pearl wrote:

> Scented, you asked for this info;
>
> 'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>
> One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
> beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> the hungry.

This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.

The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".

Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.

The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
is perfectly legitimate and proper.

http://www.hyundaiusa.com/Vehicles/A...le_Details.asp
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container... V&class=06_S

Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > Scented, you asked for this info;
> >
> > 'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> > Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> > is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> > grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> >
> > One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> > pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
> > beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> > pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> > the hungry.
>
> This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
> resource allocation issues and hunger.
>
> The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> "waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.

Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

> Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> additional resources. The owners of those resources
> are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".

As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point. The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

> Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> (maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> *could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> looking at resource allocation issues in this way.

I happen to be a great cook,
but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?
And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes? You're
wackier than the tobacco
I smoke!! And what's this
got to do with boats?

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
> a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
> is perfectly legitimate and proper.
>
>
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/Vehicles/A...le_Details.asp
>
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container... V&class=06_S

Scented Nectar wrote:

> Why did you crosspost this
> all over the place?

It belongs there.

>
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Scented, you asked for this info;
>>>
>>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
>>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
>>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
>>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>>>
>>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
>>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
>>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
>>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
>>>the hungry.
>>
>>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
>>resource allocation issues and hunger.
>>
>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>
>
> Wildlife pays too, due to the
> overuse

It is not "over" use.

> of formerly wild areas
> like the extensive acreage
> used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

>>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
>>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
>>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
>>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
>>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
>>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
>>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
>>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
>>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
>>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
>>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
>>additional resources. The owners of those resources
>>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
>>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
>
>
> As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> of feeding the world, she makes
> a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
It's total bullshit.

> The grain/beans
> to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> the potatoes to beef ratio is
> 160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.

>>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
>>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
>>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
>>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
>>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
>>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
>>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
>>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
>>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
>>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
>>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
>>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
>
>
> I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

> but that aside, are you actually
> claiming that one must do all
> one can, to extremes, in order
> to maximise the time one
> spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

> And cooking for 3 hours is
> evil compared to cooking
> for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than
going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.


> And what's this
> got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > Why did you crosspost this
> > all over the place?
>
> It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?

> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
> >>>
> >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> >>>
> >>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> >>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
> >>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> >>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> >>>the hungry.
> >>
> >>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
> >>resource allocation issues and hunger.
> >>
> >>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> >>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> >>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> >
> >
> > Wildlife pays too, due to the
> > overuse
>
> It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.

> > of formerly wild areas
> > like the extensive acreage
> > used in beef production.
>
> Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again. Actually
when you think of it, living in the
city uses up less actual space
per human, then living in the
country does.

> >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> >>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> >
> >
> > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> > of feeding the world, she makes
> > a good point.
>
> She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> It's total bullshit.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

> > The grain/beans
> > to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> > the potatoes to beef ratio is
> > 160:1. That's huge!
>
> It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> of food produced. There is more than enough food
> produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> to them, and paying the producers for it.
>
> >>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> >>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> >>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> >>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> >>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> >>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> >>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> >>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> >>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> >>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> >>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> >>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> >
> >
> > I happen to be a great cook,
>
> I doubt that.

Doubt all you want. You'll
never get the chance to find
out.

> > but that aside, are you actually
> > claiming that one must do all
> > one can, to extremes, in order
> > to maximise the time one
> > spends on good deeds?
>
> No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.

> > And cooking for 3 hours is
> > evil compared to cooking
> > for 20 minutes?
>
> Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.

> going into the production of what she considers to be a
> "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time. You have however.

> > And what's this
> > got to do with boats?
>
> You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
> about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Let the market decide.

But what if the market decides you're of no further use?
The market may be right. How can it be wrong?
All of human society worships the market as God.

Selfishness is next to Godliness according to the market.
The more selfishness the better for everyone.

(Until the market decides you are of no further use.
Then it must be proper to lay down and die uselessly.
How can the market ever be wrong?)

We must teach the useless people of the world that
they have no right or reason to live. They ought to
understand that right away. It's just good business.
If they don't get it right away we can certainly afford
to kill them. Just a cost of doing business, you know.

Just give up, useless people, and don't make a fuss.
None of that Samson bringing down the temple stuff.
We take a dim view of 'terrorists' striking back rather
than letting us quietly slit their throats in a businesslike
manner.

Children and retirees ought to be the first economic
millstones to cast into the ocean. Right now they are
just a drag on the economy, forcing the well to do to
part with Some of their Money. It's THEIR money!
**** the useless drones. Who needs them?

(Why some have money and others don't is an unfathomable
mystery of the market, the arbitrary Will of God perhaps.
Ours not to reason why, but to grab, grab, grab, and
devil take the hindmost.)

Useless drones of the world, die quickly or die slowly,
but die, die, die, and decrease the surplus population.
So sayeth the Holy Market.

the Perfect Foil wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > the Perfect Foil wrote:
> >
> > > Why did you crosspost this
> > > all over the place?
> >
> > It belongs there.
>
> Why would rec.boats people
> care about our arguments
> about food, and the growing
> of food?

Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.

>
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > >
> > >>pearl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
> > >>>
> > >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
people.
> > >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> > >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
cycling
> > >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> > >>>
> > >>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> > >>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
devoted to
> > >>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> > >>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> > >>>the hungry.
> > >>
> > >>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
> > >>resource allocation issues and hunger.
> > >>
> > >>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> > >>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> > >>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> > >
> > >
> > > Wildlife pays too, due to the
> > > overuse
> >
> > It is not "over" use.
>
> Yes it is. We've outgrown our
> petri dish.

It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.

>
> > > of formerly wild areas
> > > like the extensive acreage
> > > used in beef production.
> >
> > Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> > being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>
> There's that extremism you're
> expecting of me again.

No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.

> > >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> > >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> > >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> > >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> > >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> > >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> > >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> > >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> > >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> > >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> > >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> > >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> > >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> > >>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> > >
> > >
> > > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> > > of feeding the world, she makes
> > > a good point.
> >
> > She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> > It's total bullshit.
>
> She's right about what she
> posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.

> > > The grain/beans
> > > to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> > > the potatoes to beef ratio is
> > > 160:1. That's huge!
> >
> > It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> > for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> > of food produced. There is more than enough food
> > produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> > to them, and paying the producers for it.
> >
> > >>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> > >>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> > >>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> > >>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> > >>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> > >>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> > >>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> > >>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> > >>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> > >>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> > >>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> > >>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> > >
> > >
> > > I happen to be a great cook,
> >
> > I doubt that.
>
> Doubt all you want.

My doubts are well grounded.

> > > but that aside, are you actually
> > > claiming that one must do all
> > > one can, to extremes, in order
> > > to maximise the time one
> > > spends on good deeds?
> >
> > No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> > WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>
> But I've only been seeing YOU
> claiming that people must go
> to unreasonable extremes.

No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.

> > > And cooking for 3 hours is
> > > evil compared to cooking
> > > for 20 minutes?
> >
> > Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> > implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>
> Ah, there's that implying again.

A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.

> > going into the production of what she considers to be a
> > "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> > "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> > that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> > what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> > must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> > cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> > minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> > time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>
> She has never implied or said
> anything about my cooking
> time.

It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.

> > > And what's this
> > > got to do with boats?
> >
> > You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
> > about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
>
> Let's see, boats are used in
> the transporting of some foods.
> Are you going to tell me I should
> be against that too? Boats are
> used in fishing and that's a
> segue into food. Am I getting
> warmer? Maybe someone
> from rec.boats could give me
> a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

You are a ****ing idiot.

How big are your zucchinis this year, Rudy?

CN

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message oups.com...
> the Perfect Foil wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>> > the Perfect Foil wrote:
>> >
>> > > Why did you crosspost this
>> > > all over the place?
>> >
>> > It belongs there.
>>
>> Why would rec.boats people
>> care about our arguments
>> about food, and the growing
>> of food?
>
> Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
> without my help.
>
>>
>> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> > > k.net...
>> > >
>> > >>pearl wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
>> > >>>
>> > >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
> people.
>> > >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
>> > >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
> cycling
>> > >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
>> > >>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
> devoted to
>> > >>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
>> > >>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
>> > >>>the hungry.
>> > >>
>> > >>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
>> > >>resource allocation issues and hunger.
>> > >>
>> > >>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>> > >>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>> > >>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Wildlife pays too, due to the
>> > > overuse
>> >
>> > It is not "over" use.
>>
>> Yes it is. We've outgrown our
>> petri dish.
>
> It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> scientific one.
>
>>
>> > > of formerly wild areas
>> > > like the extensive acreage
>> > > used in beef production.
>> >
>> > Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
>> > being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>>
>> There's that extremism you're
>> expecting of me again.
>
> No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>
>> > >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
>> > >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
>> > >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
>> > >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
>> > >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
>> > >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
>> > >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
>> > >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
>> > >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
>> > >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
>> > >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
>> > >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
>> > >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
>> > >>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
>> > > of feeding the world, she makes
>> > > a good point.
>> >
>> > She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
>> > It's total bullshit.
>>
>> She's right about what she
>> posted and you know it.
>
> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> thinks it's a production issue.
>
>> > > The grain/beans
>> > > to beef ratio is 16:1, and
>> > > the potatoes to beef ratio is
>> > > 160:1. That's huge!
>> >
>> > It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
>> > for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
>> > of food produced. There is more than enough food
>> > produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
>> > to them, and paying the producers for it.
>> >
>> > >>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
>> > >>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
>> > >>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
>> > >>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
>> > >>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
>> > >>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
>> > >>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
>> > >>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
>> > >>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
>> > >>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
>> > >>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
>> > >>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I happen to be a great cook,
>> >
>> > I doubt that.
>>
>> Doubt all you want.
>
> My doubts are well grounded.
>
>> > > but that aside, are you actually
>> > > claiming that one must do all
>> > > one can, to extremes, in order
>> > > to maximise the time one
>> > > spends on good deeds?
>> >
>> > No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
>> > WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>>
>> But I've only been seeing YOU
>> claiming that people must go
>> to unreasonable extremes.
>
> No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
> "waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
> resources include your time.
>
>> > > And cooking for 3 hours is
>> > > evil compared to cooking
>> > > for 20 minutes?
>> >
>> > Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>> > implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>
>> Ah, there's that implying again.
>
> A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> "unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
> your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>
>> > going into the production of what she considers to be a
>> > "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
>> > "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
>> > that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
>> > what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
>> > must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
>> > cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
>> > minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
>> > time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>>
>> She has never implied or said
>> anything about my cooking
>> time.
>
> It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
> in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
> bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
> foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
>
>> > > And what's this
>> > > got to do with boats?
>> >
>> > You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
>> > about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
>>
>> Let's see, boats are used in
>> the transporting of some foods.
>> Are you going to tell me I should
>> be against that too? Boats are
>> used in fishing and that's a
>> segue into food. Am I getting
>> warmer? Maybe someone
>> from rec.boats could give me
>> a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>
> You are a ****ing idiot.
>

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> the Perfect Foil wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > the Perfect Foil wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why did you crosspost this
> > > > all over the place?
> > >
> > > It belongs there.
> >
> > Why would rec.boats people
> > care about our arguments
> > about food, and the growing
> > of food?
>
> Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
> without my help.

Nah, I give up. If you want to
tell me fine, if not who cares.

> > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > >>pearl wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
> > > >>>
> > > >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
> people.
> > > >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> > > >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
> cycling
> > > >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> > > >>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
> devoted to
> > > >>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> > > >>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> > > >>>the hungry.
> > > >>
> > > >>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
> > > >>resource allocation issues and hunger.
> > > >>
> > > >>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> > > >>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> > > >>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wildlife pays too, due to the
> > > > overuse
> > >
> > > It is not "over" use.
> >
> > Yes it is. We've outgrown our
> > petri dish.
>
> It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> scientific one.

Aesthetic? No.

> > > > of formerly wild areas
> > > > like the extensive acreage
> > > > used in beef production.
> > >
> > > Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> > > being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
> >
> > There's that extremism you're
> > expecting of me again.
>
> No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.

And do that by tearing down my
home? Are you more nuts today
than usual?

> > > >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> > > >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> > > >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> > > >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> > > >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> > > >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> > > >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> > > >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> > > >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> > > >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> > > >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> > > >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> > > >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> > > >>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> > > > of feeding the world, she makes
> > > > a good point.
> > >
> > > She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> > > It's total bullshit.
> >
> > She's right about what she
> > posted and you know it.
>
> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> thinks it's a production issue.

I think everyone agrees it's
a distribution problem. That
problem includes too much
grain going to feed livestock
animals.

> > > > The grain/beans
> > > > to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> > > > the potatoes to beef ratio is
> > > > 160:1. That's huge!
> > >
> > > It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> > > for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> > > of food produced. There is more than enough food
> > > produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> > > to them, and paying the producers for it.
> > >
> > > >>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> > > >>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> > > >>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> > > >>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> > > >>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> > > >>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> > > >>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> > > >>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> > > >>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> > > >>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> > > >>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> > > >>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I happen to be a great cook,
> > >
> > > I doubt that.
> >
> > Doubt all you want.
>
> My doubts are well grounded.

It's your loss.

> > > > but that aside, are you actually
> > > > claiming that one must do all
> > > > one can, to extremes, in order
> > > > to maximise the time one
> > > > spends on good deeds?
> > >
> > > No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> > > WHORE Lesley is claiming.
> >
> > But I've only been seeing YOU
> > claiming that people must go
> > to unreasonable extremes.
>
> No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
> "waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
> resources include your time.

She has never faulted me for
my time use like you do. As
far as being a foul whore, I have
yet to hear her say she's in the
sex trade. In fact I remember
her denying it. I also doubt
she is foul. She likely washes
with soap and water like
almost everyone else. You
win the prize for foul language
though.

> > > > And cooking for 3 hours is
> > > > evil compared to cooking
> > > > for 20 minutes?
> > >
> > > Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> > > implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >
> > Ah, there's that implying again.
>
> A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> "unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
> your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.

Huh? Your implication
perception is way off.

> > > going into the production of what she considers to be a
> > > "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> > > "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> > > that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> > > what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> > > must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> > > cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> > > minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> > > time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
> >
> > She has never implied or said
> > anything about my cooking
> > time.
>
> It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
> in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
> bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
> foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.

Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.

> > > > And what's this
> > > > got to do with boats?
> > >
> > > You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
> > > about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
> >
> > Let's see, boats are used in
> > the transporting of some foods.
> > Are you going to tell me I should
> > be against that too? Boats are
> > used in fishing and that's a
> > segue into food. Am I getting
> > warmer? Maybe someone
> > from rec.boats could give me
> > a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>
> You are a ****ing idiot.

No, just someone who doesn't
get what the above has to do
with boats. The philosophy
group I can understand, as we
discuss morals regarding the
use of food and animals, but
boats? Oh well, trying to figure
out how your mind works is
boggling. You say and do
the weirdest things.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote

>> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
>> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>> thinks it's a production issue.
>
> I think everyone agrees it's
> a distribution problem. That
> problem includes too much
> grain going to feed livestock
> animals.

No it doesn't, there is a worldwide surplus of grain now.
If we could feed the world's starving populations with
it, we could do it now. If less grain were fed to livestock,
less would need to be produced, and grain would ultimately
cost more. It have NO effect on the world's starving
populations.

The problems are economic and political.

Capt. Neal® wrote:

> How big are your zucchinis this year, Rudy?

Haven't planted any yet. But the corn's as high as an
elephant's eye.


>
> CN
>
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> the Perfect Foil wrote:
>>
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>> > the Perfect Foil wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Why did you crosspost this
>>> > > all over the place?
>>> >
>>> > It belongs there.
>>>
>>> Why would rec.boats people
>>> care about our arguments
>>> about food, and the growing
>>> of food?
>>
>>
>> Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
>> without my help.
>>
>>>
>>> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>> > > k.net...
>>> > >
>>> > >>pearl wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
>>
>> people.
>>
>>> > >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
>>> > >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
>>
>> cycling
>>
>>> > >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
>>> > >>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
>>
>> devoted to
>>
>>> > >>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
>>> > >>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
>>> > >>>the hungry.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
>>> > >>resource allocation issues and hunger.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>>> > >>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>>> > >>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Wildlife pays too, due to the
>>> > > overuse
>>> >
>>> > It is not "over" use.
>>>
>>> Yes it is. We've outgrown our
>>> petri dish.
>>
>>
>> It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>> scientific one.
>>
>>>
>>> > > of formerly wild areas
>>> > > like the extensive acreage
>>> > > used in beef production.
>>> >
>>> > Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
>>> > being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>>>
>>> There's that extremism you're
>>> expecting of me again.
>>
>>
>> No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>>
>>> > >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
>>> > >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
>>> > >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
>>> > >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
>>> > >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
>>> > >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
>>> > >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
>>> > >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
>>> > >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
>>> > >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
>>> > >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
>>> > >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
>>> > >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
>>> > >>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
>>> > > of feeding the world, she makes
>>> > > a good point.
>>> >
>>> > She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
>>> > It's total bullshit.
>>>
>>> She's right about what she
>>> posted and you know it.
>>
>>
>> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
>> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>> thinks it's a production issue.
>>
>>> > > The grain/beans
>>> > > to beef ratio is 16:1, and
>>> > > the potatoes to beef ratio is
>>> > > 160:1. That's huge!
>>> >
>>> > It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
>>> > for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
>>> > of food produced. There is more than enough food
>>> > produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
>>> > to them, and paying the producers for it.
>>> >
>>> > >>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
>>> > >>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
>>> > >>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
>>> > >>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
>>> > >>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
>>> > >>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
>>> > >>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
>>> > >>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
>>> > >>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
>>> > >>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
>>> > >>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
>>> > >>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I happen to be a great cook,
>>> >
>>> > I doubt that.
>>>
>>> Doubt all you want.
>>
>>
>> My doubts are well grounded.
>>
>>> > > but that aside, are you actually
>>> > > claiming that one must do all
>>> > > one can, to extremes, in order
>>> > > to maximise the time one
>>> > > spends on good deeds?
>>> >
>>> > No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
>>> > WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>>>
>>> But I've only been seeing YOU
>>> claiming that people must go
>>> to unreasonable extremes.
>>
>>
>> No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
>> "waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
>> resources include your time.
>>
>>> > > And cooking for 3 hours is
>>> > > evil compared to cooking
>>> > > for 20 minutes?
>>> >
>>> > Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>> > implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>
>>> Ah, there's that implying again.
>>
>>
>> A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>> Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>> "unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>> your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>> meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>> resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>>
>>> > going into the production of what she considers to be a
>>> > "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
>>> > "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
>>> > that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
>>> > what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
>>> > must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
>>> > cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
>>> > minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
>>> > time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>>>
>>> She has never implied or said
>>> anything about my cooking
>>> time.
>>
>>
>> It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
>> in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
>> bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
>> foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
>>
>>> > > And what's this
>>> > > got to do with boats?
>>> >
>>> > You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
>>> > about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
>>>
>>> Let's see, boats are used in
>>> the transporting of some foods.
>>> Are you going to tell me I should
>>> be against that too? Boats are
>>> used in fishing and that's a
>>> segue into food. Am I getting
>>> warmer? Maybe someone
>>> from rec.boats could give me
>>> a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>
>>
>> You are a ****ing idiot.
>>

the Perfect Foil lied:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>>
>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why did you crosspost this
>>>>>all over the place?
>>>>
>>>>It belongs there.
>>>
>>>Why would rec.boats people
>>>care about our arguments
>>>about food, and the growing
>>>of food?
>>
>>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
>>without my help.
>
>
> Nah, I give up.

You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
never quit, and quitters never win.


>>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
>>>>>overuse
>>>>
>>>>It is not "over" use.
>>>
>>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
>>>petri dish.
>>
>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>>scientific one.
>
>
> Aesthetic? No.

Yes.

>>>>>of formerly wild areas
>>>>>like the extensive acreage
>>>>>used in beef production.
>>>>
>>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
>>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>>>
>>>There's that extremism you're
>>>expecting of me again.
>>
>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>
>
> And do that by tearing down my
> home?

You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
longer such. The implication for your residence is
clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
bulldoze it.

>>>>>>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
>>>>>>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
>>>>>>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
>>>>>>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
>>>>>>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
>>>>>>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
>>>>>>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
>>>>>>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
>>>>>>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
>>>>>>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
>>>>>>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
>>>>>>additional resources. The owners of those resources
>>>>>>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
>>>>>>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
>>>>>of feeding the world, she makes
>>>>>a good point.
>>>>
>>>>She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
>>>>It's total bullshit.
>>>
>>>She's right about what she
>>>posted and you know it.
>>
>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
>>world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>>thinks it's a production issue.
>
>
> I think everyone agrees it's
> a distribution problem.

No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
They're wrong.

Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
you're wrong.


>>>>>The grain/beans

Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
stupid ****.

>>>>>to beef ratio is 16:1, and
>>>>>the potatoes to beef ratio is
>>>>>160:1. That's huge!
>>>>
>>>>It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
>>>>for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
>>>>of food produced. There is more than enough food
>>>>produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
>>>>to them, and paying the producers for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
>>>>>>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
>>>>>>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
>>>>>>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
>>>>>>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
>>>>>>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
>>>>>>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
>>>>>>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
>>>>>>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
>>>>>>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
>>>>>>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
>>>>>>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
>>>>
>>>>I doubt that.
>>>
>>>Doubt all you want.
>>
>>My doubts are well grounded.
>
>
> It's your loss.

Hardly. You could scorch water.


>>>>>but that aside, are you actually
>>>>>claiming that one must do all
>>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
>>>>>to maximise the time one
>>>>>spends on good deeds?
>>>>
>>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
>>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>>>
>>>But I've only been seeing YOU
>>>claiming that people must go
>>>to unreasonable extremes.
>>
>>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
>>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
>>resources include your time.
>
>
> She has never faulted me for
> my time use like you do.

*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.


>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
>>>>>evil compared to cooking
>>>>>for 20 minutes?
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>
>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
>>
>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>
>
> Huh? Your implication
> perception is way off.

My ability to detect logically necessary implications
is unsurpassed.


>>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
>>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
>>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
>>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
>>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
>>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
>>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
>>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
>>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>>>
>>>She has never implied or said
>>>anything about my cooking
>>>time.
>>
>>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
>>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
>>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
>>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
>
>
> Let's let her decide whether
> she's telling me how to allot
> my time.

By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

>>>>>And what's this
>>>>>got to do with boats?
>>>>
>>>>You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
>>>>about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
>>>
>>>Let's see, boats are used in
>>>the transporting of some foods.
>>>Are you going to tell me I should
>>>be against that too? Boats are
>>>used in fishing and that's a
>>>segue into food. Am I getting
>>>warmer? Maybe someone
>>>from rec.boats could give me
>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>
>>You are a ****ing idiot.
>
>
> No,

Yes.

> just someone who doesn't
> get what the above has to do
> with boats.

Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.

> The philosophy
> group I can understand, as we
> discuss morals regarding the
> use of food and animals, but
> boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> out how your mind works is
> boggling. You say and do
> the weirdest things.

No.

THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
your ****ing worthless life.

Market driven? Yeah right ... and check out those fine specimens to the left
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html Supersize? You betcha :-)

"> The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
> a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
> is perfectly legitimate and proper.
>

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message oups.com...
> the Scented Nectar wrote:
<..>
> > She's right about what she
> > posted and you know it.
>
> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> thinks it's a production issue.

For this crosspost, from yesterday:

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> >
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > >
> > >>pearl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
> > >>>
> > >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> > >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> > >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> > >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> > >>
> > >>It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
> > >>materials and capital and labor that go into making a
> > >>Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
> > >>People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
> > >>the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
> > >>'waste'.
> > >>
> > >>This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
> > >>wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
> > >>the world.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell that to the hungry people in
> > > the world,
> >
> > They would be hungry EVEN IF all North Americans and
> > Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
> > has ****-all to do with our resource allocation.
> > They're hungry because THEIR economies are ****ed up,
> > and their countries are run by murderers.

Hunger and Food Insecurity Reach Chronic Highs [November 2004]
...
In 2003 the number of American households experiencing hunger rose
26% over comparable 1999 data, according to a newly released U.S.
Department of Agriculture report, Household Food Security in the
United States, 2003. Based on data from the December 2003 Food
Security Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 36.3 million
Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food
insecurity, cutting back on needed food requirements due to a lack of
adequate income. This represents an increase of more than 5 million
people since 1999, and includes more than 13 million children.

"This is an unexpected and even stunning outcome," noted center
director Dr. J. Larry Brown, a leading scholarly authority on domestic
hunger. "This chronic level of hunger so long after the recession ended
means that it is a man-made problem. Congress and the White House
urgently need to address growing income inequality and the weakening
of the safety net in order to get this epidemic under control"
http://tinyurl.com/8zvmy (pdf)

'Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain
and soybeans eaten by U.S. livestock: 1,300,000,000
http://www.kindplanet.org/hunger.html

> But then we'd be able to give them
> our excess food and help them
> to get back on their feet and be
> eventually self-sufficient. Not that
> this is likely to happen in reality,
> but ideally this would be great
> for everyone.

"While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese
and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to
two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people
have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own
country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not
surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets
abroad."

Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and
suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised
countries has supported such free trade and free market policies.
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm

'Worldwatch states that 75% of the Third World imports of corn,
barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals and not people. "In
country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is
squeezing out staple production for the poor." The demand for
meat among the rich takes precedence over grain production for
the poor since "cash" crops come first. Two-thirds of the grain
exported from North America goes to feed livestock which then
filters back to only feeding the ones who can afford that type of food.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutri...iet/vworld.htm
......

'rudy's response:

"Load of shit, from a non-stop shit-spewer.

Poor people will always have problems."

That first sentence is projection, as usual.

"Rudy Canoza" lied > wrote in message nk.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
<..>
> > Let's let her decide whether
> > she's telling me how to allot
> > my time.

Absolutely not.

> By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

I say may Scented enjoy all the veganic feasts she wishes,
and when you & co. stop eat the equivalent of 16lbs of grain
to feed your addiction with 1lb of beef, so will every person
on this planet. In addition to that, the vast expanses grazed
can revert to natural habitat, and many species your diet has
now driven to the edge of extinction will be able to recover.


Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
you make which contains personal slurs against my person
will be used in a court action against you. You have been
advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net...
> Capt. Neal® wrote:
>
>> How big are your zucchinis this year, Rudy?
>
> Haven't planted any yet. But the corn's as high as an elephant's eye.
>
>

Those latin women eat lots of corn, I hear tell. That's why so many of them are obese.
Seems most latin women look good up till they reach about twenty years old or when
they have their first baby then they turn into butter hogs - it's enough to keep a
fog horn going almost constantly.

CN





>>
>> CN
>>
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message oups.com...
>>
>>> the Perfect Foil wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>> k.net...
>>>> > the Perfect Foil wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Why did you crosspost this
>>>> > > all over the place?
>>>> >
>>>> > It belongs there.
>>>>
>>>> Why would rec.boats people
>>>> care about our arguments
>>>> about food, and the growing
>>>> of food?
>>>
>>>
>>> Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
>>> without my help.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>>>> > > k.net...
>>>> > >
>>>> > >>pearl wrote:
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
>>>
>>> people.
>>>
>>>> > >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
>>>> > >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
>>>
>>> cycling
>>>
>>>> > >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
>>>> > >>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
>>>
>>> devoted to
>>>
>>>> > >>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
>>>> > >>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
>>>> > >>>the hungry.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
>>>> > >>resource allocation issues and hunger.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>>>> > >>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>>>> > >>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Wildlife pays too, due to the
>>>> > > overuse
>>>> >
>>>> > It is not "over" use.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is. We've outgrown our
>>>> petri dish.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>>> scientific one.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > > of formerly wild areas
>>>> > > like the extensive acreage
>>>> > > used in beef production.
>>>> >
>>>> > Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
>>>> > being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>>>>
>>>> There's that extremism you're
>>>> expecting of me again.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>>>
>>>> > >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
>>>> > >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
>>>> > >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
>>>> > >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
>>>> > >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
>>>> > >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
>>>> > >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
>>>> > >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
>>>> > >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
>>>> > >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
>>>> > >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
>>>> > >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
>>>> > >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
>>>> > >>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
>>>> > > of feeding the world, she makes
>>>> > > a good point.
>>>> >
>>>> > She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
>>>> > It's total bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> She's right about what she
>>>> posted and you know it.
>>>
>>>
>>> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
>>> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>>> thinks it's a production issue.
>>>
>>>> > > The grain/beans
>>>> > > to beef ratio is 16:1, and
>>>> > > the potatoes to beef ratio is
>>>> > > 160:1. That's huge!
>>>> >
>>>> > It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
>>>> > for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
>>>> > of food produced. There is more than enough food
>>>> > produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
>>>> > to them, and paying the producers for it.
>>>> >
>>>> > >>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
>>>> > >>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
>>>> > >>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
>>>> > >>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
>>>> > >>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
>>>> > >>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
>>>> > >>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
>>>> > >>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
>>>> > >>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
>>>> > >>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
>>>> > >>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
>>>> > >>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I happen to be a great cook,
>>>> >
>>>> > I doubt that.
>>>>
>>>> Doubt all you want.
>>>
>>>
>>> My doubts are well grounded.
>>>
>>>> > > but that aside, are you actually
>>>> > > claiming that one must do all
>>>> > > one can, to extremes, in order
>>>> > > to maximise the time one
>>>> > > spends on good deeds?
>>>> >
>>>> > No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
>>>> > WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>>>>
>>>> But I've only been seeing YOU
>>>> claiming that people must go
>>>> to unreasonable extremes.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
>>> "waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
>>> resources include your time.
>>>
>>>> > > And cooking for 3 hours is
>>>> > > evil compared to cooking
>>>> > > for 20 minutes?
>>>> >
>>>> > Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>>> > implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>>
>>>> Ah, there's that implying again.
>>>
>>>
>>> A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>>> Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>>> "unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>>> your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>>> meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>>> resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>>>
>>>> > going into the production of what she considers to be a
>>>> > "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
>>>> > "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
>>>> > that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
>>>> > what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
>>>> > must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
>>>> > cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
>>>> > minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
>>>> > time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>>>>
>>>> She has never implied or said
>>>> anything about my cooking
>>>> time.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
>>> in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
>>> bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
>>> foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
>>>
>>>> > > And what's this
>>>> > > got to do with boats?
>>>> >
>>>> > You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
>>>> > about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see, boats are used in
>>>> the transporting of some foods.
>>>> Are you going to tell me I should
>>>> be against that too? Boats are
>>>> used in fishing and that's a
>>>> segue into food. Am I getting
>>>> warmer? Maybe someone
>>>> from rec.boats could give me
>>>> a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are a ****ing idiot.
>>>

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
>>the Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>She's right about what she
>>>posted and you know it.
>>
>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
>>world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>>thinks it's a production issue.
>
>
> For this crosspost, from yesterday:
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>
>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Scented, you asked for this info;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
>>>>>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
>>>>>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
>>>>>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
>>>>>materials and capital and labor that go into making a
>>>>>Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
>>>>>People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
>>>>>the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
>>>>>'waste'.
>>>>>
>>>>>This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
>>>>>wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
>>>>>the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tell that to the hungry people in
>>>>the world,
>>>
>>>They would be hungry EVEN IF all North Americans and
>>>Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
>>>has ****-all to do with our resource allocation.
>>>They're hungry because THEIR economies are ****ed up,
>>>and their countries are run by murderers.
>
>
> Hunger and Food Insecurity Reach Chronic Highs [November 2004]
> ..
> In 2003 the number of American households experiencing hunger rose
> 26% over comparable 1999 data, according to a newly released U.S.
> Department of Agriculture report, Household Food Security in the
> United States, 2003.

Load of shit, from a non-stop shit-spewer. Poor people
will always have problems.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
>>the Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>She's right about what she
>>>posted and you know it.
>>
>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
>>world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>>thinks it's a production issue.
>
>
> For this crosspost, from yesterday:
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
>
>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Scented, you asked for this info;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
>>>>>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
>>>>>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
>>>>>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
>>>>>materials and capital and labor that go into making a
>>>>>Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
>>>>>People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
>>>>>the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
>>>>>'waste'.
>>>>>
>>>>>This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
>>>>>wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
>>>>>the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tell that to the hungry people in
>>>>the world,
>>>
>>>They would be hungry EVEN IF all North Americans and
>>>Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
>>>has ****-all to do with our resource allocation.
>>>They're hungry because THEIR economies are ****ed up,
>>>and their countries are run by murderers.
>
>
> Hunger and Food Insecurity Reach Chronic Highs [November 2004]
> ..
> In 2003 the number of American households experiencing hunger rose
> 26% over comparable 1999 data, according to a newly released U.S.
> Department of Agriculture report, Household Food Security in the
> United States, 2003.

Load of shit, from a non-stop shit-spewer. Poor people
will always have problems.

Lesley oozed:

> "Rudy Canoza" wrote > wrote in message nk.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>Let's let her decide whether
>>>she's telling me how to allot
>>>my time.
>
>
> Absolutely not.

Implicitly, you are, you stupid lying foot masseuse.
You have suggested that any resource used beyond the
minimum necessary for elementary human nutrition is
wasted. That includes time.


> you make which contains personal slurs against my person
> will be used in a court action against you.

**** yourself with a broken bottle. You have no
grounds for suit, and you know full well that if you
did, I would know your full name and everything else
about you, LEGALLY, and I would spread it all over the
internet. **** off with your empty threats, asshole.

"pearl" > spat this pabulum in message ...
>
>
> Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
> you make which contains personal slurs against my person
> will be used in a court action against you. You have been
> advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..
>

Which person would that be? Your pimp perhaps?

CN

"pearl" > spat this pabulum in message ...
>
>
> Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
> you make which contains personal slurs against my person
> will be used in a court action against you. You have been
> advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..
>

Which person would that be? Your pimp perhaps?

CN

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> the Perfect Foil lied:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>>
> >>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why did you crosspost this
> >>>>>all over the place?
> >>>>
> >>>>It belongs there.
> >>>
> >>>Why would rec.boats people
> >>>care about our arguments
> >>>about food, and the growing
> >>>of food?
> >>
> >>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
> >>without my help.
> >
> >
> > Nah, I give up.
>
> You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
> never quit, and quitters never win.

The prize is the answer to why
you crossposted this. No big
deal. It's probably just because
you're insane and think that
boating was 'implied'.

> >>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> >>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> >>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
> >>>>>overuse
> >>>>
> >>>>It is not "over" use.
> >>>
> >>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
> >>>petri dish.
> >>
> >>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> >>scientific one.
> >
> >
> > Aesthetic? No.
>
> Yes.

What do aesthetics have to
do with it?

> >>>>>of formerly wild areas
> >>>>>like the extensive acreage
> >>>>>used in beef production.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> >>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
> >>>
> >>>There's that extremism you're
> >>>expecting of me again.
> >>
> >>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
> >
> >
> > And do that by tearing down my
> > home?
>
> You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
> longer such. The implication for your residence is
> clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
> bulldoze it.

You're nuts.

> >>>>>>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> >>>>>>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> >>>>>>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> >>>>>>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> >>>>>>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> >>>>>>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> >>>>>>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> >>>>>>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> >>>>>>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> >>>>>>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> >>>>>>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> >>>>>>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> >>>>>>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> >>>>>>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> >>>>>of feeding the world, she makes
> >>>>>a good point.
> >>>>
> >>>>She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> >>>>It's total bullshit.
> >>>
> >>>She's right about what she
> >>>posted and you know it.
> >>
> >>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
> >>world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> >>thinks it's a production issue.
> >
> >
> > I think everyone agrees it's
> > a distribution problem.
>
> No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
> forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
> They're wrong.

Distribution, allocation, pretty
much the same thing. Same
results.

> Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
> livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
> shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
> "poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
> idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
> you're wrong.

I think you're missing the
point.

> >>>>>The grain/beans
>
> Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
> stupid ****.

Who said they were? I'm
referring to the combo.

> >>>>>to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> >>>>>the potatoes to beef ratio is
> >>>>>160:1. That's huge!
> >>>>
> >>>>It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> >>>>for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> >>>>of food produced. There is more than enough food
> >>>>produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> >>>>to them, and paying the producers for it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> >>>>>>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> >>>>>>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> >>>>>>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> >>>>>>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> >>>>>>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> >>>>>>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> >>>>>>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> >>>>>>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> >>>>>>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> >>>>>>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> >>>>>>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
> >>>>
> >>>>I doubt that.
> >>>
> >>>Doubt all you want.
> >>
> >>My doubts are well grounded.
> >
> >
> > It's your loss.
>
> Hardly. You could scorch water.

Here's a recipe just for you.
Start with a dozen water hemlock
roots...just kidding.

> >>>>>but that aside, are you actually
> >>>>>claiming that one must do all
> >>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
> >>>>>to maximise the time one
> >>>>>spends on good deeds?
> >>>>
> >>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> >>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
> >>>
> >>>But I've only been seeing YOU
> >>>claiming that people must go
> >>>to unreasonable extremes.
> >>
> >>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
> >>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
> >>resources include your time.
> >
> >
> > She has never faulted me for
> > my time use like you do.
>
> *I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
> implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
> time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
> calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.

I've not seen her say that.

> >>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
> >>>>>evil compared to cooking
> >>>>>for 20 minutes?
> >>>>
> >>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> >>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >>>
> >>>Ah, there's that implying again.
> >>
> >>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> >>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> >>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
> >>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> >>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> >>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
> >
> >
> > Huh? Your implication
> > perception is way off.
>
> My ability to detect logically necessary implications
> is unsurpassed.

You even find them when they
aren't there. You ARE good!

> >>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
> >>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> >>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> >>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> >>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> >>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> >>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> >>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> >>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
> >>>
> >>>She has never implied or said
> >>>anything about my cooking
> >>>time.
> >>
> >>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
> >>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
> >>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
> >>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
> >
> >
> > Let's let her decide whether
> > she's telling me how to allot
> > my time.
>
> By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

I think I'll wait and see what she
says about my time usage.

> >>>>>And what's this
> >>>>>got to do with boats?
> >>>>
> >>>>You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
> >>>>about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
> >>>
> >>>Let's see, boats are used in
> >>>the transporting of some foods.
> >>>Are you going to tell me I should
> >>>be against that too? Boats are
> >>>used in fishing and that's a
> >>>segue into food. Am I getting
> >>>warmer? Maybe someone
> >>>from rec.boats could give me
> >>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
> >>
> >>You are a ****ing idiot.
> >
> >
> > No,
>
> Yes.
>
> > just someone who doesn't
> > get what the above has to do
> > with boats.
>
> Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.

Are there a lot of boating
vegetarians? Does boating for
fun make people suddenly
interested in veg food? Come
on, make sense for once.

> > The philosophy
> > group I can understand, as we
> > discuss morals regarding the
> > use of food and animals, but
> > boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> > out how your mind works is
> > boggling. You say and do
> > the weirdest things.
>
> No.
>
> THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
> your ****ing worthless life.

There's that famed politeness
again.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> the Perfect Foil lied:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >>>
> >>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why did you crosspost this
> >>>>>all over the place?
> >>>>
> >>>>It belongs there.
> >>>
> >>>Why would rec.boats people
> >>>care about our arguments
> >>>about food, and the growing
> >>>of food?
> >>
> >>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
> >>without my help.
> >
> >
> > Nah, I give up.
>
> You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
> never quit, and quitters never win.

The prize is the answer to why
you crossposted this. No big
deal. It's probably just because
you're insane and think that
boating was 'implied'.

> >>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> >>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> >>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
> >>>>>overuse
> >>>>
> >>>>It is not "over" use.
> >>>
> >>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
> >>>petri dish.
> >>
> >>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> >>scientific one.
> >
> >
> > Aesthetic? No.
>
> Yes.

What do aesthetics have to
do with it?

> >>>>>of formerly wild areas
> >>>>>like the extensive acreage
> >>>>>used in beef production.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> >>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
> >>>
> >>>There's that extremism you're
> >>>expecting of me again.
> >>
> >>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
> >
> >
> > And do that by tearing down my
> > home?
>
> You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
> longer such. The implication for your residence is
> clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
> bulldoze it.

You're nuts.

> >>>>>>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> >>>>>>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> >>>>>>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> >>>>>>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> >>>>>>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> >>>>>>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> >>>>>>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> >>>>>>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> >>>>>>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> >>>>>>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> >>>>>>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> >>>>>>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> >>>>>>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> >>>>>>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> >>>>>of feeding the world, she makes
> >>>>>a good point.
> >>>>
> >>>>She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> >>>>It's total bullshit.
> >>>
> >>>She's right about what she
> >>>posted and you know it.
> >>
> >>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
> >>world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> >>thinks it's a production issue.
> >
> >
> > I think everyone agrees it's
> > a distribution problem.
>
> No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
> forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
> They're wrong.

Distribution, allocation, pretty
much the same thing. Same
results.

> Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
> livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
> shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
> "poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
> idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
> you're wrong.

I think you're missing the
point.

> >>>>>The grain/beans
>
> Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
> stupid ****.

Who said they were? I'm
referring to the combo.

> >>>>>to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> >>>>>the potatoes to beef ratio is
> >>>>>160:1. That's huge!
> >>>>
> >>>>It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> >>>>for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> >>>>of food produced. There is more than enough food
> >>>>produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> >>>>to them, and paying the producers for it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> >>>>>>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> >>>>>>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> >>>>>>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> >>>>>>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> >>>>>>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> >>>>>>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> >>>>>>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> >>>>>>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> >>>>>>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> >>>>>>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> >>>>>>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
> >>>>
> >>>>I doubt that.
> >>>
> >>>Doubt all you want.
> >>
> >>My doubts are well grounded.
> >
> >
> > It's your loss.
>
> Hardly. You could scorch water.

Here's a recipe just for you.
Start with a dozen water hemlock
roots...just kidding.

> >>>>>but that aside, are you actually
> >>>>>claiming that one must do all
> >>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
> >>>>>to maximise the time one
> >>>>>spends on good deeds?
> >>>>
> >>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> >>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
> >>>
> >>>But I've only been seeing YOU
> >>>claiming that people must go
> >>>to unreasonable extremes.
> >>
> >>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
> >>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
> >>resources include your time.
> >
> >
> > She has never faulted me for
> > my time use like you do.
>
> *I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
> implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
> time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
> calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.

I've not seen her say that.

> >>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
> >>>>>evil compared to cooking
> >>>>>for 20 minutes?
> >>>>
> >>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> >>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >>>
> >>>Ah, there's that implying again.
> >>
> >>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> >>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> >>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
> >>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> >>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> >>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
> >
> >
> > Huh? Your implication
> > perception is way off.
>
> My ability to detect logically necessary implications
> is unsurpassed.

You even find them when they
aren't there. You ARE good!

> >>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
> >>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> >>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> >>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> >>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> >>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> >>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> >>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> >>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
> >>>
> >>>She has never implied or said
> >>>anything about my cooking
> >>>time.
> >>
> >>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
> >>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
> >>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
> >>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
> >
> >
> > Let's let her decide whether
> > she's telling me how to allot
> > my time.
>
> By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

I think I'll wait and see what she
says about my time usage.

> >>>>>And what's this
> >>>>>got to do with boats?
> >>>>
> >>>>You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
> >>>>about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
> >>>
> >>>Let's see, boats are used in
> >>>the transporting of some foods.
> >>>Are you going to tell me I should
> >>>be against that too? Boats are
> >>>used in fishing and that's a
> >>>segue into food. Am I getting
> >>>warmer? Maybe someone
> >>>from rec.boats could give me
> >>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
> >>
> >>You are a ****ing idiot.
> >
> >
> > No,
>
> Yes.
>
> > just someone who doesn't
> > get what the above has to do
> > with boats.
>
> Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.

Are there a lot of boating
vegetarians? Does boating for
fun make people suddenly
interested in veg food? Come
on, make sense for once.

> > The philosophy
> > group I can understand, as we
> > discuss morals regarding the
> > use of food and animals, but
> > boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> > out how your mind works is
> > boggling. You say and do
> > the weirdest things.
>
> No.
>
> THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
> your ****ing worthless life.

There's that famed politeness
again.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Rudy Canoza" lied > wrote in message
nk.net...
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> <..>
> > > Let's let her decide whether
> > > she's telling me how to allot
> > > my time.
>
> Absolutely not.

Thank you. He was seeing 'implied'
things again and getting it wrong
again.

> > By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> > resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> > basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> > NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> > and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> > ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
>
> I say may Scented enjoy all the veganic feasts she wishes,
> and when you & co. stop eat the equivalent of 16lbs of grain
> to feed your addiction with 1lb of beef, so will every person
> on this planet. In addition to that, the vast expanses grazed
> can revert to natural habitat, and many species your diet has
> now driven to the edge of extinction will be able to recover.

Sounds good to me. It's time
for a new batch of my vegan chili.
But first I have to make up a new
batch of my veg broth it uses.
Feast time. Cheers.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
> you make which contains personal slurs against my person
> will be used in a court action against you. You have been
> advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Rudy Canoza" lied > wrote in message
nk.net...
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> <..>
> > > Let's let her decide whether
> > > she's telling me how to allot
> > > my time.
>
> Absolutely not.

Thank you. He was seeing 'implied'
things again and getting it wrong
again.

> > By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> > resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> > basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> > NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> > and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> > ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
>
> I say may Scented enjoy all the veganic feasts she wishes,
> and when you & co. stop eat the equivalent of 16lbs of grain
> to feed your addiction with 1lb of beef, so will every person
> on this planet. In addition to that, the vast expanses grazed
> can revert to natural habitat, and many species your diet has
> now driven to the edge of extinction will be able to recover.

Sounds good to me. It's time
for a new batch of my vegan chili.
But first I have to make up a new
batch of my veg broth it uses.
Feast time. Cheers.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
> you make which contains personal slurs against my person
> will be used in a court action against you. You have been
> advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..

the Perfect Foil lied:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
egroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why did you crosspost this
>>>>>>>all over the place?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It belongs there.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would rec.boats people
>>>>>care about our arguments
>>>>>about food, and the growing
>>>>>of food?
>>>>
>>>>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
>>>>without my help.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, I give up.
>>
>>You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
>>never quit, and quitters never win.
>
>
> The prize is the answer to why
> you crossposted this. No big
> deal.

Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
a dozen times.

> It's probably just because
> you're insane and think that
> boating was 'implied'.

Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.

>>>>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>>>>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>>>>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
>>>>>>>overuse
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is not "over" use.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
>>>>>petri dish.
>>>>
>>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>>>>scientific one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Aesthetic? No.
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> What do aesthetics have to
> do with it?

Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
"over" used.


>>>>>>>of formerly wild areas
>>>>>>>like the extensive acreage
>>>>>>>used in beef production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
>>>>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's that extremism you're
>>>>>expecting of me again.
>>>>
>>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>>>
>>>
>>>And do that by tearing down my
>>>home?
>>
>>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
>>longer such. The implication for your residence is
>>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
>>bulldoze it.
>
>
> You're nuts.

No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.

>>>>>>>>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
>>>>>>>>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
>>>>>>>>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
>>>>>>>>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
>>>>>>>>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
>>>>>>>>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
>>>>>>>>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
>>>>>>>>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
>>>>>>>>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
>>>>>>>>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
>>>>>>>>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
>>>>>>>>additional resources. The owners of those resources
>>>>>>>>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
>>>>>>>>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
>>>>>>>of feeding the world, she makes
>>>>>>>a good point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
>>>>>>It's total bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>She's right about what she
>>>>>posted and you know it.
>>>>
>>>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
>>>>world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>>>>thinks it's a production issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think everyone agrees it's
>>>a distribution problem.
>>
>>No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
>>forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
>>They're wrong.
>
>
> Distribution, allocation, pretty
> much the same thing.

NO, you ****ing idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
that are produced.

You are SO INCREDIBLY ****ING STUPID, it's just
unfathomable.

>>Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
>>livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
>>shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
>>"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
>>idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
>>you're wrong.
>
>
> I think you're missing the
> point.

I am not missing the point at all, ****. YOU and the
****wit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
****ING CLUE what the point is.

The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
possible to take the same crops and, instead of
shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
can't or won't eat.

If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
different things. But why would that be done? What is
to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
business-ignorant ****?

Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
these changes in both resource allocation AND end
product distribution?

What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
You don't have a ****ing clue.

>>>>>>>The grain/beans
>>
>>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
>>stupid ****.
>
>
> Who said they were?

YOU did, ****: "grain/beans".

>>>>>>>to beef ratio is 16:1, and
>>>>>>>the potatoes to beef ratio is
>>>>>>>160:1. That's huge!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
>>>>>>for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
>>>>>>of food produced. There is more than enough food
>>>>>>produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
>>>>>>to them, and paying the producers for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
>>>>>>>>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
>>>>>>>>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
>>>>>>>>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
>>>>>>>>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
>>>>>>>>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
>>>>>>>>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
>>>>>>>>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
>>>>>>>>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
>>>>>>>>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
>>>>>>>>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
>>>>>>>>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I doubt that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Doubt all you want.
>>>>
>>>>My doubts are well grounded.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's your loss.
>>
>>Hardly. You could scorch water.
>
>
> Here's a recipe just for you.

Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.

>>>>>>>but that aside, are you actually
>>>>>>>claiming that one must do all
>>>>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
>>>>>>>to maximise the time one
>>>>>>>spends on good deeds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
>>>>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I've only been seeing YOU
>>>>>claiming that people must go
>>>>>to unreasonable extremes.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
>>>>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
>>>>resources include your time.
>>>
>>>
>>>She has never faulted me for
>>>my time use like you do.
>>
>>*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
>>implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
>>time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
>>calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
>
>
> I've not seen her say that.

No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
about resource allocation and product distribution.
ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
"ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
under her view of how resources "ought" to be
allocated. All that STUPID **** can do is flatulantly
say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
comment. It's horseshit.

>>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
>>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
>>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
>>>>
>>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? Your implication
>>>perception is way off.
>>
>>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
>>is unsurpassed.
>
>
> You even find them when they
> aren't there.

They are there.

>>>>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
>>>>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
>>>>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
>>>>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
>>>>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
>>>>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
>>>>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
>>>>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
>>>>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>>>>>
>>>>>She has never implied or said
>>>>>anything about my cooking
>>>>>time.
>>>>
>>>>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
>>>>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
>>>>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
>>>>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's let her decide whether
>>>she's telling me how to allot
>>>my time.
>>
>>By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
>>resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
>>basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
>>NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
>>and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
>>ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
>
>
> I think I'll wait and see what she
> says about my time usage.

She's a lying stupid ****. She is incapable of seeing
that once she starts complaining about resource
allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
time, are open to question.

>>>>>>>And what's this
>>>>>>>got to do with boats?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
>>>>>>about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's see, boats are used in
>>>>>the transporting of some foods.
>>>>>Are you going to tell me I should
>>>>>be against that too? Boats are
>>>>>used in fishing and that's a
>>>>>segue into food. Am I getting
>>>>>warmer? Maybe someone
>>>>
>>>>>from rec.boats could give me
>>>>
>>>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>>>
>>>>You are a ****ing idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>just someone who doesn't
>>>get what the above has to do
>>>with boats.
>>
>>Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.
>
>
> Are there a lot of boating
> vegetarians?

You're a ****ing moron and asshole.

>>>The philosophy
>>>group I can understand, as we
>>>discuss morals regarding the
>>>use of food and animals, but
>>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
>>>out how your mind works is
>>>boggling. You say and do
>>>the weirdest things.
>>
>>No.
>>
>>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
>>your ****ing worthless life.
>
>
> There's that famed politeness
> again.

THINK, ****. Stop blabbering and THINK.

Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
recreational boats?

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Rudy Canoza" lied > wrote in message
>
> nk.net...
>
>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>><..>
>>
>>>>Let's let her decide whether
>>>>she's telling me how to allot
>>>>my time.
>>
>>Absolutely not.
>
>
> Thank you. He was seeing 'implied'
> things again and getting it wrong
> again.

It IS implied. The foul skank Lesley has no criteria
AT ALL to say why agricultural resources ought to be
reallocated to feed starving people, but your time
should not be reallocated. Your time is a (low-valued)
resource, and one could easily make just as good a case
that you spend "too much" time cooking for yourself.
You could spend much less time cooking, still eat a
nutritionally adequate diet, and spend the saved time
doing something meaningful to help starving people. It
is just as legitimate a demand as the demand that
agricultural resources be reallocated away from meat
production and towards food-for-starving-people
production.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Rudy Canoza" lied > wrote in message
>
> nk.net...
>
>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>><..>
>>
>>>>Let's let her decide whether
>>>>she's telling me how to allot
>>>>my time.
>>
>>Absolutely not.
>
>
> Thank you. He was seeing 'implied'
> things again and getting it wrong
> again.

It IS implied. The foul skank Lesley has no criteria
AT ALL to say why agricultural resources ought to be
reallocated to feed starving people, but your time
should not be reallocated. Your time is a (low-valued)
resource, and one could easily make just as good a case
that you spend "too much" time cooking for yourself.
You could spend much less time cooking, still eat a
nutritionally adequate diet, and spend the saved time
doing something meaningful to help starving people. It
is just as legitimate a demand as the demand that
agricultural resources be reallocated away from meat
production and towards food-for-starving-people
production.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> the Perfect Foil lied:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> egroups.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Why did you crosspost this
> >>>>>>>all over the place?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It belongs there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why would rec.boats people
> >>>>>care about our arguments
> >>>>>about food, and the growing
> >>>>>of food?
> >>>>
> >>>>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
> >>>>without my help.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nah, I give up.
> >>
> >>You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
> >>never quit, and quitters never win.
> >
> >
> > The prize is the answer to why
> > you crossposted this. No big
> > deal.
>
> Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
> a dozen times.

Well, you have to admit that it's
strange. I'll bet there are also
boaters who feel this is off
topic.

> > It's probably just because
> > you're insane and think that
> > boating was 'implied'.
>
> Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.

It's not implied from what I've
seen. Recreational boating
has nothing to do with veg
foods.

> >>>>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> >>>>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> >>>>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
> >>>>>>>overuse
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It is not "over" use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
> >>>>>petri dish.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> >>>>scientific one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Aesthetic? No.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> >
> > What do aesthetics have to
> > do with it?
>
> Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
> singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
> your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
> "over" used.

Science agrees with me.

> >>>>>>>of formerly wild areas
> >>>>>>>like the extensive acreage
> >>>>>>>used in beef production.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> >>>>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There's that extremism you're
> >>>>>expecting of me again.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And do that by tearing down my
> >>>home?
> >>
> >>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
> >>longer such. The implication for your residence is
> >>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
> >>bulldoze it.
> >
> >
> > You're nuts.
>
> No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.

Sorry to disappoint you, but
yes, I really do think you're nuts.

> >>>>>>>>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> >>>>>>>>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> >>>>>>>>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> >>>>>>>>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> >>>>>>>>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> >>>>>>>>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> >>>>>>>>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> >>>>>>>>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> >>>>>>>>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> >>>>>>>>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> >>>>>>>>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> >>>>>>>>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> >>>>>>>>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> >>>>>>>>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> >>>>>>>of feeding the world, she makes
> >>>>>>>a good point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> >>>>>>It's total bullshit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>She's right about what she
> >>>>>posted and you know it.
> >>>>
> >>>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue
of
> >>>>world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> >>>>thinks it's a production issue.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I think everyone agrees it's
> >>>a distribution problem.
> >>
> >>No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
> >>forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
> >>They're wrong.
> >
> >
> > Distribution, allocation, pretty
> > much the same thing.
>
> NO, you ****ing idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
> ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
> produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
> that are produced.
>
> You are SO INCREDIBLY ****ING STUPID, it's just
> unfathomable.

Allocate means distribute, moron.

> >>Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
> >>livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
> >>shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
> >>"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
> >>idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
> >>you're wrong.
> >
> >
> > I think you're missing the
> > point.
>
> I am not missing the point at all, ****. YOU and the
> ****wit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
> ****ING CLUE what the point is.

Calm down Rudy, your head
will explode.

> The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
> specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
> allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
> possible to take the same crops and, instead of
> shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
> instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
> can't or won't eat.
>
> If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
> used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
> people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
> different things. But why would that be done? What is
> to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
> American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
> money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
> farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
> deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
> essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
> in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
> operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
> in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
> per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
> business-ignorant ****?

The whole point is to make money
challenged people become self-
sufficient, not merely dependant
on hand outs.

> Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
> these changes in both resource allocation AND end
> product distribution?
>
> What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
> You don't have a ****ing clue.
>
> >>>>>>>The grain/beans
> >>
> >>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
> >>stupid ****.
> >
> >
> > Who said they were?
>
> YOU did, ****: "grain/beans".

I was referring to a ratio. The
combo of grains/beans to the
amount of beef produced. Why
are you having such a hard time
understanding things?

> >>>>>>>to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> >>>>>>>the potatoes to beef ratio is
> >>>>>>>160:1. That's huge!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> >>>>>>for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> >>>>>>of food produced. There is more than enough food
> >>>>>>produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> >>>>>>to them, and paying the producers for it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> >>>>>>>>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> >>>>>>>>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> >>>>>>>>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> >>>>>>>>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> >>>>>>>>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> >>>>>>>>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> >>>>>>>>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> >>>>>>>>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> >>>>>>>>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> >>>>>>>>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> >>>>>>>>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I doubt that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Doubt all you want.
> >>>>
> >>>>My doubts are well grounded.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's your loss.
> >>
> >>Hardly. You could scorch water.
> >
> >
> > Here's a recipe just for you.
>
> Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.

No way, you've already used it.
That's how it broke. You're a
tight ass!!!

> >>>>>>>but that aside, are you actually
> >>>>>>>claiming that one must do all
> >>>>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
> >>>>>>>to maximise the time one
> >>>>>>>spends on good deeds?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> >>>>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>But I've only been seeing YOU
> >>>>>claiming that people must go
> >>>>>to unreasonable extremes.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering
about
> >>>>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
> >>>>resources include your time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>She has never faulted me for
> >>>my time use like you do.
> >>
> >>*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
> >>implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
> >>time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
> >>calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
> >
> >
> > I've not seen her say that.
>
> No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
> is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
> about resource allocation and product distribution.
> ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
> "ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
> how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
> time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
> under her view of how resources "ought" to be
> allocated. All that STUPID **** can do is flatulantly
> say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
> comment. It's horseshit.

She's not said anything even
close to what you claim.

> >>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
> >>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
> >>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> >>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
> >>>>
> >>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> >>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> >>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted",
while
> >>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> >>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> >>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Huh? Your implication
> >>>perception is way off.
> >>
> >>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
> >>is unsurpassed.
> >
> >
> > You even find them when they
> > aren't there.
>
> They are there.

So are the voices in your head,
the ones that point out implications
to you. But they're not real either.

> >>>>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
> >>>>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> >>>>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> >>>>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> >>>>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> >>>>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> >>>>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> >>>>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> >>>>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>She has never implied or said
> >>>>>anything about my cooking
> >>>>>time.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said.
NECESSARILY,
> >>>>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond
some
> >>>>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether
the
> >>>>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's let her decide whether
> >>>she's telling me how to allot
> >>>my time.
> >>
> >>By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> >>resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> >>basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> >>NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> >>and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> >>ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
> >
> >
> > I think I'll wait and see what she
> > says about my time usage.
>
> She's a lying stupid ****. She is incapable of seeing
> that once she starts complaining about resource
> allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
> time, are open to question.

It's been proven that you're
making untrue claims about
her.

> >>>>>>>And what's this
> >>>>>>>got to do with boats?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
> >>>>>>about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let's see, boats are used in
> >>>>>the transporting of some foods.
> >>>>>Are you going to tell me I should
> >>>>>be against that too? Boats are
> >>>>>used in fishing and that's a
> >>>>>segue into food. Am I getting
> >>>>>warmer? Maybe someone
> >>>>
> >>>>>from rec.boats could give me
> >>>>
> >>>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are a ****ing idiot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No,
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>just someone who doesn't
> >>>get what the above has to do
> >>>with boats.
> >>
> >>Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.
> >
> >
> > Are there a lot of boating
> > vegetarians?
>
> You're a ****ing moron and asshole.

Maybe veggies are a fave
food among boaters? )

> >>>The philosophy
> >>>group I can understand, as we
> >>>discuss morals regarding the
> >>>use of food and animals, but
> >>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> >>>out how your mind works is
> >>>boggling. You say and do
> >>>the weirdest things.
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
> >>your ****ing worthless life.
> >
> >
> > There's that famed politeness
> > again.
>
> THINK, ****. Stop blabbering and THINK.
>
> Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
> Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
> recreational boats?

Oh, now they're evil for taking
the world's resources? What
will you think of next?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> the Perfect Foil lied:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >
> >>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> egroups.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Why did you crosspost this
> >>>>>>>all over the place?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It belongs there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why would rec.boats people
> >>>>>care about our arguments
> >>>>>about food, and the growing
> >>>>>of food?
> >>>>
> >>>>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
> >>>>without my help.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nah, I give up.
> >>
> >>You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
> >>never quit, and quitters never win.
> >
> >
> > The prize is the answer to why
> > you crossposted this. No big
> > deal.
>
> Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
> a dozen times.

Well, you have to admit that it's
strange. I'll bet there are also
boaters who feel this is off
topic.

> > It's probably just because
> > you're insane and think that
> > boating was 'implied'.
>
> Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.

It's not implied from what I've
seen. Recreational boating
has nothing to do with veg
foods.

> >>>>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> >>>>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> >>>>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
> >>>>>>>overuse
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It is not "over" use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
> >>>>>petri dish.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> >>>>scientific one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Aesthetic? No.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> >
> > What do aesthetics have to
> > do with it?
>
> Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
> singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
> your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
> "over" used.

Science agrees with me.

> >>>>>>>of formerly wild areas
> >>>>>>>like the extensive acreage
> >>>>>>>used in beef production.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> >>>>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There's that extremism you're
> >>>>>expecting of me again.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And do that by tearing down my
> >>>home?
> >>
> >>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
> >>longer such. The implication for your residence is
> >>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
> >>bulldoze it.
> >
> >
> > You're nuts.
>
> No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.

Sorry to disappoint you, but
yes, I really do think you're nuts.

> >>>>>>>>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> >>>>>>>>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> >>>>>>>>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> >>>>>>>>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> >>>>>>>>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> >>>>>>>>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> >>>>>>>>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> >>>>>>>>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> >>>>>>>>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> >>>>>>>>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> >>>>>>>>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> >>>>>>>>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> >>>>>>>>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> >>>>>>>>to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> >>>>>>>of feeding the world, she makes
> >>>>>>>a good point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> >>>>>>It's total bullshit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>She's right about what she
> >>>>>posted and you know it.
> >>>>
> >>>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue
of
> >>>>world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> >>>>thinks it's a production issue.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I think everyone agrees it's
> >>>a distribution problem.
> >>
> >>No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
> >>forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
> >>They're wrong.
> >
> >
> > Distribution, allocation, pretty
> > much the same thing.
>
> NO, you ****ing idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
> ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
> produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
> that are produced.
>
> You are SO INCREDIBLY ****ING STUPID, it's just
> unfathomable.

Allocate means distribute, moron.

> >>Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
> >>livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
> >>shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
> >>"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
> >>idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
> >>you're wrong.
> >
> >
> > I think you're missing the
> > point.
>
> I am not missing the point at all, ****. YOU and the
> ****wit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
> ****ING CLUE what the point is.

Calm down Rudy, your head
will explode.

> The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
> specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
> allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
> possible to take the same crops and, instead of
> shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
> instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
> can't or won't eat.
>
> If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
> used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
> people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
> different things. But why would that be done? What is
> to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
> American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
> money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
> farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
> deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
> essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
> in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
> operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
> in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
> per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
> business-ignorant ****?

The whole point is to make money
challenged people become self-
sufficient, not merely dependant
on hand outs.

> Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
> these changes in both resource allocation AND end
> product distribution?
>
> What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
> You don't have a ****ing clue.
>
> >>>>>>>The grain/beans
> >>
> >>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
> >>stupid ****.
> >
> >
> > Who said they were?
>
> YOU did, ****: "grain/beans".

I was referring to a ratio. The
combo of grains/beans to the
amount of beef produced. Why
are you having such a hard time
understanding things?

> >>>>>>>to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> >>>>>>>the potatoes to beef ratio is
> >>>>>>>160:1. That's huge!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> >>>>>>for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> >>>>>>of food produced. There is more than enough food
> >>>>>>produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> >>>>>>to them, and paying the producers for it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> >>>>>>>>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> >>>>>>>>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> >>>>>>>>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> >>>>>>>>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> >>>>>>>>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> >>>>>>>>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> >>>>>>>>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> >>>>>>>>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> >>>>>>>>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> >>>>>>>>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> >>>>>>>>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I doubt that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Doubt all you want.
> >>>>
> >>>>My doubts are well grounded.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's your loss.
> >>
> >>Hardly. You could scorch water.
> >
> >
> > Here's a recipe just for you.
>
> Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.

No way, you've already used it.
That's how it broke. You're a
tight ass!!!

> >>>>>>>but that aside, are you actually
> >>>>>>>claiming that one must do all
> >>>>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
> >>>>>>>to maximise the time one
> >>>>>>>spends on good deeds?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> >>>>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>But I've only been seeing YOU
> >>>>>claiming that people must go
> >>>>>to unreasonable extremes.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering
about
> >>>>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
> >>>>resources include your time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>She has never faulted me for
> >>>my time use like you do.
> >>
> >>*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
> >>implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
> >>time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
> >>calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
> >
> >
> > I've not seen her say that.
>
> No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
> is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
> about resource allocation and product distribution.
> ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
> "ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
> how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
> time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
> under her view of how resources "ought" to be
> allocated. All that STUPID **** can do is flatulantly
> say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
> comment. It's horseshit.

She's not said anything even
close to what you claim.

> >>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
> >>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
> >>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> >>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
> >>>>
> >>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> >>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> >>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted",
while
> >>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> >>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> >>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Huh? Your implication
> >>>perception is way off.
> >>
> >>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
> >>is unsurpassed.
> >
> >
> > You even find them when they
> > aren't there.
>
> They are there.

So are the voices in your head,
the ones that point out implications
to you. But they're not real either.

> >>>>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
> >>>>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> >>>>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> >>>>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> >>>>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> >>>>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> >>>>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> >>>>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> >>>>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>She has never implied or said
> >>>>>anything about my cooking
> >>>>>time.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said.
NECESSARILY,
> >>>>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond
some
> >>>>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether
the
> >>>>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Let's let her decide whether
> >>>she's telling me how to allot
> >>>my time.
> >>
> >>By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> >>resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> >>basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> >>NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> >>and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> >>ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
> >
> >
> > I think I'll wait and see what she
> > says about my time usage.
>
> She's a lying stupid ****. She is incapable of seeing
> that once she starts complaining about resource
> allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
> time, are open to question.

It's been proven that you're
making untrue claims about
her.

> >>>>>>>And what's this
> >>>>>>>got to do with boats?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
> >>>>>>about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let's see, boats are used in
> >>>>>the transporting of some foods.
> >>>>>Are you going to tell me I should
> >>>>>be against that too? Boats are
> >>>>>used in fishing and that's a
> >>>>>segue into food. Am I getting
> >>>>>warmer? Maybe someone
> >>>>
> >>>>>from rec.boats could give me
> >>>>
> >>>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are a ****ing idiot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No,
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>just someone who doesn't
> >>>get what the above has to do
> >>>with boats.
> >>
> >>Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.
> >
> >
> > Are there a lot of boating
> > vegetarians?
>
> You're a ****ing moron and asshole.

Maybe veggies are a fave
food among boaters? )

> >>>The philosophy
> >>>group I can understand, as we
> >>>discuss morals regarding the
> >>>use of food and animals, but
> >>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> >>>out how your mind works is
> >>>boggling. You say and do
> >>>the weirdest things.
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
> >>your ****ing worthless life.
> >
> >
> > There's that famed politeness
> > again.
>
> THINK, ****. Stop blabbering and THINK.
>
> Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
> Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
> recreational boats?

Oh, now they're evil for taking
the world's resources? What
will you think of next?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

the Perfect Foil lied:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
glegroups.com...

>>>>>>>Why would rec.boats people
>>>>>>>care about our arguments
>>>>>>>about food, and the growing
>>>>>>>of food?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
>>>>>>without my help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nah, I give up.
>>>>
>>>>You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
>>>>never quit, and quitters never win.
>>>
>>>
>>>The prize is the answer to why
>>>you crossposted this. No big
>>>deal.
>>
>>Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
>>a dozen times.
>
>
> Well, you have to admit that it's
> strange.

It isn't strange. It makes perfect sense, but only to
someone who can THINK. That lets you out.

>>>It's probably just because
>>>you're insane and think that
>>>boating was 'implied'.
>>
>>Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.
>
>
> It's not implied from what I've
> seen.

It IS implied, you ****ing idiot.



>>>>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>>>>>>scientific one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Aesthetic? No.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>What do aesthetics have to
>>>do with it?
>>
>>Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
>>singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
>>your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
>>"over" used.
>
>
> Science agrees with me.

No, and you wouldn't know science if someone rammed it
down your throat.


>>>>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And do that by tearing down my
>>>>>home?
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
>>>>longer such. The implication for your residence is
>>>>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
>>>>bulldoze it.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're nuts.
>>
>>No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but
> yes, I really do think you're nuts.

No, you don't. It's just the best of all the lame
usenet insults you could dredge up.




>>>>>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue
>>>>>>of world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>>>>>>thinks it's a production issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think everyone agrees it's
>>>>>a distribution problem.
>>>>
>>>>No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
>>>>forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
>>>>They're wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Distribution, allocation, pretty
>>>much the same thing.
>>
>>NO, you ****ing idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
>>ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
>>produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
>>that are produced.
>>
>>You are SO INCREDIBLY ****ING STUPID, it's just
>>unfathomable.
>
>
> Allocate means distribute, moron.

NO, you ****ing illiterate, it does not.

>>>>Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
>>>>livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
>>>>shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
>>>>"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
>>>>idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
>>>>you're wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think you're missing the
>>>point.
>>
>>I am not missing the point at all, ****. YOU and the
>>****wit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
>>****ING CLUE what the point is.
>>
>>The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
>>specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
>>allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
>>possible to take the same crops and, instead of
>>shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
>>instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
>>can't or won't eat.
>>
>>If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
>>used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
>>people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
>>different things. But why would that be done? What is
>>to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
>>American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
>>money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
>>farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
>>deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
>>essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
>>in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
>>operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
>>in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
>>per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
>>business-ignorant ****?
>
>
> The whole point is to make money
> challenged people become self-
> sufficient, not merely dependant
> on hand outs.

That is NOT the point of ****witted Lesley's suggestion
that agricultural resources in developed countries
currently being used to produce meat should be
reallocated to producing food for starving people.
There is NOTHING about North American livestock feed
production that in any way prevents "money challenged"
- I presume you mean "poor" and are just trying for a
phony erudite sound - from attaining food self
sufficiency. Lesley's ****witted suggestion would
actually do EXACTLY the opposite: it would INCREASE
their dependency on the west.

>>Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
>>these changes in both resource allocation AND end
>>product distribution?
>>
>>What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
>>You don't have a ****ing clue.

Acknowledged.

>>>>>>>>>The grain/beans
>>>>
>>>>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
>>>>stupid ****.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who said they were?
>>
>>YOU did, ****: "grain/beans".
>
>
> I was referring to a ratio.

No, you weren't. You were suggesting that beans are
commonly fed to livestock.



>>>>>>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I doubt that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Doubt all you want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My doubts are well grounded.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's your loss.
>>>>
>>>>Hardly. You could scorch water.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here's a recipe just for you.
>>
>>Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.
>
>
> No way,

Do it.


>>>>>She has never faulted me for
>>>>>my time use like you do.
>>>>
>>>>*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
>>>>implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
>>>>time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
>>>>calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've not seen her say that.
>>
>>No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
>>is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
>>about resource allocation and product distribution.
>>ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
>>"ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
>>how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
>>time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
>>under her view of how resources "ought" to be
>>allocated. All that STUPID **** can do is flatulantly
>>say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
>>comment. It's horseshit.
>
>
> She's not said anything even
> close to what you claim.

NO ONE CARES if she has said it or not. It IS implied.


>>>>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
>>>>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
>>>>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>>>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>>>>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>>>>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>>>>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>>>>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>>>>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh? Your implication
>>>>>perception is way off.
>>>>
>>>>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
>>>>is unsurpassed.
>>>
>>>
>>>You even find them when they
>>>aren't there.
>>
>>They are there.
>
>
> So are

The implications are there.


>>>>>>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
>>>>>>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
>>>>>>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
>>>>>>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
>>>>>>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
>>>>>>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
>>>>>>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
>>>>>>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
>>>>>>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>She has never implied or said
>>>>>>>anything about my cooking
>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
>>>>>>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
>>>>>>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
>>>>>>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's let her decide whether
>>>>>she's telling me how to allot
>>>>>my time.
>>>>
>>>>By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
>>>>resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
>>>>basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
>>>>NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
>>>>and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
>>>>ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think I'll wait and see what she
>>>says about my time usage.
>>
>>She's a lying stupid ****. She is incapable of seeing
>>that once she starts complaining about resource
>>allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
>>time, are open to question.
>
>
> It's been proven

It has been proven that her ****witted comments about
resource allocation are applicable to all resources,
whether she exlicitly says it or not.


>>>>>>>>>And what's this
>>>>>>>>>got to do with boats?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
>>>>>>>>about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let's see, boats are used in
>>>>>>>the transporting of some foods.
>>>>>>>Are you going to tell me I should
>>>>>>>be against that too? Boats are
>>>>>>>used in fishing and that's a
>>>>>>>segue into food. Am I getting
>>>>>>>warmer? Maybe someone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from rec.boats could give me
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are a ****ing idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No,
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>just someone who doesn't
>>>>>get what the above has to do
>>>>>with boats.
>>>>
>>>>Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are there a lot of boating
>>>vegetarians?
>>
>>You're a ****ing moron and asshole.
>
>
> Maybe

No "maybe" about it: you're a ****ing moron and asshole.

>>>>>The philosophy
>>>>>group I can understand, as we
>>>>>discuss morals regarding the
>>>>>use of food and animals, but
>>>>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
>>>>>out how your mind works is
>>>>>boggling. You say and do
>>>>>the weirdest things.
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
>>>>your ****ing worthless life.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's that famed politeness
>>>again.
>>
>>THINK, ****. Stop blabbering and THINK.
>>
>>Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
>>Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
>>recreational boats?
>
>
> Oh, now they're evil for taking
> the world's resources?

If there are "starving people", and if those resources
could go to help feed "starving people", then how could
****witted Lesley NOT consider recreational boating to
be a waste of resources?

the Perfect Foil lied:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
glegroups.com...

>>>>>>>Why would rec.boats people
>>>>>>>care about our arguments
>>>>>>>about food, and the growing
>>>>>>>of food?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
>>>>>>without my help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nah, I give up.
>>>>
>>>>You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
>>>>never quit, and quitters never win.
>>>
>>>
>>>The prize is the answer to why
>>>you crossposted this. No big
>>>deal.
>>
>>Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
>>a dozen times.
>
>
> Well, you have to admit that it's
> strange.

It isn't strange. It makes perfect sense, but only to
someone who can THINK. That lets you out.

>>>It's probably just because
>>>you're insane and think that
>>>boating was 'implied'.
>>
>>Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.
>
>
> It's not implied from what I've
> seen.

It IS implied, you ****ing idiot.



>>>>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>>>>>>scientific one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Aesthetic? No.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>What do aesthetics have to
>>>do with it?
>>
>>Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
>>singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
>>your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
>>"over" used.
>
>
> Science agrees with me.

No, and you wouldn't know science if someone rammed it
down your throat.


>>>>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And do that by tearing down my
>>>>>home?
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
>>>>longer such. The implication for your residence is
>>>>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
>>>>bulldoze it.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're nuts.
>>
>>No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but
> yes, I really do think you're nuts.

No, you don't. It's just the best of all the lame
usenet insults you could dredge up.




>>>>>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue
>>>>>>of world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>>>>>>thinks it's a production issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think everyone agrees it's
>>>>>a distribution problem.
>>>>
>>>>No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
>>>>forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
>>>>They're wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Distribution, allocation, pretty
>>>much the same thing.
>>
>>NO, you ****ing idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
>>ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
>>produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
>>that are produced.
>>
>>You are SO INCREDIBLY ****ING STUPID, it's just
>>unfathomable.
>
>
> Allocate means distribute, moron.

NO, you ****ing illiterate, it does not.

>>>>Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
>>>>livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
>>>>shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
>>>>"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
>>>>idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
>>>>you're wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think you're missing the
>>>point.
>>
>>I am not missing the point at all, ****. YOU and the
>>****wit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
>>****ING CLUE what the point is.
>>
>>The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
>>specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
>>allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
>>possible to take the same crops and, instead of
>>shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
>>instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
>>can't or won't eat.
>>
>>If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
>>used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
>>people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
>>different things. But why would that be done? What is
>>to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
>>American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
>>money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
>>farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
>>deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
>>essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
>>in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
>>operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
>>in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
>>per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
>>business-ignorant ****?
>
>
> The whole point is to make money
> challenged people become self-
> sufficient, not merely dependant
> on hand outs.

That is NOT the point of ****witted Lesley's suggestion
that agricultural resources in developed countries
currently being used to produce meat should be
reallocated to producing food for starving people.
There is NOTHING about North American livestock feed
production that in any way prevents "money challenged"
- I presume you mean "poor" and are just trying for a
phony erudite sound - from attaining food self
sufficiency. Lesley's ****witted suggestion would
actually do EXACTLY the opposite: it would INCREASE
their dependency on the west.

>>Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
>>these changes in both resource allocation AND end
>>product distribution?
>>
>>What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
>>You don't have a ****ing clue.

Acknowledged.

>>>>>>>>>The grain/beans
>>>>
>>>>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
>>>>stupid ****.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who said they were?
>>
>>YOU did, ****: "grain/beans".
>
>
> I was referring to a ratio.

No, you weren't. You were suggesting that beans are
commonly fed to livestock.



>>>>>>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I doubt that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Doubt all you want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My doubts are well grounded.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's your loss.
>>>>
>>>>Hardly. You could scorch water.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here's a recipe just for you.
>>
>>Go **** yourself with a broken bottle.
>
>
> No way,

Do it.


>>>>>She has never faulted me for
>>>>>my time use like you do.
>>>>
>>>>*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
>>>>implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
>>>>time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
>>>>calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've not seen her say that.
>>
>>No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
>>is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
>>about resource allocation and product distribution.
>>ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
>>"ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
>>how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
>>time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
>>under her view of how resources "ought" to be
>>allocated. All that STUPID **** can do is flatulantly
>>say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
>>comment. It's horseshit.
>
>
> She's not said anything even
> close to what you claim.

NO ONE CARES if she has said it or not. It IS implied.


>>>>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
>>>>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
>>>>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>>>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>>>>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>>>>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>>>>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>>>>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>>>>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh? Your implication
>>>>>perception is way off.
>>>>
>>>>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
>>>>is unsurpassed.
>>>
>>>
>>>You even find them when they
>>>aren't there.
>>
>>They are there.
>
>
> So are

The implications are there.


>>>>>>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
>>>>>>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
>>>>>>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
>>>>>>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
>>>>>>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
>>>>>>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
>>>>>>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
>>>>>>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
>>>>>>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>She has never implied or said
>>>>>>>anything about my cooking
>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
>>>>>>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
>>>>>>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
>>>>>>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's let her decide whether
>>>>>she's telling me how to allot
>>>>>my time.
>>>>
>>>>By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
>>>>resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
>>>>basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
>>>>NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
>>>>and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
>>>>ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think I'll wait and see what she
>>>says about my time usage.
>>
>>She's a lying stupid ****. She is incapable of seeing
>>that once she starts complaining about resource
>>allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
>>time, are open to question.
>
>
> It's been proven

It has been proven that her ****witted comments about
resource allocation are applicable to all resources,
whether she exlicitly says it or not.


>>>>>>>>>And what's this
>>>>>>>>>got to do with boats?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
>>>>>>>>about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let's see, boats are used in
>>>>>>>the transporting of some foods.
>>>>>>>Are you going to tell me I should
>>>>>>>be against that too? Boats are
>>>>>>>used in fishing and that's a
>>>>>>>segue into food. Am I getting
>>>>>>>warmer? Maybe someone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from rec.boats could give me
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are a ****ing idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No,
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>just someone who doesn't
>>>>>get what the above has to do
>>>>>with boats.
>>>>
>>>>Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are there a lot of boating
>>>vegetarians?
>>
>>You're a ****ing moron and asshole.
>
>
> Maybe

No "maybe" about it: you're a ****ing moron and asshole.

>>>>>The philosophy
>>>>>group I can understand, as we
>>>>>discuss morals regarding the
>>>>>use of food and animals, but
>>>>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
>>>>>out how your mind works is
>>>>>boggling. You say and do
>>>>>the weirdest things.
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
>>>>your ****ing worthless life.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's that famed politeness
>>>again.
>>
>>THINK, ****. Stop blabbering and THINK.
>>
>>Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
>>Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
>>recreational boats?
>
>
> Oh, now they're evil for taking
> the world's resources?

If there are "starving people", and if those resources
could go to help feed "starving people", then how could
****witted Lesley NOT consider recreational boating to
be a waste of resources?