"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> 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
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:00:31 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>news:vcn271he0dlgho7o6p92jork0v1t40pmsf@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:41:15 GMT, "rick" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:qe0171hrath22f0hon7orfp15griq2cl7h@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:49:18 GMT, "rick"
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>"Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:i2tu61ps07bl2cfa46t068s0ire64nq2qe@ 4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
as.earthlink.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.
====================
No, you've proven that your english comprehension is bad.
>