Emma Thackery wrote:
> In article >,
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
>> The story sure puts the squash on Emma's conspiracy notions about
>> what actually occured.
>
> The facts are well documented: The USDA had to pay the Faillace family
> for the unwarranted killing of their entire flock of sheep no matter
> how much you crave that to not be true.

WTF are you talking about? I never said that the USDA never had to reimburse
the family. You really have a deficiency in reading comprehension don't you?

> Any mention or even
> implication of a "conspiracy" came first from you, not me.

Wrong. You were the one who stated "the USDA threatened to ruin these people
if they told anyone that (the) USDA had killed all their sheep". Then you
stated " It is
always wise to question information that seems off kilter--- especially at
this time when the American public has been so successfully mislead and lied
to by their own government." Both smack of CONSPIRACY, and YOU were the one
to introduce both statements.

> I said
> "fiasco" and I stand by that. That you choose to mischaracterize my
> words merely betrays your desperation to have the USDA actions
> against the Faillace family be somehow justified--- that this small
> family sheep farm somehow committed some terrible deed that warranted
> such outrageous treatment by your trusted government incompetents.

I am not justifying the USDA, so quit the juvenile attempt to paint yet
another conspiracy. I brought up ONE issue: that you simply have failed to
produce anything to substantiate your statement: "the USDA threatened to
ruin these people if they told anyone that (the) USDA had killed all their
sheep". I called bullshit on YOUR statement and you have wriggled,
squiggled, frothed and foamed, but you have NOT produced one iota of
objective information to qualify YOUR statement that "the USDA threatened to
ruin these people if they told anyone that (the) USDA had killed all their
sheep"

You keep wanting to interject all sorts of issues to try and cover-up your
inability to provide documentation to substantiate you statement: "the USDA
threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that (the) USDA had
killed all their sheep". Just say that you have no evidence to support that
statement, and we can all go home.

> And whether that indicates some ideological defensiveness or perverse
> agenda on your part, I can't be certain.

A strawman which is trying to cover for your inability to show objective
evidence to support your statement "the USDA threatened to ruin these people
if they told anyone that (the) USDA had killed all their sheep".

Try staying on track.

> But what I do know for sure
> is that I don't feel the slightest inclination to scratch that
> contentious itch of yours, Dave.

I don't have an itch, but you sure have a rash of embarrasment. Quit
wriggling around like a worm on a hook, and provide corroborating objective
evidence to support your statement "the USDA threatened to ruin these people
if they told anyone that (the) USDA had killed all their sheep".

> Surely there must be at least one
> person out there, somewhere, whom you can impress.

Again, a distraction from YOUR need to provide objective evidence that "the
USDA threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that (the) USDA had
killed all their sheep".

Now, please post again with even more red-herrings. Or just admit that you
have no information to support your statement.

--

Dave
www.davebbq.com