grounds for suit, and you know full well that if you
did, I would know your full name and everything else
about you, LEGALLY, and I would spread it all over the
internet. **** off with your empty threats, asshole.

"pearl" spat this pabulum in message ...


Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
you make which contains personal slurs against my person
will be used in a court action against you. You have been
advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..


Which person would that be? Your pimp perhaps?

CN

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
the Perfect Foil lied:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
oups.com...

the Perfect Foil lied:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

the Perfect Foil lied:


Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?

Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.


Nah, I give up.

You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
never quit, and quitters never win.

The prize is the answer to why
you crossposted this. No big
deal. It's probably just because
you're insane and think that
boating was 'implied'.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.

It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.


Aesthetic? No.

Yes.

What do aesthetics have to
do with it?

of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again.

No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.


And do that by tearing down my
home?

You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
longer such. The implication for your residence is
clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
bulldoze it.

You're nuts.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.


I think everyone agrees it's
a distribution problem.

No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
They're wrong.

Distribution, allocation, pretty
much the same thing. Same
results.

Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
you're wrong.

I think you're missing the
point.

The grain/beans

Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
stupid ****.

Who said they were? I'm
referring to the combo.

to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.


Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

Doubt all you want.

My doubts are well grounded.


It's your loss.

Hardly. You could scorch water.

Here's a recipe just for you.
Start with a dozen water hemlock
roots...just kidding. :)

but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.

No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.


She has never faulted me for
my time use like you do.

*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.

I've not seen her say that.

And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.

A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.


Huh? Your implication
perception is way off.

My ability to detect logically necessary implications
is unsurpassed.

You even find them when they
aren't there. You ARE good!

going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time.

It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.


Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.

By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

I think I'll wait and see what she
says about my time usage.

And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

You are a ****ing idiot.


No,

Yes.

just someone who doesn't
get what the above has to do
with boats.

Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.

Are there a lot of boating
vegetarians? Does boating for
fun make people suddenly
interested in veg food? Come
on, make sense for once.

The philosophy
group I can understand, as we
discuss morals regarding the
use of food and animals, but
boats? Oh well, trying to figure
out how your mind works is
boggling. You say and do
the weirdest things.

No.

THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
your ****ing worthless life.

There's that famed politeness
again.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rudy Canoza" lied wrote in message
nk.net...
Scented Nectar wrote:
..
Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.

Absolutely not.

Thank you. He was seeing 'implied'
things again and getting it wrong
again.

By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

I say may Scented enjoy all the veganic feasts she wishes,
and when you & co. stop eat the equivalent of 16lbs of grain
to feed your addiction with 1lb of beef, so will every person
on this planet. In addition to that, the vast expanses grazed
can revert to natural habitat, and many species your diet has
now driven to the edge of extinction will be able to recover.

Sounds good to me. :) It's time
for a new batch of my vegan chili.
But first I have to make up a new
batch of my veg broth it uses.
Feast time. Cheers. :)


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
you make which contains personal slurs against my person
will be used in a court action against you. You have been
advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..