|
Ping: Scented Nectar
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. 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". 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. 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. http://www.hyundaiusa.com/Vehicles/A...le_Details.asp http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container... V&class=06_S |
Why did you crosspost this
all over the place? "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 of formerly wild areas like the extensive acreage used in beef production. 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. The grain/beans to beef ratio is 16:1, and the potatoes to beef ratio is 160:1. That's huge! 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, 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? And cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20 minutes? You're wackier than the tobacco I smoke!! And what's this got to do with boats? -- 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 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. http://www.hyundaiusa.com/Vehicles/A...le_Details.asp http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container... V&class=06_S |
Scented Nectar wrote:
Why did you crosspost this all over the place? It belongs there. "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. 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. 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****. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. |
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
k.net... Scented Nectar 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? "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. 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. Actually when you think of it, living in the city uses up less actual space per human, then living in the country does. 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. 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. You'll never get the chance to find out. :) 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. 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. 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. You have however. 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. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:20:21 -0400, "Scented Nectar"
wrote: 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. NUKE THE WHALES AND JANE FONDA!!! THEN BLAME CANADA!!! |
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. |
How big are your zucchinis this year, Rudy?
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. |
"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. Nah, I give up. If you want to tell me fine, if not who cares. "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. Aesthetic? No. 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? Are you more nuts today than usual? 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. That problem includes too much grain going to feed livestock animals. 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. It's your loss. 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. As far as being a foul whore, I have yet to hear her say she's in the sex trade. In fact I remember her denying it. I also doubt she is foul. She likely washes with soap and water like almost everyone else. You win the prize for foul language though. 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. 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. 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, just someone who doesn't get what the above has to do with boats. 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. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
"Scented Nectar" wrote
"Rudy Canoza" wrote 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. That problem includes too much grain going to feed livestock animals. No it doesn't, there is a worldwide surplus of grain now. If we could feed the world's starving populations with it, we could do it now. If less grain were fed to livestock, less would need to be produced, and grain would ultimately cost more. It have NO effect on the world's starving populations. The problems are economic and political. |
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. 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. |
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.. |
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. |
Somebody should sue you for stealing Phil Hendri intellectual property . . . "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message nk.net... 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. |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
Somebody should sue you for stealing Phil Hendri intellectual property . HENDRIE, you moron. Just as there really is a David G. Hall, there really is a Rudy Canoza. However, I don't think there really is a Bobbi Dooley. . . "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message nk.net... 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 ink.net... Capt. Neal® wrote: Somebody should sue you for stealing Phil Hendri intellectual property . HENDRIE, you moron. Just as there really is a David G. Hall, there really is a Rudy Canoza. However, I don't think there really is a Bobbi Dooley. Or a Bud Dickman, or a Pastor Rennick, or a Herb Sewell . . . . . "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message nk.net... 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. |
Have you ever eaten at one of Ted Bell's steak houses?
CN "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ink.net... Capt. Neal® wrote: Somebody should sue you for stealing Phil Hendri intellectual property . HENDRIE, you moron. Just as there really is a David G. Hall, there really is a Rudy Canoza. However, I don't think there really is a Bobbi Dooley. . . "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message nk.net... 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. |
Capt. Neal® wrote:
Have you ever eaten at one of Ted Bell's steak houses? Yes, excellent. They really do put their meat in your mouth. CN "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message ink.net... Capt. Neal® wrote: Somebody should sue you for stealing Phil Hendri intellectual property . HENDRIE, you moron. Just as there really is a David G. Hall, there really is a Rudy Canoza. However, I don't think there really is a Bobbi Dooley. . . "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message nk.net... 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com