On 2 Sep 2006 11:54:16 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:36:17 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ __________
>> >> >> >> >> From: diderot >
>> >> >> >> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> >> >> >> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> >> >> >> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>> >> >> >> >> Message-ID: >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
>> >> >> >thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
>> >> >> >harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
>> >> >> >elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
>> >> >> >writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
>> >> >> >proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
>> >> >> >farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
>> >> >> >are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
>> >> >> >left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
>> >> >> >sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
>> >> >> be dead,
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
>> >> >as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?
>> >>
>> >> I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
>> >> get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
>> >> Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
>> >> when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
>> >> should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
>> >> the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
>> >> draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
>> >> afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
>> >> water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
>> >> what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
>> >> mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
>> >> are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.
>> >
>> >That is all really absolute nonsense. Frogs are as mobile as the
>> >next creature. Any there could easily move on as the fields dry.
>>
>> How would they know what was happening? How would they
>> know where the water went? How far would they have to travel
>> in order to get to it? What would keep them from getting killed
>> by predators IF they hopped along trying to get there? What
>> would keep them from dehydrating even IF they did know where
>> to go, tried to get there, and didn't get killed by predators?
>
>Hypothetical frogs are capable of anything, doncha know.
Not long ago you acted like you understood there are
frogs in rice fields, even commenting on them trying to get
people to believe that: "Any there could easily move on as the
fields dry." Back when you understood that there are frogs in
rice fields, can you remember how you thought they got there?
>> >> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
>> >> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
>> >> >> along.
>> >> >
>> >> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
>> >> >slaughtered year in, year out?
>> >>
>> >> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
>> >
>> >I bet! - you're a ready sucker,
>>
>> LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
>> superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
>> damn funny.
>
>I've plenty of reason to believe that.
Like what?
>You dis-believe without reason.
I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
people in general would have learned about it because research
teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
public like they do with other things of interest.
>> >and an unabashed propagandist.
>> >
>> >> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
>> >> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
>> >> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
>> >> upstream.
>> >
>> >Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
>> >live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
>> >of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
>> >Why don't you do a little research?
>>
>> I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
>> IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
>> they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
>> where do you think they come from?
>
>I don't think that 'they' are there!
But you did last week. Why did you think so last week but not
this week, have you any idea?
>> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
>> and sulk away from it.
>
>You haven't answered the question.
Which one?
>> >And if his claims were true, a
>> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
>>
>> Who would document it? Why?
>
>Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..
So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?
>> >> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
>> >> >> deaths caused by rice production.
>> >> >
>> >> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
>> >> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
>> >>
>> >> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
>> >> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
>> >> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
>> >
>> >diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.
>>
>> Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
>> people to believe otherwise.
>
>You claim they are, and without any evidence to substantiate those
>outlandish claims, you disgustingly want people to believe it's fact.
As I said, I have seen grasshoppers etc hopping all over the
bush hog I've mowed with. If there were frogs as well they would
be doing the same. Rice harvesters being of different design
would allow for less hopping on the equipmet and make for more
going through it. I have presented pictures of frogs in rice fields:
http://tinyurl.com/z5fky
http://tinyurl.com/gkdzo
http://tinyurl.com/zxf82
http://tinyurl.com/goh3f
This animal is even called a Rice Frog:
http://tinyurl.com/jcr2v
so is this one:
http://tinyurl.com/hzl4v
and this one:
http://tinyurl.com/gh7cn
This one is called a Rice Paddy Frog:
http://tinyurl.com/h49cy
yet you absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
now claim that there are no frogs in rice production. How
could I possibly believe your insane sounding claim that there
are no cds in rice production or it would be well-documented
and presented on web sites, when ALL evidence shows that
you have amazingly somehow recently become totally ignorant
about the existence of frogs in rice fields, or more likely you
are being deliberately and contemptibly dishonest about this
whole thing?