I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
"common knowledge" or a "truism".
There's something about the "gallon per nut" statistic that leaves an
uneasy feeling.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/201...probably-wrong

http://tiny.cc/9dx2xy

Is almond milk really the nuts?
Influenced by clean eating and agri-exposés such as Cowspiracy
(whichpointed to methane emissions from cattle as crucial in global
warming), many are ditching cows milk in favour of non-dairy
alternatives, which, according to Euromonitor, now make-up 12% of global
milk sales.

That sounds positive. Pre-shipping, the carbon created by a litre of
semi-skimmed (1.67kg) is far higher than that of almond milk (360g).
€œBut what people dont know is the environmental damage almond
plantations are doing in California, and the water cost. *It takes a
bonkers 1,611 gallons (7,323 litres) to produce 1 litre of almond
milk,€�* says the Sustainable Restaurant Associations Pete Hemingway.

Over 80% of the worlds almonds are grown in California, which has been
in severe drought for most of this decade. Hemingway describes a
situation in which farmers are ripping up relatively biodiverse citrus
groves to feed rocketing demand for almonds, creating a monoculture fed
by increasingly deep water wells that threaten statewide subsidence
issues. That leaves rather a bad taste in the mouth.

Solution: of the dairy alternatives, oat milk is the most sustainable
option.

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:11:12 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
> say the least.

I would suppose the Almond Alliance has no reason to overstate the
amount of water used in growing almonds:

<https://almondalliance.org/goverment-affairs/policy-issues/water/>

Cindy Hamilton

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:35:33 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:11:12 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
> > I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
> > California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
> > say the least.
>
> I would suppose the Almond Alliance has no reason to overstate the
> amount of water used in growing almonds:
>
> <https://almondalliance.org/goverment-affairs/policy-issues/water/>
>
> Cindy Hamilton

YOU and YOUR TYPE have NO REASON to doubt anyone's "calculations"!

You are INCALCULABLE! ;-) For example,. I could EASILY live on $1000/mo income! I own my home, have NO outstanding debts, and my house makes me MONEY!

And I LOVE LIVING CHEAPLY! Have for most of my years! I've gotten VERY GOOD AT IT TOO! VERY good!

John Kuthe

On 2018-09-05 10:35 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:11:12 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
>> say the least.
>
> I would suppose the Almond Alliance has no reason to overstate the
> amount of water used in growing almonds:
>
> <https://almondalliance.org/goverment-affairs/policy-issues/water/>
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
Thanks for that!!!

On 2018-09-05 9:56 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:11:08 -0600, graham wrote:
>
>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
>> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
>> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
>> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
>> There's something about the "gallon per nut" statistic that leaves an
>> uneasy feeling.
>
> And while we're at it (my comments at the end):
>
> --------------
>
> http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydis...124-story.html
>
> A 1/3-pound burger requires 660 gallons of water. Most of this water
> is for producing beef (see below).
>
> 1 pound of beef requires 1,799 gallons of water, which includes
> irrigation of the grains and grasses in feed, plus water for
> drinking and processing.
>
> 1 slice of bread requires 11 gallons of water. Most of this water is
> for producing wheat (see below).
>
> 1 pound of wheat requires 132 gallons of water.
>
> 1 gallon of beer requires 68 gallons of water, or 19.8 gallons of
> water for 1 cup. Most of that water is for growing barley (see
> below).
>
> 1 pound of barley requires 198 gallons of water.
>
> 1 gallon of wine requires 1,008 gallons of water (mostly for growing
> the grapes), or 63.4 gallons of water for 1 cup.
>
> 1 apple requires 18 gallons of water. It takes 59.4 gallons of water
> to produce 1 cup of apple juice.
>
> 1 orange requires 13 gallons of water. It takes 53.1 gallons of
> water for 1 cup of orange juice.
>
> 1 pound of chicken requires 468 gallons of water.
>
> 1 pound of pork requires 576 gallons of water.
>
> 1 pound of sheep requires 731 gallons of water.
>
> 1 pound of goat requires 127 gallons of water.
>
> 1 pound of rice requires 449 gallons of water.
>
> 1 pound of corn requires 108 gallons of water.
>
> 1 pound of soybeans requires 216 gallons of water.
>
> 1 pound of potatoes requires 119 gallons of water.
>
> 1 egg requires 53 gallons of water.
>
> 1 gallon of milk requires 880 gallons of water, or 54.9 gallons of
> water for 1 cup. That includes water for raising and grazing cattle,
> and bottling and processing.
>
> 1 pound of cheese requires 600 gallons of water. On average it
> requires 1.2 gallons of milk to make 1 pound of cheese.
>
> 1 pound of chocolate requires 3,170 gallons of water.
>
> 1 pound of refined sugar requires 198 gallons of water.
>
> 1 gallon of tea requires 128 gallons of water, or 7.9 gallons of
> water for 1 cup.
>
> 1 gallon of coffee requires 880 gallons of water, or 37 gallons of
> water for 1 cup. "If everyone in the world drank a cup of coffee
> each morning, it would 'cost' about 32 trillion gallons of water a
> year," National Geographic notes.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Most of the figures are ultimately for growing grains, fruits, and
> vegetables. But this is not how much the plant or tree uses, but
> rather is the result of inefficient watering systems. They may
> throw 2,500 gallons of water at that apple tree, but it only takes
> up 50 gallons. The other 2,450 gallons is eventually returned to
> the ecosystem.
>
> If these same products were grown hydroponically they would "use"
> 1/100th of the water they're claiming to use in traditional farming.
> This is more an accurate representation of how much water uit
> *really* takes to grown these items.
>
> Of course they don't point any of this out in their effort to
> mislead you.
>
> -sw
>
and regarding livestock, they don't exclude the water returned in the
form of ****:-)

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 1:32:11 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 9:56 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:11:08 -0600, graham wrote:
> >
> >> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
> >> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
> >> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
> >> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
> >> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
> >> There's something about the "gallon per nut" statistic that leaves an
> >> uneasy feeling.
> >
> > And while we're at it (my comments at the end):
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydis...124-story.html
> >
> > A 1/3-pound burger requires 660 gallons of water. Most of this water
> > is for producing beef (see below).
> >
> > 1 pound of beef requires 1,799 gallons of water, which includes
> > irrigation of the grains and grasses in feed, plus water for
> > drinking and processing.
> >
> > 1 slice of bread requires 11 gallons of water. Most of this water is
> > for producing wheat (see below).
> >
> > 1 pound of wheat requires 132 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 gallon of beer requires 68 gallons of water, or 19.8 gallons of
> > water for 1 cup. Most of that water is for growing barley (see
> > below).
> >
> > 1 pound of barley requires 198 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 gallon of wine requires 1,008 gallons of water (mostly for growing
> > the grapes), or 63.4 gallons of water for 1 cup.
> >
> > 1 apple requires 18 gallons of water. It takes 59.4 gallons of water
> > to produce 1 cup of apple juice.
> >
> > 1 orange requires 13 gallons of water. It takes 53.1 gallons of
> > water for 1 cup of orange juice.
> >
> > 1 pound of chicken requires 468 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 pound of pork requires 576 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 pound of sheep requires 731 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 pound of goat requires 127 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 pound of rice requires 449 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 pound of corn requires 108 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 pound of soybeans requires 216 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 pound of potatoes requires 119 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 egg requires 53 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 gallon of milk requires 880 gallons of water, or 54.9 gallons of
> > water for 1 cup. That includes water for raising and grazing cattle,
> > and bottling and processing.
> >
> > 1 pound of cheese requires 600 gallons of water. On average it
> > requires 1.2 gallons of milk to make 1 pound of cheese.
> >
> > 1 pound of chocolate requires 3,170 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 pound of refined sugar requires 198 gallons of water.
> >
> > 1 gallon of tea requires 128 gallons of water, or 7.9 gallons of
> > water for 1 cup.
> >
> > 1 gallon of coffee requires 880 gallons of water, or 37 gallons of
> > water for 1 cup. "If everyone in the world drank a cup of coffee
> > each morning, it would 'cost' about 32 trillion gallons of water a
> > year," National Geographic notes.
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Most of the figures are ultimately for growing grains, fruits, and
> > vegetables. But this is not how much the plant or tree uses, but
> > rather is the result of inefficient watering systems. They may
> > throw 2,500 gallons of water at that apple tree, but it only takes
> > up 50 gallons. The other 2,450 gallons is eventually returned to
> > the ecosystem.
> >
> > If these same products were grown hydroponically they would "use"
> > 1/100th of the water they're claiming to use in traditional farming.
> > This is more an accurate representation of how much water uit
> > *really* takes to grown these items.
> >
> > Of course they don't point any of this out in their effort to
> > mislead you.
> >
> > -sw
> >
> and regarding livestock, they don't exclude the water returned in the
> form of ****:-)

I think after Nordictracking HARD for 30mins I may just make me a Third Cuppa Plus! Before LUNCH! Of Best Beef in STL! Sugarfire's Beef Brisket on an Asiago Cheese Bagel toasted from STL BreadCo!!!

I eat like a KING! :-)

John Kuthe...

On 9/5/18 10:04 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:35:33 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:11:12 AM UTC-4, graham
>> wrote:
>>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond
>>> in California but many of the sources for such statistics are
>>> dubious to say the least.
>>
>> I would suppose the Almond Alliance has no reason to overstate the
>> amount of water used in growing almonds:
>>
>> <https://almondalliance.org/goverment-affairs/policy-issues/water/>
>>
>>
>>
Cindy Hamilton
>
> YOU and YOUR TYPE have NO REASON to doubt anyone's "calculations"!
>
> You are INCALCULABLE! ;-) For example,. I could EASILY live on
> $1000/mo income! I own my home, have NO outstanding debts, and my
> house makes me MONEY!
>
> And I LOVE LIVING CHEAPLY! Have for most of my years! I've gotten
> VERY GOOD AT IT TOO! VERY good!
>
> John Kuthe
>

how did you afford the down payment and mortgage?

how much do you pay in taxes?

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:39:19 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe wrote:

> I think after Nordictracking HARD for 30mins I may just make me a
> Third Cuppa Plus! Before LUNCH! Of Best Beef in STL! Sugarfire's
> Beef Brisket on an Asiago Cheese Bagel toasted from STL
> BreadCo!!!

You eat beef in a Hindu household?!?! I don't think the "love of
your life" is going to kiss you after that, except maybe goodbye.

Namaste!

-sw

graham wrote:
> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
> "common knowledge" or a "truism".

So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
(for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
2.5 O2.

Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
in at least several other changes?

On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> graham wrote:
>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
>> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
>> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
>> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
>
> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
> (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
> actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
> 2.5 O2.
>
> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
> superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
> in at least several other changes?
>
>
>
So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:15:52 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> graham wrote:
>>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
>>> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
>>> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
>>> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
>>
>> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
>> (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
>> actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
>> 2.5 O2.
>>
>> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
>> superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
>> in at least several other changes?
>>
>>
>>
>So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!

Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
that they're very right wing.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:02:34 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:39:19 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe wrote:
>
>> I think after Nordictracking HARD for 30mins I may just make me a
>> Third Cuppa Plus! Before LUNCH! Of Best Beef in STL! Sugarfire's
>> Beef Brisket on an Asiago Cheese Bagel toasted from STL
>> BreadCo!!!
>
>You eat beef in a Hindu household?!?! I don't think the "love of
>your life" is going to kiss you after that, except maybe goodbye.
>
>Namaste!

lol

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-5, Druce wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:15:52 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
> >On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >> graham wrote:
> >>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
> >>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
> >>> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
> >>> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
> >>> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
> >>
> >> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
> >> (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
> >> actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
> >> 2.5 O2.
> >>
> >> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
> >> superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
> >> in at least several other changes?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!
>
> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> that they're very right wing.

Funny how that correlation seems to hold. Not causal at all.

John Kuthe...

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:02:04 PM UTC-5, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:39:19 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe wrote:
>
> > I think after Nordictracking HARD for 30mins I may just make me a
> > Third Cuppa Plus! Before LUNCH! Of Best Beef in STL! Sugarfire's
> > Beef Brisket on an Asiago Cheese Bagel toasted from STL
> > BreadCo!!!
>
> You eat beef in a Hindu household?!?! I don't think the "love of
> your life" is going to kiss you after that, except maybe goodbye.
>
> Namaste!
>
> -sw

She does not eat a lot of foods. I just had a dessert she cannot have due to allegies: Bananas, avocados and vanilla ice cream with chocolate sauce. She's allergic to bananas. :-( That's OK, I'll eat all the bananas for her! Beef too!

We do NOT have any physical relationship other than friendly hugs when appropriate, like when she got an internship job! :-)

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 1:32:11 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 9:56 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:11:08 -0600, graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>>>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
>>>> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
>>>> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
>>>> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
>>>> There's something about the "gallon per nut" statistic that leaves an
>>>> uneasy feeling.
>>> And while we're at it (my comments at the end):
>>>
>>> --------------
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydis...124-story.html
>>>
>>> A 1/3-pound burger requires 660 gallons of water. Most of this water
>>> is for producing beef (see below).
>>>
>>> 1 pound of beef requires 1,799 gallons of water, which includes
>>> irrigation of the grains and grasses in feed, plus water for
>>> drinking and processing.
>>>
>>> 1 slice of bread requires 11 gallons of water. Most of this water is
>>> for producing wheat (see below).
>>>
>>> 1 pound of wheat requires 132 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 gallon of beer requires 68 gallons of water, or 19.8 gallons of
>>> water for 1 cup. Most of that water is for growing barley (see
>>> below).
>>>
>>> 1 pound of barley requires 198 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 gallon of wine requires 1,008 gallons of water (mostly for growing
>>> the grapes), or 63.4 gallons of water for 1 cup.
>>>
>>> 1 apple requires 18 gallons of water. It takes 59.4 gallons of water
>>> to produce 1 cup of apple juice.
>>>
>>> 1 orange requires 13 gallons of water. It takes 53.1 gallons of
>>> water for 1 cup of orange juice.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of chicken requires 468 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of pork requires 576 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of sheep requires 731 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of goat requires 127 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of rice requires 449 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of corn requires 108 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of soybeans requires 216 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of potatoes requires 119 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 egg requires 53 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 gallon of milk requires 880 gallons of water, or 54.9 gallons of
>>> water for 1 cup. That includes water for raising and grazing cattle,
>>> and bottling and processing.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of cheese requires 600 gallons of water. On average it
>>> requires 1.2 gallons of milk to make 1 pound of cheese.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of chocolate requires 3,170 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 pound of refined sugar requires 198 gallons of water.
>>>
>>> 1 gallon of tea requires 128 gallons of water, or 7.9 gallons of
>>> water for 1 cup.
>>>
>>> 1 gallon of coffee requires 880 gallons of water, or 37 gallons of
>>> water for 1 cup. "If everyone in the world drank a cup of coffee
>>> each morning, it would 'cost' about 32 trillion gallons of water a
>>> year," National Geographic notes.
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>>
>>> Most of the figures are ultimately for growing grains, fruits, and
>>> vegetables. But this is not how much the plant or tree uses, but
>>> rather is the result of inefficient watering systems. They may
>>> throw 2,500 gallons of water at that apple tree, but it only takes
>>> up 50 gallons. The other 2,450 gallons is eventually returned to
>>> the ecosystem.
>>>
>>> If these same products were grown hydroponically they would "use"
>>> 1/100th of the water they're claiming to use in traditional farming.
>>> This is more an accurate representation of how much water uit
>>> *really* takes to grown these items.
>>>
>>> Of course they don't point any of this out in their effort to
>>> mislead you.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>> and regarding livestock, they don't exclude the water returned in the
>> form of ****:-)
> I think after Nordictracking HARD for 30mins I may just make me a Third Cuppa Plus! Before LUNCH! Of Best Beef in STL! Sugarfire's Beef Brisket on an Asiago Cheese Bagel toasted from STL BreadCo!!!
>
> I eat like a KING! :-)
>
> John Kuthe...

Maybe you won't have to sit down to rest from standing at the next
Socialist rally!!!!!!

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:35:33 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:11:12 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
>>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
>>> say the least.
>> I would suppose the Almond Alliance has no reason to overstate the
>> amount of water used in growing almonds:
>>
>> <https://almondalliance.org/goverment-affairs/policy-issues/water/>
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
> YOU and YOUR TYPE have NO REASON to doubt anyone's "calculations"!
>
> You are INCALCULABLE! ;-) For example,. I could EASILY live on $1000/mo income! I own my home, have NO outstanding debts, and my house makes me MONEY!
>
> And I LOVE LIVING CHEAPLY! Have for most of my years! I've gotten VERY GOOD AT IT TOO! VERY good!
>
> John Kuthe

Real estate taxes, income taxes, HO insurance, auto insurance,
utilities, maintenance, etc. on $1K per month?

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 20:03:04 -0400, Alex > wrote:

>John Kuthe wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 1:32:11 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:

>> I think after Nordictracking HARD for 30mins I may just make me a Third Cuppa Plus! Before LUNCH! Of Best Beef in STL! Sugarfire's Beef Brisket on an Asiago Cheese Bagel toasted from STL BreadCo!!!
>>
>> I eat like a KING! :-)
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
>Maybe you won't have to sit down to rest from standing at the next
>Socialist rally!!!!!!

Sanders wants to pry power from the hands of the ugly corporations and
give it back to the people. That's not socialism. That's honesty,
fairness, decency, common sense.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:38:44 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-5, Druce wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:15:52 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>> >On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
>> >> (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
>> >> actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
>> >> 2.5 O2.
>> >>
>> >> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
>> >> superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
>> >> in at least several other changes?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Funny how that correlation seems to hold. Not causal at all.

I think you only need a small brain to come up with very right wing
ideas. "Get rid of foreigners, my country's the best in the universe,
God loves my country, I don't wanna pay taxes, disgruntle,
disgruntle." You can probably generate those thoughts on 2 brain
cells.

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 7:05:48 PM UTC-5, Alex wrote:
> John Kuthe wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:35:33 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:11:12 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
> >>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
> >>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
> >>> say the least.
> >> I would suppose the Almond Alliance has no reason to overstate the
> >> amount of water used in growing almonds:
> >>
> >> <https://almondalliance.org/goverment-affairs/policy-issues/water/>
> >>
> >> Cindy Hamilton
> > YOU and YOUR TYPE have NO REASON to doubt anyone's "calculations"!
> >
> > You are INCALCULABLE! ;-) For example,. I could EASILY live on $1000/mo income! I own my home, have NO outstanding debts, and my house makes me MONEY!
> >
> > And I LOVE LIVING CHEAPLY! Have for most of my years! I've gotten VERY GOOD AT IT TOO! VERY good!
> >
> > John Kuthe
>
> Real estate taxes, income taxes, HO insurance, auto insurance,
> utilities, maintenance, etc. on $1K per month?

You underestimate my frugality!! I was taught by masters. My parents both survived The Great Depression AND WWII!! I was taught well.

I pay for NO GASOLINE, and THAT is YUGE!! And NO FOR PROFIT Health Insurance at $600/mo for NOTHING!

John Kuthe...

Druce wrote:
>
> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> that they're very right wing.

Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
but you seem not to have thought of that.

Druce wrote:
>
> I think you only need a small brain to come up with very right wing
> ideas. "Get rid of foreigners, my country's the best in the universe,
> God loves my country, I don't wanna pay taxes, disgruntle,
> disgruntle." You can probably generate those thoughts on 2 brain
> cells.

We had open immigration until it ended in the _progressive_ era, because
you can't have open immigration and public assistance at the same time.
It takes 2 brain cells to misunderstand that by itself. You must need a
dozen more to misunderstand the rest.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>but you seem not to have thought of that.

If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.

graham wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> graham wrote:
>>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious
>>> to say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print
>>> something as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it
>>> falsely becomes "common knowledge" or a "truism".
>>
>> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2
>> carbon (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water
>> molecule actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air,
>> and add about 2.5 O2.
>>
>> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their
>> left-wing superior grasp of science, think they can do that without
>> balancing it in at least several other changes?
>>
>>
>>
> So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!

Non sequitur.

In fact your logic is inverted.

Druce wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> > wrote:
>
>> Druce wrote:
>>>
>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>>> that they're very right wing.
>>
>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
> If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.

Most of today's communists refuse to admit they are. Modern professors
and students are to the left of Breznev.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:35:50 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>Druce wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Druce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>>>> that they're very right wing.
>>>
>>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>>> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>>
>> If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.
>
>Most of today's communists refuse to admit they are. Modern professors
>and students are to the left of Breznev.

You'd probably call Bernie Sanders a communist, right?

Druce wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:35:50 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> > wrote:
>
>> Druce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Druce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the
>>>>> chance that they're very right wing.
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very
>>>> left-wing, but you seem not to have thought of that.
>>>
>>> If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.
>>
>> Most of today's communists refuse to admit they are. Modern
>> professors and students are to the left of Breznev.
>
> You'd probably call Bernie Sanders a communist, right?

No he's a Socialist with 3 houses.

And a 3-year-old's understanding of economics.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:40:30 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>Druce wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:35:50 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Druce wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Druce wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the
>>>>>> chance that they're very right wing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very
>>>>> left-wing, but you seem not to have thought of that.
>>>>
>>>> If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.
>>>
>>> Most of today's communists refuse to admit they are. Modern
>>> professors and students are to the left of Breznev.
>>
>> You'd probably call Bernie Sanders a communist, right?
>
>No he's a Socialist with 3 houses.
>
>And a 3-year-old's understanding of economics.

You only use 'socialist' and 'communist' to express how much you
disagree with people. You don't really know what the words mean.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:43:12 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:02:04 PM UTC-5, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:39:19 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe wrote:
>>
>>> I think after Nordictracking HARD for 30mins I may just make me a
>>> Third Cuppa Plus! Before LUNCH! Of Best Beef in STL! Sugarfire's
>>> Beef Brisket on an Asiago Cheese Bagel toasted from STL
>>> BreadCo!!!
>>
>> You eat beef in a Hindu household?!?! I don't think the "love of
>> your life" is going to kiss you after that, except maybe goodbye.
>>
>> Namaste!
>
> She does not eat a lot of foods. I just had a dessert she cannot
> have due to allegies: Bananas, avocados and vanilla ice cream
> with chocolate sauce. She's allergic to bananas. :-( That's OK,
> I'll eat all the bananas for her! Beef too!
>
> We do NOT have any physical relationship other than friendly hugs
> when appropriate, like when she got an internship job! :-)

Do you ever concentrate and finish a thought pertaining to a
conversation, or is your mind in this big random free-for-all mode
24/7?

-sw

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 9:47:49 PM UTC-5, Druce wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:40:30 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> > wrote:
>
> >Druce wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:35:50 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Druce wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Druce wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the
> >>>>>> chance that they're very right wing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very
> >>>>> left-wing, but you seem not to have thought of that.
> >>>>
> >>>> If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.
> >>>
> >>> Most of today's communists refuse to admit they are. Modern
> >>> professors and students are to the left of Breznev.
> >>
> >> You'd probably call Bernie Sanders a communist, right?
> >
> >No he's a Socialist with 3 houses.
> >
> >And a 3-year-old's understanding of economics.
>
> You only use 'socialist' and 'communist' to express how much you
> disagree with people. You don't really know what the words mean.

Exactly!

Families are socialistic, generally! Because they CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER!!

United States Capitalists DON'T CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER, they are SELFISH and EGOCENTRIC AS POSSIBLE FOR PROFITS!!

And that's what's WRONG with Capitalism in the WORLD TODAY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lw30BeBZ6k

John Kuthe...

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news
Druce wrote:
>
> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> that they're very right wing.

Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
but you seem not to have thought of that.


===

Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
>Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
>===
>
>Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

But I said that "not all" brainy people are left-wing, so that leaves
room for you to be brainy yet right-wing.

"Druce" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
>Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
>===
>
>Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

But I said that "not all" brainy people are left-wing, so that leaves
room for you to be brainy yet right-wing.

==

Hmmm.. But have you noticed, only left wingers constantly go on and on
about being left wing and deriding those they see as right wing? Yes, you
do it often too. I don't class myself as a right-winger as it is not a
religion to me as it seems to be for most left wingers. I choose what I
want and would like and I don't constantly complain about others' opinions.
Yes I think some right wingers have scary opinions, but some left wingers do
too. I am not fixated on either view. I have my personal opinion and if you
or anyone else doesn't like that, OK but it is MY Right to have MY Own
Opinion!!!

Now, as I have said before, this is not the right place to shout about your
politics. I don't care what yours are and I would prefer you not to care
about mine. Mine are none of your business. I do not keep shouting about
my preferences and I would prefer you don't shout about yours to me either
!!

Ok, I am now done.

So, what are you cooking?




O.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
>Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
>===
>
>Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

We can't all be studying every word in Rebel ! Your friend Nigel
Farage always opines he knows everything!

Ophelia wrote:

> "Druce" wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news > >
> >Druce wrote:
> >>
> >> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> >> that they're very right wing.
> >
> >Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
> >but you seem not to have thought of that.
> >
> >
> >===
> >
> >Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!
>
> But I said that "not all" brainy people are left-wing, so that leaves
> room for you to be brainy yet right-wing.
>
> ==
>
> Hmmm.. But have you noticed, only left wingers constantly go on and on
> about being left wing and deriding those they see as right wing? Yes, you
> do it often too. I don't class myself as a right-winger as it is not a
> religion to me as it seems to be for most left wingers. I choose what I
> want and would like and I don't constantly complain about others' opinions.
> Yes I think some right wingers have scary opinions, but some left wingers do
> too. I am not fixated on either view. I have my personal opinion and if you
> or anyone else doesn't like that, OK but it is MY Right to have MY Own
> Opinion!!!
>
> Now, as I have said before, this is not the right place to shout about your
> politics. I don't care what yours are and I would prefer you not to care
> about mine. Mine are none of your business. I do not keep shouting about
> my preferences and I would prefer you don't shout about yours to me either
> !!
>
> Ok, I am now done.


Bravo, Ms. O....!!!


> So, what are you cooking?


I am cooking a steaming hot cauldron of "humble pie" for "Druce", lol...

--
Best
Greg

"Ophelia" > wrote in message speaking to Druce

> Now, as I have said before, this is not the right place to shout about
> your
> politics. I don't care what yours are and I would prefer you not to care
> about mine. Mine are none of your business. I do not keep shouting about
> my preferences and I would prefer you don't shout about yours to me either
> !!
>
> Ok, I am now done.
>
> So, what are you cooking?
>
>
>
>
> O.


Well said.

Cheri

"GM" wrote in message
...

Ophelia wrote:

> "Druce" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news > >
> >Druce wrote:
> >>
> >> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> >> that they're very right wing.
> >
> >Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
> >but you seem not to have thought of that.
> >
> >
> >===
> >
> >Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!
>
> But I said that "not all" brainy people are left-wing, so that leaves
> room for you to be brainy yet right-wing.
>
> ==
>
> Hmmm.. But have you noticed, only left wingers constantly go on and on
> about being left wing and deriding those they see as right wing? Yes, you
> do it often too. I don't class myself as a right-winger as it is not a
> religion to me as it seems to be for most left wingers. I choose what I
> want and would like and I don't constantly complain about others'
> opinions.
> Yes I think some right wingers have scary opinions, but some left wingers
> do
> too. I am not fixated on either view. I have my personal opinion and if
> you
> or anyone else doesn't like that, OK but it is MY Right to have MY Own
> Opinion!!!
>
> Now, as I have said before, this is not the right place to shout about
> your
> politics. I don't care what yours are and I would prefer you not to care
> about mine. Mine are none of your business. I do not keep shouting about
> my preferences and I would prefer you don't shout about yours to me either
> !!
>
> Ok, I am now done.


Bravo, Ms. O....!!!


> So, what are you cooking?


I am cooking a steaming hot cauldron of "humble pie" for "Druce", lol...


Best
Greg

===

Nahh, it's not only he that does it. and he doesn't do it too often, but it
does feel like one is being 'picked on' for ones preferences.

Dontcha think? )

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:21:08 AM UTC-5, GM wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>
> > "Druce" wrote in message ...
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news > > >
> > >Druce wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> > >> that they're very right wing.
> > >
> > >Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
> > >but you seem not to have thought of that.
> > >
> > >
> > >===
> > >
> > >Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!
> >
> > But I said that "not all" brainy people are left-wing, so that leaves
> > room for you to be brainy yet right-wing.
> >
> > ==
> >
> > Hmmm.. But have you noticed, only left wingers constantly go on and on
> > about being left wing and deriding those they see as right wing? Yes, you
> > do it often too. I don't class myself as a right-winger as it is not a
> > religion to me as it seems to be for most left wingers. I choose what I
> > want and would like and I don't constantly complain about others' opinions.
> > Yes I think some right wingers have scary opinions, but some left wingers do
> > too. I am not fixated on either view. I have my personal opinion and if you
> > or anyone else doesn't like that, OK but it is MY Right to have MY Own
> > Opinion!!!
> >
> > Now, as I have said before, this is not the right place to shout about your
> > politics. I don't care what yours are and I would prefer you not to care
> > about mine. Mine are none of your business. I do not keep shouting about
> > my preferences and I would prefer you don't shout about yours to me either
> > !!
> >
> > Ok, I am now done.
>
>
> Bravo, Ms. O....!!!
>
>
> > So, what are you cooking?
>
>
> I am cooking a steaming hot cauldron of "humble pie" for "Druce", lol...
>
> --
> Best
> Greg

Humble Pie you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdXjm8pZMws

John Kuthe...

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:56:06 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Druce" wrote in message ...
>
>On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >>
>>Druce wrote:
>>>
>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>>> that they're very right wing.
>>
>>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>>but you seem not to have thought of that.
>>
>>
>>===
>>
>>Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!
>
>But I said that "not all" brainy people are left-wing, so that leaves
>room for you to be brainy yet right-wing.
>
>==
>
>Hmmm.. But have you noticed, only left wingers constantly go on and on
>about being left wing and deriding those they see as right wing? Yes, you
>do it often too. I don't class myself as a right-winger as it is not a
>religion to me as it seems to be for most left wingers. I choose what I
>want and would like and I don't constantly complain about others' opinions.
>Yes I think some right wingers have scary opinions, but some left wingers do
>too. I am not fixated on either view. I have my personal opinion and if you
>or anyone else doesn't like that, OK but it is MY Right to have MY Own
>Opinion!!!

Of course it is. It's just that your comments about the EU, the Brexit
and all that are so absolute, so black and white and so without any
room for doubt, that I can't help myself. I just have to poke fun.
That's all it is.

>Now, as I have said before, this is not the right place to shout about your
>politics. I don't care what yours are and I would prefer you not to care
>about mine. Mine are none of your business. I do not keep shouting about
>my preferences and I would prefer you don't shout about yours to me either
>!!

The little bit I know about your political views, I have from you. I'm
not a psychic.

>Ok, I am now done.
>
>So, what are you cooking?

Nothing today

Druce wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:40:30 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> > wrote:
>
>> Druce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:35:50 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Druce wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Druce wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the
>>>>>>> chance that they're very right wing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very
>>>>>> left-wing, but you seem not to have thought of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.
>>>>
>>>> Most of today's communists refuse to admit they are. Modern
>>>> professors and students are to the left of Breznev.
>>>
>>> You'd probably call Bernie Sanders a communist, right?
>>
>> No he's a Socialist with 3 houses.
>>
>> And a 3-year-old's understanding of economics.
>
> You only use 'socialist' and 'communist' to express how much you
> disagree with people. You don't really know what the words mean.

Moron, I did not *use* either word until you did.

I made a point about stoichiometrics because some people are worried
about nothing. You couldn't respond to that.

Instead you made an inane claim about intelligence which I easily
dismissed. Your response implied that no one is far to the left except
communists, which is nonsense.

Marx's first sentence was "History is a class struggle between haves and
have nots." The first sentence from today's left is "I'm not a
communist." and their second sentence is, "History is a class struggle
between haves and have nots."

Either you think people should decide their wages and prices with the
government or without. With or without. That's a big, clear, and
important distinction, which also means there is an important lack of
distinction where you think there is one.

If you want to pretend that there's an important distinction between
your favorite words, it is this. Communists are the ones who murder
80-100 million people. Socialists are the ones who denied it happend
for 40 years while they claimed it was "capitalist propaganda", then for
10 years said, "That might have happened but we can't be sure", then for
10 years said, "That was a long time ago so it doesn't matter", and
thereafter they pretend that they never denied it because they are
socialists and not communists and that's a vewy vewy important
distinction. So keep pretending. Liar. Or ignorant fool. As the case
may be.

Ophelia wrote:
> "Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
> Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
> ===
>
> Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

They don't seem to know that there are different kinds of intelligence.
They focus on IQ as the only kind when comparing college professors to
rednecks, but when the stats show people of one race has a higher IQ
than another, then IQ doesn't matter.

And since they couldn't argue with my point, they don't know about
stoichiometrics either.