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

the Perfect Foil lied:


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


the Perfect Foil lied:


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.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.

Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
a dozen times.

It's probably just because
you're insane and think that
boating was 'implied'.

Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.

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?

Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
"over" used.


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.

No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.

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.

NO, you ****ing idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
that are produced.

You are SO INCREDIBLY ****ING STUPID, it's just
unfathomable.

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.

I am not missing the point at all, ****. YOU and the
****wit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
****ING CLUE what the point is.

The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
possible to take the same crops and, instead of
shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
can't or won't eat.

If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
different things. But why would that be done? What is
to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
business-ignorant ****?

Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
these changes in both resource allocation AND end
product distribution?

What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
You don't have a ****ing clue.

The grain/beans

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


Who said they were?

YOU did, ****: "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.


It's your loss.

Hardly. You could scorch water.


Here's a recipe just for you.

Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.

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.

No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
about resource allocation and product distribution.
ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
"ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
under her view of how resources "ought" to be
allocated. All that STUPID **** can do is flatulantly
say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
comment. It's horse****.

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.

They are there.

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.

She's a lying stupid ****. She is incapable of seeing
that once she starts complaining about resource
allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
time, are open to question.

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?

You're a ****ing moron and asshole.

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.

THINK, ****. Stop blabbering and THINK.

Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
recreational boats?

Scented Nectar wrote:

"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.

It IS implied. The foul skank Lesley has no criteria
AT ALL to say why agricultural resources ought to be
reallocated to feed starving people, but your time
should not be reallocated. Your time is a (low-valued)
resource, and one could easily make just as good a case
that you spend "too much" time cooking for yourself.
You could spend much less time cooking, still eat a
nutritionally adequate diet, and spend the saved time
doing something meaningful to help starving people. It
is just as legitimate a demand as the demand that
agricultural resources be reallocated away from meat
production and towards food-for-starving-people
production.

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

the Perfect Foil lied:


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


the Perfect Foil lied:


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.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.

Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
a dozen times.

Well, you have to admit that it's
strange. I'll bet there are also
boaters who feel this is off
topic.

It's probably just because
you're insane and think that
boating was 'implied'.

Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.

It's not implied from what I've
seen. Recreational boating
has nothing to do with veg
foods.

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?

Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
"over" used.

Science agrees with me.

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.

No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.

Sorry to disappoint you, but
yes, I really do think 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.

NO, you ****ing idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
that are produced.

You are SO INCREDIBLY ****ING STUPID, it's just
unfathomable.

Allocate means distribute, moron.

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.

I am not missing the point at all, ****. YOU and the
****wit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
****ING CLUE what the point is.

Calm down Rudy, your head
will explode.

The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
possible to take the same crops and, instead of
shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
can't or won't eat.

If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
different things. But why would that be done? What is
to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
business-ignorant ****?

The whole point is to make money
challenged people become self-
sufficient, not merely dependant
on hand outs.

Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
these changes in both resource allocation AND end
product distribution?

What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
You don't have a ****ing clue.

The grain/beans

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


Who said they were?

YOU did, ****: "grain/beans".

I was referring to a ratio. The
combo of grains/beans to the
amount of beef produced. Why
are you having such a hard time
understanding things?

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.

Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.

No way, you've already used it.
That's how it broke. You're a
tight ass!!! :)

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.

No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
about resource allocation and product distribution.
ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
"ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
under her view of how resources "ought" to be
allocated. All that STUPID **** can do is flatulantly
say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
comment. It's horse****.

She's not said anything even
close to what you claim.

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.

They are there.

So are the voices in your head,
the ones that point out implications
to you. But they're not real either.

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.

She's a lying stupid ****. She is incapable of seeing
that once she starts complaining about resource
allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
time, are open to question.

It's been proven that you're
making untrue claims about
her.

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?

You're a ****ing moron and asshole.

Maybe veggies are a fave
food among boaters? :))

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.

THINK, ****. Stop blabbering and THINK.

Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
recreational boats?

Oh, now they're evil for taking
the world's resources? What
will you think of next?


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

the Perfect Foil lied:

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

the Perfect Foil lied:

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


the Perfect Foil lied:



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

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.

Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
a dozen times.


Well, you have to admit that it's
strange.

It isn't strange. It makes perfect sense, but only to
someone who can THINK. That lets you out.

It's probably just because
you're insane and think that
boating was 'implied'.

Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.


It's not implied from what I've
seen.

It IS implied, you ****ing idiot.



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?

Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
"over" used.


Science agrees with me.

No, and you wouldn't know science if someone rammed it
down your throat.


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.

No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.


Sorry to disappoint you, but
yes, I really do think you're nuts.

No, you don't. It's just the best of all the lame
usenet insults you could dredge up.




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.

NO, you ****ing idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
that are produced.

You are SO INCREDIBLY ****ING STUPID, it's just
unfathomable.


Allocate means distribute, moron.

NO, you ****ing illiterate, it does not.

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.

I am not missing the point at all, ****. YOU and the
****wit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
****ING CLUE what the point is.

The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
possible to take the same crops and, instead of
shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
can't or won't eat.

If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
different things. But why would that be done? What is
to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
business-ignorant ****?


The whole point is to make money
challenged people become self-
sufficient, not merely dependant
on hand outs.

That is NOT the point of ****witted Lesley's suggestion
that agricultural resources in developed countries
currently being used to produce meat should be
reallocated to producing food for starving people.
There is NOTHING about North American livestock feed
production that in any way prevents "money challenged"
- I presume you mean "poor" and are just trying for a
phony erudite sound - from attaining food self
sufficiency. Lesley's ****witted suggestion would
actually do EXACTLY the opposite: it would INCREASE
their dependency on the west.

Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
these changes in both resource allocation AND end
product distribution?

What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
You don't have a ****ing clue.

Acknowledged.

The grain/beans

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


Who said they were?

YOU did, ****: "grain/beans".


I was referring to a ratio.

No, you weren't. You were suggesting that beans are
commonly fed to livestock.



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.

Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.


No way,

Do it.


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.

No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
about resource allocation and product distribution.
ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
"ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
under her view of how resources "ought" to be
allocated. All that STUPID **** can do is flatulantly
say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
comment. It's horse****.


She's not said anything even
close to what you claim.

NO ONE CARES if she has said it or not. It IS implied.


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.

They are there.


So are

The implications are there.


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.

She's a lying stupid ****. She is incapable of seeing
that once she starts complaining about resource
allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
time, are open to question.


It's been proven

It has been proven that her ****witted comments about
resource allocation are applicable to all resources,
whether she exlicitly says it 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.


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?

You're a ****ing moron and asshole.


Maybe

No "maybe" about it: you're a ****ing moron and asshole.

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.

THINK, ****. Stop blabbering and THINK.

Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
recreational boats?


Oh, now they're evil for taking
the world's resources?

If there are "starving people", and if those resources
could go to help feed "starving people", then how could
****witted Lesley NOT consider recreational boating to
be a waste of resources?

You're a fool, ball.

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

Saved to file.

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ...

"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

Thanks for the supporting evidence.

pearl wrote:

You're a fool, ball.

Nope. You have no grounds, and you WILL have to reveal
your full name if you foolishly decide to bring suit.
It's your choice, Lesley. You can preserve your usenet
anonymity, or you can stupidly file a suit that will be
summarily dismissed by any judge in the world, AND in
the process reveal your full name, which I then will
LEGALLY spread all over usenet. Instead of merely
writing "Lesley believes in 'inner earth beings' and
other weird ****", it will become "Lesley ________, of
_______ Street in ________, England, believes in 'inner
earth beings' and other weird ****." And there will be
NOTHING you can do about it.

YOU, Lesley, will be the one who fills in the blanks.
It's up to you.


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

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.


Saved to file.

Save it again: Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.

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

You're a fool, ball.

Nope.

Yep.

You have no grounds, and you WILL have to reveal
your full name if you foolishly decide to bring suit.

Not to you. You've issued public threats, foolish ball.

saved to file

pearl wrote:

You're a fool, ball.

Nope. You have no grounds, and you WILL have to reveal
your full name if you foolishly decide to bring suit.
It's your choice, Lesley. You can preserve your usenet
anonymity, or you can stupidly file a suit that will be
summarily dismissed by any judge in the world, AND in
the process reveal your full name, which I then will
LEGALLY spread all over usenet. Instead of merely
writing "Lesley believes in 'inner earth beings' and
other weird ****", it will become "Lesley ________, of
_______ Street in ________, England, believes in 'inner
earth beings' and other weird ****." And there will be
NOTHING you can do about it.

YOU, Lesley, will be the one who fills in the blanks.
It's up to you.


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

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.


Saved to file.

Save it again: Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.

pearl wrote:

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

pearl wrote:


You're a fool, ball.

Nope.


Yep.

Nope. I'm calling all the shots here.




You have no grounds, and you WILL have to reveal
your full name if you foolishly decide to bring suit.


Not to you. You've issued public threats, foolish ball.

saved to file

I've issued no *illegal* threats at all, you stupid
****. What I've told you is true and legal: if you're
so stupid as to attempt to file a lawsuit against me, I
WILL then know your full name, and I'll use it -
legally. It will then be "Lesley ****4braincell (or
whatever your last name is) believes in 'inner earth
beings', etc." Your usenet anonymity will be gone.

Facts:

- you don't have a case
- you don't have a "file"
- you don't have a solly
- you do not want to lose your anonymity, which you WILL
lose if you're stupid enough to try

You bluffed. I called your bluff. You lost. Deal
with it.