On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:22:53 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message news
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:46:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>In article .net>, "rick" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>> > It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce
>>>>>>>>>>>> > grain. More than half of America's crop production
>>>>>>>>>>>> > is fed to livestock.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ======================
>>>>>>>>>>>> ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow,
>>>>>>>>>>>meat industry apologist. It has been a while since I
>>>>>>>>>>>looked into that, but that's the number I remember. Or
>>>>>>>>>>>do you already have an idea of how much grain in the
>>>>>>>>>>>U.S goes to livestock?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> '..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed
>>>>>>>>>> directly per capita are just a small fraction of the
>>>>>>>>>> total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly
>>>>>>>>>> and indirectly) in the United States. In fact, of the total
>>>>>>>>>> domestic consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to
>>>>>>>>>> feed livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption,
>>>>>>>>>> and the remaining 17% are used by the food industry to
>>>>>>>>>> produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed
>>>>>>>>>> indirectly by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for
>>>>>>>>>> soybeans and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is
>>>>>>>>>> used for feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of
>>>>>>>>>> by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the
>>>>>>>>>> food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.'
>>>>>>>>>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm
>>>>>>>>>=================
>>>>>>>>>I never thought I'd ever say this, but thanks twit. You
>>>>>>>>>just proved him wrong....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rather, those percentages prove you wrong and 'Sprang'
>>>>>>>> right. Learn to read.
>>>>>>>=================
>>>>>>>I have, maybe you should learn. He claimed that 90% of all
>>>>>>>crops are ed to animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the top of this post and you'll see that he
>>>>>> claimed, "More than half of America's crop production
>>>>>> is fed to livestock.", not 90%, liar Ricky, As it turns
>>>>>> out, his 51% guess is 21% shy of the actual 72%
>>>>>> given by David Pimentel Cornell University and Mario
>>>>>> Giampietro Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome.
>>>>>===============
>>>>>Yeah, I picked the 90 from your idiocy.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get to blame me for your errors and subsequent
>>>> lies, Ricky.
>>
>> When are you going to explain why you lied? He never
>> made the claim of 90%, like you insisted he did.
If you're not prepared to explain why you lied about
"Sprang's" claim, why should anyone believe a word
you write?
>>>>>You still haven't proven him right, killer..
>>>>
>>>> He claimed that, "More than half of America's crop
>>>> production is fed to livestock.", and the evidence
>>>> which gives a 72 % is exactly as he said: more than
>>>> half, which proves he was right.
>>>========================
>>>Still have comprehension problems, don't you fool.
>>>Your claim is that 72% of grains are fed to animals.
>>
>> Which supports his claim of "More than half ..." Look
>> again at the evidence I produced above.
My guess is that the evidence which support his claim
is just too hard for you to refute, and that's why you lied
about his claim.
>>> He claimed more than half of all crops are fed to animals.
>>
>> And he was correct to do so, according to the evidence
>> I produced. You, however, lied by insisting, " He claimed
>> that 90% of all crops are ed to animals."
>> =====================
>No, he wasn't correct, and neither are your attempts...
Evidence shows that he was correct. More than half
the grain he was referring to in his paragraph DOES go
to feed livestock.
>>>Too bad you are too stupid to even read, eh killer?
>>
>> Don't you realise that 72% is "More than half..." yet
>> Rick?
>================
>Sure
Then you have no option but to concede and take on
board that more than half the grain "Sprang" referred
to in his paragraph at the top of this page goes to feed
livestock.
>>> This is very basic
>>>> stuff Rick, and if you can't admit you're wrong on
>>>> something as simple and as obvious as this, then it's
>>>> certain you'll never admit to being wrong about
>>>> anything, even when forced to look at the facts.
>>>====================
>>>You haven't presented the facts to prove what he said.
>>
>> You're lying again. Just look above and read what I
>> brought here as evidence to prove it.
>> =================
>No, you haven't, killer.
It's there, exactly where I put it, and hiding from it
doesn't help you out of the hole you've dug yourself
into.
>>>>>> "In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal
>>>>>> grains
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *72% are used to feed livestock,**
>>>>>> ============================
>>>>>Too bad you still haven't proved him right.
>>>>
>>>> 72% is more than half, which proves 'Sprang' was
>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>>>His statement was "America's crop production"
>>>>
>>>> He was referring to grain;
>>>> "It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce
>>>> grain. More than half of America's crop production
>>>> is fed to livestock."
>>>======================
>>>Nope.
>>
>> Yep. Your math is clearly very poor. Believe it or not,
>> 72% is "More than half ...", just like he said.
>> =======================
>Nope.
Half of something is 50% of it. More than half of something
over 50% of it. 72% of something is more than half of it,
meaning "Sprang" was right and you're incredibly poor in
basic math.