I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the Fallace family
sheep farm have been discussed here but The Restaurant Guys (on New
Jersey radio) did a fascinating segment with Linda Fallace the other
day. You can access the free podcast on iTunes: The Restaurant Guys:
2/19/07 OR
you can get the MP3 file on their website at:

<http://www.restaurantguysradio.com/sle/rg/>

The segment is about 1/3 of the way into the podcast. I had heard about
this malicious prosecution before but was unaware that the USDA
threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had killed
all their sheep. It's an incredible story.

Emma

Emma Thackery wrote:

> ....but was unaware that the USDA
> threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had
> killed all their sheep. It's an incredible story.

More like unbelievable.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:31:38 -0600, Emma Thackery >
wrote:


Emma...your subject line should explain everything.

USDA....GOVERNMENT involvement....Fiasco. Why would any reasonable
person be shocked.....after all the government was involved.


Just remember the two most famous lies.....

I'm from the government and I am here to help.... (think Katrina)

It's just a cold sore......


The US Congress is the ONLY whorehouse that loses money!

Emma Thackery wrote:
> I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the Fallace family
> sheep farm have been discussed here but The Restaurant Guys (on New
> Jersey radio) did a fascinating segment with Linda Fallace the other
> day. You can access the free podcast on iTunes: The Restaurant Guys:
> 2/19/07 OR
> you can get the MP3 file on their website at:
>
> <http://www.restaurantguysradio.com/sle/rg/>
>
> The segment is about 1/3 of the way into the podcast. I had heard about
> this malicious prosecution before but was unaware that the USDA
> threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had killed
> all their sheep. It's an incredible story.
>
> Emma


You'll find a lot more information if you spell the woman's name
"Faillace" when you search.

She claims that the USDA falsified test results, then accidentally
destroyed the samples to prevent the tests from being rerun. (Retesting
had been ordered by a federal district judge).

I dunno if it's true or not, but it fits nicely with the mode of
operations at airports, borders, etc, where the security is all for
show. It's not Homeland Security, it's Homeland Security Theatre. (The
best example is the National Guard troops stationed on the Mexican
border with orders not to do anything. They've had to retreat when
fired upon by Mexican drug runners -- one wonders if the NG is even
armed or if they are carrying empty rifles)

"Your tax dollars at work" HTH ;-)

Best regards,
Bob

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> You'll find a lot more information if you spell the woman's name
> "Faillace" when you search.

Oooops, sorry about that.

Emma Thackery wrote:
> In article >,
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> You'll find a lot more information if you spell the woman's name
>> "Faillace" when you search.
>
> Oooops, sorry about that.


Don't worry about it. It's misspelled a bunch of places; probably on
the web site you referenced.

Bob

On Feb 21, 1:31 pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the Fallace family
> sheep farm have been discussed here but The Restaurant Guys (on New
> Jersey radio) did a fascinating segment with Linda Fallace [sic] the other
> day. [snip]

The impulse to bash the government is understandable but I wouldn't be
too quick to rush to judgment. Linda Faillace has written a newly
published book about her experience so there's a buzz about it right
now. But her sheep were destroyed by the USDA six years ago as part
of what they said was the effort to protect against bse. She says it
was shoddy science. One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda
Faillace worked as a secretary, store clerk, lab technician, song
writer, piano teacher, and astrologer, before embarking on a career in
sheep farming and cheese making." Given that resumé I'm not inclined
to say that she is qualified to judge someone else's science. If she
could prove her allegations in court rather than in her book one would
think she'd have won a settlement from them by now for destroying her
sheep. -aem

In article >,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> > ....but was unaware that the USDA
> > threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had
> > killed all their sheep. It's an incredible story.
>
> More like unbelievable.

A federal district court ruling said the USDA had to compensate the
family.

Emma

Emma Thackery wrote:

> In article >,
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
>> Emma Thackery wrote:
>>
>>> ....but was unaware that the USDA
>>> threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had
>>> killed all their sheep. It's an incredible story.
>>
>> More like unbelievable.
>
> A federal district court ruling said the USDA had to compensate the
> family.

How does that prove that the USDA -- according to your post -- "threatened
to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had killed all their
sheep" ? I do not find that statement credible.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

aem wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 1:31 pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> > I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the Fallace family
> > sheep farm have been discussed here but The Restaurant Guys (on New
> > Jersey radio) did a fascinating segment with Linda Fallace [sic] the other
> > day. [snip]
>
> One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda
> Faillace worked as a secretary, store clerk, lab technician, song
> writer, piano teacher, and astrologer, before embarking on a career in
> sheep farming and cheese making." Given that resumé I'm not inclined
> to say that she is qualified to judge someone else's science. If she
> could prove her allegations in court rather than in her book one would
> think she'd have won a settlement from them by now for destroying her
> sheep. -aem

Prove the astrologer part, and she could win a million bucks
from James Randi. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R...rmal_Challenge

In article >,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> >
> >> Emma Thackery wrote:
> >>
> >>> ....but was unaware that the USDA
> >>> threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had
> >>> killed all their sheep. It's an incredible story.
> >>
> >> More like unbelievable.
> >
> > A federal district court ruling said the USDA had to compensate the
> > family.
>
> How does that prove that the USDA -- according to your post -- "threatened
> to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had killed all their
> sheep" ? I do not find that statement credible.

The fact that these people won in federal court lends credibility to
their claims. That you don't believe it is your prerogative. 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. I did provide two cites. It's
your decision to access it or not and make of it what you will.

Emma

In article . com>,
"aem" > wrote:

> On Feb 21, 1:31 pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
> > I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the Fallace family
> > sheep farm have been discussed here but The Restaurant Guys (on New
> > Jersey radio) did a fascinating segment with Linda Fallace [sic] the other
> > day. [snip]
>
> The impulse to bash the government is understandable but I wouldn't be
> too quick to rush to judgment. Linda Faillace has written a newly
> published book about her experience so there's a buzz about it right
> now. But her sheep were destroyed by the USDA six years ago as part
> of what they said was the effort to protect against bse. She says it
> was shoddy science. One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda
> Faillace worked as a secretary, store clerk, lab technician, song
> writer, piano teacher, and astrologer, before embarking on a career in
> sheep farming and cheese making." Given that resumé I'm not inclined
> to say that she is qualified to judge someone else's science. If she
> could prove her allegations in court rather than in her book one would
> think she'd have won a settlement from them by now for destroying her
> sheep. -aem

Apparently the federal court believed her expert witnesses, despite her
varied personal background. Imagine that.

Emma Thackery > wrote:
>
>I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the Fallace family
>sheep farm have been discussed here but The Restaurant Guys (on New
>Jersey radio) did a fascinating segment with Linda Fallace the other
>day. You can access the free podcast on iTunes: The Restaurant Guys:
>2/19/07 OR
>you can get the MP3 file on their website at:
>
><http://www.restaurantguysradio.com/sle/rg/>
>
>The segment is about 1/3 of the way into the podcast. I had heard about
>this malicious prosecution before but was unaware that the USDA
>threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had killed
>all their sheep. It's an incredible story.

Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather than voice?
I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken. It almost
always implies there's been no opportunity for fact-checking.

Steve

"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> How does that prove that the USDA -- according to your post -- "threatened
> to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had killed all their
> sheep" ? I do not find that statement credible.

I can picture a circumstance where the USDA agrees to pay
compensation to the sheep farmers but only under condition
that the whole proceeding (including culling the sheep) is kept
confidential. Legal settlements often have confidentiality
clauses. That could, if one liked, be portrayed as
"ruining" the farmers if they talked about it.

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Emma Thackery > wrote:
>>
>>I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the Fallace family
>>sheep farm have been discussed here but The Restaurant Guys (on New
>>Jersey radio) did a fascinating segment with Linda Fallace the other
>>day. You can access the free podcast on iTunes: The Restaurant Guys:
>>2/19/07 OR
>>you can get the MP3 file on their website at:
>>
>><http://www.restaurantguysradio.com/sle/rg/>
>>
>>The segment is about 1/3 of the way into the podcast. I had heard about
>>this malicious prosecution before but was unaware that the USDA
>>threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had killed
>>all their sheep. It's an incredible story.
>
> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather than voice?
> I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken. It almost
> always implies there's been no opportunity for fact-checking.
>
> Steve

I guess talking books are a complete sham, then.

"Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "aem" > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 21, 1:31 pm, Emma Thackery > wrote:
>> > I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the Fallace family
>> > sheep farm have been discussed here but The Restaurant Guys (on New
>> > Jersey radio) did a fascinating segment with Linda Fallace [sic] the
>> > other
>> > day. [snip]
>>
>> The impulse to bash the government is understandable but I wouldn't be
>> too quick to rush to judgment. Linda Faillace has written a newly
>> published book about her experience so there's a buzz about it right
>> now. But her sheep were destroyed by the USDA six years ago as part
>> of what they said was the effort to protect against bse. She says it
>> was shoddy science. One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda
>> Faillace worked as a secretary, store clerk, lab technician, song
>> writer, piano teacher, and astrologer, before embarking on a career in
>> sheep farming and cheese making." Given that resumé I'm not inclined
>> to say that she is qualified to judge someone else's science. If she
>> could prove her allegations in court rather than in her book one would
>> think she'd have won a settlement from them by now for destroying her
>> sheep. -aem
>
> Apparently the federal court believed her expert witnesses, despite her
> varied personal background. Imagine that.


Let's change one occupation in this sentence and see if some people think
the woman sounds more credible:

"One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda Faillace worked as a secretary,
store clerk, lab technician, song writer, piano teacher, and Christian
missionary, before embarking on a career in sheep farming and cheese
making."

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather than voice?
> I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken. It almost
> always implies there's been no opportunity for fact-checking.

It's an interview. No one can possibly fact-check a live interview
before it takes place. Apparently it was credible enough for the
mainstream New Jersey radio station to run it. If the topic interests
you, I suggest that you Google it. If not, don't bother.

In article >,
"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

> "Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
> ...

> > In article . com>,
> > "aem" > wrote:
> >
> >> ...One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda
> >> Faillace worked as a secretary, store clerk, lab technician, song
> >> writer, piano teacher, and astrologer, before embarking on a career in
> >> sheep farming and cheese making." Given that resumé I'm not inclined
> >> to say that she is qualified to judge someone else's science. If she
> >> could prove her allegations in court rather than in her book one would
> >> think she'd have won a settlement from them by now for destroying her
> >> sheep. -aem
> >
> > Apparently the federal court believed her expert witnesses, despite her
> > varied personal background. Imagine that.
>
> Let's change one occupation in this sentence and see if some people think
> the woman sounds more credible:
>
> "One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda Faillace worked as a secretary,
> store clerk, lab technician, song writer, piano teacher, and Christian
> missionary, before embarking on a career in sheep farming and cheese
> making."

Indeed.. lol. The haste to defend serious government misconduct,
especially regarding abuse of civil & property rights, does seem rife
among the intelligent [sic] designer crowd.


ObFood: Coconut makes an excellent, gluten-free bottom-crust for some
pies and cheesecake.

On Feb 22, 5:09 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>
> Let's change one occupation in this sentence and see if some people think
> the woman sounds more credible:
>
> "One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda Faillace worked as a secretary,
> store clerk, lab technician, song writer, piano teacher, and Christian
> missionary, before embarking on a career in sheep farming and cheese
> making."

Why would substituting one superstition for another enhance
credibility? -aem

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 22, 5:09 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>
>> Let's change one occupation in this sentence and see if some people think
>> the woman sounds more credible:
>>
>> "One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda Faillace worked as a
>> secretary,
>> store clerk, lab technician, song writer, piano teacher, and Christian
>> missionary, before embarking on a career in sheep farming and cheese
>> making."
>
> Why would substituting one superstition for another enhance
> credibility? -aem
>

Because the one I substituted might appeal to people who share that
superstition. I was probing, ya know? :-)

Emma Thackery > wrote:

>> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather than voice?

>It's an interview. No one can possibly fact-check a live interview
>before it takes place. Apparently it was credible enough for the
>mainstream New Jersey radio station to run it. If the topic interests
>you, I suggest that you Google it. If not, don't bother.

It is sometimes helpful if one or two participants in a discussion
has done the research, and is willing to share what they've
learned. "Google it or don't bother" is not very helpful.

Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Emma Thackery > wrote:

> > (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather than
> >> voice? I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken. It almost
> >> always implies there's been no opportunity for fact-checking.
>
> >It's an interview. No one can possibly fact-check a live interview
> >before it takes place. Apparently it was credible enough for the
> >mainstream New Jersey radio station to run it. If the topic interests
> >you, I suggest that you Google it. If not, don't bother.
>
> It is sometimes helpful if one or two participants in a discussion
> has done the research, and is willing to share what they've
> learned. "Google it or don't bother" is not very helpful.

When any reference I provide is likely to be met by another of your "no
opportunity for fact checking" remarks, I'm not exactly motivated to
walk into those cross-hairs.

Emma Thackery > wrote:

> (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> It is sometimes helpful if one or two participants in a discussion
>> has done the research, and is willing to share what they've
>> learned. "Google it or don't bother" is not very helpful.

>When any reference I provide is likely to be met by another of your "no
>opportunity for fact checking" remarks, I'm not exactly motivated to
>walk into those cross-hairs.

If you have something more thoroughly researched than what you agree
is a non-fact-checked radio interview, why not add that information
to the discussion?

S.

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Emma Thackery > wrote:
>
> > (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> It is sometimes helpful if one or two participants in a discussion
> >> has done the research, and is willing to share what they've
> >> learned. "Google it or don't bother" is not very helpful.
>
> >When any reference I provide is likely to be met by another of your "no
> >opportunity for fact checking" remarks, I'm not exactly motivated to
> >walk into those cross-hairs.
>
> If you have something more thoroughly researched than what you agree
> is a non-fact-checked radio interview, why not add that information
> to the discussion?

I've already responded to you and have nothing more to add. See my
previous response above.

Emma Thackery wrote:

> The fact that these people won in federal court lends credibility to
> their claims.

No, it doesn't. It simply means that they won a claim for reimbursement. The
federal court did not hear testimony, nor did it consider, anything remotely
like "the USDA threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that
(the) USDA had killed all their sheep".

> That you don't believe it is your prerogative.

As it is yours to believe non-substantiated statements form those who have
motive to lie.

> 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.

Right. Sure.

> I did provide two cites.

A cite on the internet; wow that means it's absolutely authentic. Would you
like cites that support extraterrestrial impregnations of spider monkeys,
'cause we can find that so it must also be true.

> It's
> your decision to access it or not and make of it what you will.

Thank you for your permission. Now, can I be dismissed so that I can take a
****?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Steve Pope wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
>> How does that prove that the USDA -- according to your post --
>> "threatened to ruin these people if they told anyone that USDA had
>> killed all their sheep" ? I do not find that statement credible.
>
> I can picture a circumstance where the USDA agrees to pay
> compensation to the sheep farmers but only under condition
> that the whole proceeding (including culling the sheep) is kept
> confidential. Legal settlements often have confidentiality
> clauses. That could, if one liked, be portrayed as
> "ruining" the farmers if they talked about it.

I could as well, Steve. But wouldn't you agree that that is quite different
than Emma's statement that: "the USDA threatened to ruin these people if
they told anyone that USDA had killed all their sheep"?

What you have stated is standard legal practice, whereas what Emma is
stating is a mob-inspired conspiracy.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> Let's change one occupation in this sentence and see if some people
> think the woman sounds more credible:
>
> "One of the book reviews says of her, "Linda Faillace worked as a
> secretary, store clerk, lab technician, song writer, piano teacher,
> and Christian missionary, before embarking on a career in sheep
> farming and cheese making."

It wouldn't change my mind.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Emma Thackery wrote:
> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather than
>> voice? I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken. It almost
>> always implies there's been no opportunity for fact-checking.
>
> It's an interview. No one can possibly fact-check a live interview
> before it takes place. Apparently it was credible enough for the
> mainstream New Jersey radio station to run it. If the topic interests
> you, I suggest that you Google it. If not, don't bother.


"Apparently it was credible enough for the mainstream New Jersey radio
station to run it." Wow. If that is your definition of what it takes to
make an unsubstantiated accusation a "fact", then you must be an
informercial producer's dream date.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Emma Thackery wrote:
> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Emma Thackery > wrote:
>
>>> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>>> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather than
>>>> voice? I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken. It almost
>>>> always implies there's been no opportunity for fact-checking.
>>
>>> It's an interview. No one can possibly fact-check a live interview
>>> before it takes place. Apparently it was credible enough for the
>>> mainstream New Jersey radio station to run it. If the topic
>>> interests you, I suggest that you Google it. If not, don't bother.
>>
>> It is sometimes helpful if one or two participants in a discussion
>> has done the research, and is willing to share what they've
>> learned. "Google it or don't bother" is not very helpful.
>
> When any reference I provide is likely to be met by another of your
> "no opportunity for fact checking" remarks, I'm not exactly motivated
> to walk into those cross-hairs.

When you have an objective reference of FACT, then I doubt you would feel so
constrained to provide it.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

(Steve Pope) wrote in
:

> Emma Thackery > wrote:
>>
>>I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the
>>Fallace family sheep farm have been discussed here but The
>>Restaurant Guys (on New Jersey radio) did a fascinating
>>segment with Linda Fallace the other day. You can access
>>the free podcast on iTunes: The Restaurant Guys: 2/19/07
>>OR you can get the MP3 file on their website at:
>>
>><http://www.restaurantguysradio.com/sle/rg/>
>>
>>The segment is about 1/3 of the way into the podcast. I
>>had heard about this malicious prosecution before but was
>>unaware that the USDA threatened to ruin these people if
>>they told anyone that USDA had killed all their sheep.
>>It's an incredible story.
>
> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather
> than voice? I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken.
> It almost always implies there's been no opportunity for
> fact-checking.

there are lots of written articles if you google, however
most will be hits on her book.
here's a CNN archive:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/2...eep.01/index.h
tml

my take on the matter, as a small stock raiser, is that the
Faillaces screwed themselves. they rejected a $2.5 million
compensation settlement from the USDA to take the sheep.
yeah, it was *highly* unlikely the sheep had BSE, but they
*were* imported from areas of Europe where there were BSE
outbreaks & the spongiform/prion diseases can take 5-7 years
to show symptoms. the intelligent thing to do would have been
to take the hugely generous compensation package, let the USDA
take the damn sheep & then start over.
i mean, seriously, you can buy a LOT of sheep for $2.5mil,
more than 125.
if they were so all fired set to have a sheep dairy, why have
they spent the past 6 years wallowing in self-pity? why not
pick up the bootstraps, get more sheep & get going?
i suspect the answer lies in media attention...
that said, i think the USDA needs a serious overhaul. the
department is run by the good ol' boys who raise the big bucks
livestock & that is wrong. nothing like having the fox
guarding the henhouse, as it were.
lee <why no, i don't like sheep>
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson

enigma wrote:
> (Steve Pope) wrote in
> :
>
>> Emma Thackery > wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the outrageous USDA actions against the
>>> Fallace family sheep farm have been discussed here but The
>>> Restaurant Guys (on New Jersey radio) did a fascinating
>>> segment with Linda Fallace the other day. You can access
>>> the free podcast on iTunes: The Restaurant Guys: 2/19/07
>>> OR you can get the MP3 file on their website at:
>>>
>>> <http://www.restaurantguysradio.com/sle/rg/>
>>>
>>> The segment is about 1/3 of the way into the podcast. I
>>> had heard about this malicious prosecution before but was
>>> unaware that the USDA threatened to ruin these people if
>>> they told anyone that USDA had killed all their sheep.
>>> It's an incredible story.
>>
>> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather
>> than voice? I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken.
>> It almost always implies there's been no opportunity for
>> fact-checking.
>
> there are lots of written articles if you google, however
> most will be hits on her book.
> here's a CNN archive:
> http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/2...eep.01/index.h
> tml
>
> my take on the matter, as a small stock raiser, is that the
> Faillaces screwed themselves. they rejected a $2.5 million
> compensation settlement from the USDA to take the sheep.
> yeah, it was *highly* unlikely the sheep had BSE, but they
> *were* imported from areas of Europe where there were BSE
> outbreaks & the spongiform/prion diseases can take 5-7 years
> to show symptoms. the intelligent thing to do would have been
> to take the hugely generous compensation package, let the USDA
> take the damn sheep & then start over.
> i mean, seriously, you can buy a LOT of sheep for $2.5mil,
> more than 125.
> if they were so all fired set to have a sheep dairy, why have
> they spent the past 6 years wallowing in self-pity? why not
> pick up the bootstraps, get more sheep & get going?
> i suspect the answer lies in media attention...
> that said, i think the USDA needs a serious overhaul. the
> department is run by the good ol' boys who raise the big bucks
> livestock & that is wrong. nothing like having the fox
> guarding the henhouse, as it were.
> lee <why no, i don't like sheep>

I think a lot of folks may find themselves in agreement with your take on
this whole thing, enigma. Well stated.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

enigma > wrote:

(Steve Pope) wrote in

>> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather
>> than voice? I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken.
>> It almost always implies there's been no opportunity for
>> fact-checking.

> there are lots of written articles if you google, however
>most will be hits on her book.
>here's a CNN archive:
>http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/2...eep.01/index.h
>tml

Thanks, I'll have a look.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> enigma > wrote:
>
>> (Steve Pope) wrote in
>
>>> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather
>>> than voice? I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken.
>>> It almost always implies there's been no opportunity for
>>> fact-checking.
>
>> there are lots of written articles if you google, however
>> most will be hits on her book.
>> here's a CNN archive:
>> http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/2...eep.01/index.h
>> tml
>
> Thanks, I'll have a look.

The story sure puts the squash on Emma's conspiracy notions about what
actually occured.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article >,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >
> >> Emma Thackery > wrote:
> >
> >>> (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >>>> Any link to an article on this topic that is in text rather than
> >>>> voice? I de-rate any reporting that's merely spoken. It almost
> >>>> always implies there's been no opportunity for fact-checking.
> >>
> >>> It's an interview. No one can possibly fact-check a live interview
> >>> before it takes place. Apparently it was credible enough for the
> >>> mainstream New Jersey radio station to run it. If the topic
> >>> interests you, I suggest that you Google it. If not, don't bother.
> >>
> >> It is sometimes helpful if one or two participants in a discussion
> >> has done the research, and is willing to share what they've
> >> learned. "Google it or don't bother" is not very helpful.
> >
> > When any reference I provide is likely to be met by another of your
> > "no opportunity for fact checking" remarks, I'm not exactly motivated
> > to walk into those cross-hairs.
>
> When you have an objective reference of FACT, then I doubt you would feel so
> constrained to provide it.

I gave a reference for a radio interview to those interested. If you or
anyone else wanted more information, it was your responsibility to
obtain it instead of whinging so pathetically.

Emma Thackery wrote:

>> When you have an objective reference of FACT, then I doubt you would
>> feel so constrained to provide it.
>
> I gave a reference for a radio interview to those interested. If you
> or anyone else wanted more information, it was your responsibility to
> obtain it instead of whinging so pathetically.

I guess you don't understand the concept of OBJECTIVE. Yeah, I got the radio
interview. Yeah, I listened to it. And yeah, it ain't nothing more than an
embittered individual who was willing to risk the public's health. There was
nothing in the radio interview, before the radio interview, or after the
radio interview to confirm what you said, to wit: "the USDA threatened to
ruin these people if they told anyone that (the) USDA had killed all their
sheep".

You may keep arguing, ranting and stamping your virtual feet Emma, but until
there is something to corroborate the radio interview these folks are just
blowing smoke.


--

Dave
www.davebbq.com

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

And whether that indicates some ideological defensiveness or perverse
agenda on your part, I can't be certain. But what I do know for sure is
that I don't feel the slightest inclination to scratch that contentious
itch of yours, Dave. Surely there must be at least one person out
there, somewhere, whom you can impress.

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