Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks?
>>
>> **** off, retard.
>
> A brilliant statement.

Absolutely. So why are you still here, numbnuts?

Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>> Don't you folks get tired of personal childish attacks?
>>>>
>>>> **** off, retard.
>>>
>>> A brilliant statement.
>>
>> He said **** off retard, so take a telling and **** off.
>
> I thought this was a vegan newsgroups.

You're cross-posting to three other groups which have little or nothing
to do with veganism.

> Something about being productive,
> caring about the world, life, the environment and people.

Veganism is a shallow and empty gesture toward those issues.

> I am open to any reasonable discussion.

Bullshit. You've already proven yourself to be a leftist authoritarian
nutjob who'd restrict freedoms on the basis of incomplete (mis)information.

Derek wrote:
> You really ought to read this post in full before
> responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
> explaining to do.
>

I have no explaining to do at all, Dreck, you imbecile.
I have received TWO e-mail messages from Mr.
Sessions. The second one is the one that says the
proposed standard is being revised.

I doubt the e-mail address you use for usenet posting
is your real e-mail address, but if you'll furnish me
with some working e-mail address that use, I will
forward both messages from Mr. Sessions to you,
including the headers.

The earlier proposed standard has been, in effect
dropped, because they're at work on a revised proposed
standard, and that revision has not been published yet.

You're simply wrong on this.

Derek lied:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>
>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>
>>>>It is true
>>>
>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>Either way, you lose
>>
>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>
>
> Here below is that proposed standard.

The earlier proposed standard is dropped.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Derek wrote:
>>
>> You really ought to read this post in full before
>> responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
>> explaining to do.
>
> I have no explaining to do at all, Dreck, you imbecile. I have received TWO e-mail messages from Mr. Sessions.

I don't believe a word you write. You wrote that email
yourself and then cocked up my altering it to suit your
newer argument to claim that the propsal had been
dropped. You're an habitual liar.

> The second one is the one that says the proposed standard is being revised.
>
> I doubt the e-mail address you use for usenet posting is your real e-mail address

It's valid, and you know it. And besides, stop feigning
ignorance about how to get in touch with me through
email. Our last set of 15 private emails to each other
wasn't that long ago, and
isn't that easy to forget.

> You're simply wrong on this.

Rather, you're still lying and wriggling like a hooked
worm now you've been rumbled.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek lied:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>
>>>>>It is true
>>>>
>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>
>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>
>> Here below is that proposed standard.
>
>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.

Only according to the fake emails you presented here
from the author of that proposal. Here (below) is the
email you claimed to have received from Sessions;

From: "Sessions, William" >
To: <jonball@[...]>

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly,
the standards have not been published in a final form for
use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

and here (below) is the second which you tried to pass
off as the original but failed because I spotted your
editing of it;

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
USDA will be published with a public comment period.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
know if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/9m9cz

Both emails start with,

"Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message."

and end with

"I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed.
Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program"

But the informational part in your second false email
has now changed. You wrote them both to suit your
argument, liar Jon. Of that there can be no doubt.

Derek wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>You really ought to read this post in full before
>>>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
>>>explaining to do.
>>
>>I have no explaining to do at all, Dreck, you imbecile. I have received TWO e-mail messages from Mr. Sessions.
>
>
> I don't believe a word you write. You wrote that email
> yourself

No, I didn't.


>
>>The second one is the one that says the proposed standard is being revised.
>>
>>I doubt the e-mail address you use for usenet posting is your real e-mail address
>
>
> It's valid, and you know it. And besides, stop feigning
> ignorance about how to get in touch with me through
> email. Our last set of 15 private emails to each other
> wasn't that long ago, and
> isn't that easy to forget.

I just sent the two messages to you; found the earlier
e-mail address from one of your old posts. Look at the
headers. There is far too much specific and authentic
information, which identifies the sender as William
Sessions at the USDA, for me to have "faked" it.


>
>
>>You're simply wrong on this.

Derek wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>
>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>
>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>
>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>
>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>
>
> Only according to the fake emails

No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>>
>>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>>
>>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>>
>>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>>
>> Only according to the fake emails
>
>No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.

Yes, I do, and they're both written by you. You've
already admitted in another post to this that you did
alter the first alleged email, so it couldn't have come
from Sessions, you stupid liar; you couldn't have
received two if one of them was in fact altered by
you.

[start me -to you]
> But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email
[you]
No substantive alteration.
[end]

You just don't know when to stop lying, do you?

Derek wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>>>
>>>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>>>
>>>Only according to the fake emails
>>
>>No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.
>
>
> Yes, I do, and they're both written by you.

No, they're not. They're written by Mr. Sessions, and
now that I've posted the entire messages, headers and
all, in the newsgroup, the readers may see that they
were indeed written by Mr. Sessions, came through the
USDA's e-mail server, and that you're a liar.

Of course, you've been identified as a liar for some
six years now.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:51:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>You really ought to read this post in full before
>>>>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
>>>>explaining to do.
>>>
>>>I have no explaining to do at all, Dreck, you imbecile.
>>>I have received TWO e-mail messages from Mr. Sessions.
>>
>> I don't believe a word you write. You wrote that email
>> yourself
>
>No, I didn't.

You did, and you've also conceded that you altered it
when presenting it a second time, so how can I possibly
believe Sessions wrote you two emails after admitting
the second was altered by you?

>>>The second one is the one that says the proposed
>>>standard is being revised. I doubt the e-mail address
>>>you use for usenet posting is your real e-mail address
>>
>> It's valid, and you know it. And besides, stop feigning
>> ignorance about how to get in touch with me through
>> email. Our last set of 15 private emails to each other
>> wasn't that long ago, and
>> isn't that easy to forget.
>
>I just sent the two messages to you; found the earlier
>e-mail address from one of your old posts. Look at the
>headers. There is far too much specific and authentic
>information, which identifies the sender as William
>Sessions at the USDA, for me to have "faked" it.

You faked both of them, and the second was admittedly
altered by you, so he couldn't have sent you two, liar.

[start - me to you]
> But that didn't stop you from altering his alleged email
[you]
No substantive alteration.
[end]

You've admitted altering it, so how can it be Sessions'
second email to you?

Derek wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:51:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You really ought to read this post in full before
>>>>>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
>>>>>explaining to do.
>>>>
>>>>I have no explaining to do at all, Dreck, you imbecile.
>>>>I have received TWO e-mail messages from Mr. Sessions.
>>>
>>>I don't believe a word you write. You wrote that email
>>>yourself
>>
>>No, I didn't.
>
>
> You did

I didn't, and you know I didn't.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:11:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>>>>
>>>>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>
>>>>Only according to the fake emails
>>>
>>>No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.
>>
>> Yes, I do, and they're both written by you.
>
>No, they're not. They're written by Mr. Sessions

You've already admitted that you altered the first alleged
email to hide your identity, even though the part you altered
had nothing to do with your hiding your identity at all. It
was the informational part of the email that you altered, yet
your now claiming that that altered email is but one of two.

Here (below) is the email you claimed to have received from
Sessions;

From: "Sessions, William" >
To: <jonball@[...]>

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly,
the standards have not been published in a final form for
use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

and here (below) is the second which you tried to pass
off as the original but failed because I spotted your
editing of it;

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
USDA will be published with a public comment period.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
know if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/9m9cz

Both emails start with,

"Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message."

and end with

"I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed.
Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program"

But the informational part in your second false email
has now changed. You wrote them both to suit your
argument, liar Jon. Of that there can be no doubt.

Derek lied:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:11:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only according to the fake emails
>>>>
>>>>No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.
>>>
>>>Yes, I do, and they're both written by you.
>>
>>No, they're not. They're written by Mr. Sessions
>
>
> You've already admitted that you altered the first alleged
> email to hide your identity

And that is *all* I altered. I didn't originally
include all of the information identifying the USDA's
mail server in one of the messages, but now I've
included everything for both messages, and you can
plainly see that the information is identical for both
messsages.

You are stuffed, and you know it. You know, for
certain, that the messages are authentic, that Mr.
Sessions sent both of them, and that they confirm
precisely what I have been saying.

The original proposed standard is a dead letter, and
the new proposed standard has not been published.

Once again, you lose.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:41:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Derek lied:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:11:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only according to the fake emails
>>>>>
>>>>>No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I do, and they're both written by you.
>>>
>>>No, they're not. They're written by Mr. Sessions
>>
>> You've already admitted that you altered the first alleged
>> email to hide your identity
>
>And that is *all* I altered.

The part you admittedly altered in the second alleged email
had nothing to do with hiding your identity at all. It was the
informational part of the email that you altered, yet you're
now claiming that that altered email is but one of two. It
cannot be, since you've already admitted that the second
alleged email was something YOU altered.

According to you, the informational part of his brief email
went;

"The marketing claim standards are still under
review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards
have not been published in a final form for use."

but now reads;

"A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing
claim proposed by USDA will be published with
a public comment period."

Here's the claimed original email;

From: "Sessions, William" >
To: <jonball@[...]>

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly,
the standards have not been published in a final form for
use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

and here's your edited copy;

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
USDA will be published with a public comment period.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
know if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/9m9cz

Both emails start with,

"Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message."

and end with

"I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed.
Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program"

How could you be so stupid as to try a stunt like that
and think you could get away with it?

Derek lied:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:41:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:11:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>>>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>>>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>>>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>>>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>>>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>>>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>>>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only according to the fake emails
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I do, and they're both written by you.
>>>>
>>>>No, they're not. They're written by Mr. Sessions
>>>
>>>You've already admitted that you altered the first alleged
>>>email to hide your identity
>>
>>And that is *all* I altered.
>
>
> The part you admittedly altered

Was only my e-mail address. The e-mails are authentic,
and you know it.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:16:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:41:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:11:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>>>>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>>>>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>>>>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>>>>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Only according to the fake emails
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, I do, and they're both written by you.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, they're not. They're written by Mr. Sessions
>>>>
>>>>You've already admitted that you altered the first alleged
>>>>email to hide your identity
>>>
>>>And that is *all* I altered.
>>
>> The part you admittedly altered
>
>Was only my e-mail address.

That's a blatant and repeated lie, and easily shown by
looking at the original and comparing it to the second
which you admittedly altered after claiming Sessions
wrote them both.

The part you admittedly altered in the second alleged email
had nothing to do with hiding your identity at all. It was the
informational part of the email that you altered, yet you're
now claiming that that altered email is but one of two. I can't
be, since you've admitted altering it and then presented it as
the original again.

According to you, the informational part of his brief email
went;

"The marketing claim standards are still under
review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards
have not been published in a final form for use."

but now reads;

"A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing
claim proposed by USDA will be published with
a public comment period."

Here's the claimed original email;

From: "Sessions, William" >
To: <jonball@[...]>

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly,
the standards have not been published in a final form for
use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

and here's your edited copy;

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
USDA will be published with a public comment period.
I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
know if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/9m9cz

Both emails start with,

"Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message."

and end with

"I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed.
Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program"

How could you be so stupid as to try a stunt like that
and think you could get away with it, and how many
times are you going to ignore this solid evidence against
you by snipping it all away and insisting that the only
part you altered was your email address? This is the
most pathetic charade I've seen you go through after
being caught lying.

Derek lied:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:16:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek lied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:41:09 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:11:03 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:52:22 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:18:33 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:11:01 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:55:41 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The prior proposed standard has been dropped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then, if what you say is true,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you must concede that while that proposal remains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>on USDA's web site urging beef producers to follow its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>proposed claims standard until the (huh) revised proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is published for further comment, you cannot claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>grass fed beef is anything other than as defined by that first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>proposal published in 2002, which means that the grass fed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>beef being sold has been grain finished at a feeding lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>according to the comments raised by consumers and beef
>>>>>>>>>>>>>producers on USDA's web site and in consumer magazines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Either way, you lose
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It urges no such thing, you liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Here below is that proposed standard.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The earlier proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Only according to the fake emails
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No. The e-mails are authentic. You have them by now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, I do, and they're both written by you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, they're not. They're written by Mr. Sessions
>>>>>
>>>>>You've already admitted that you altered the first alleged
>>>>>email to hide your identity
>>>>
>>>>And that is *all* I altered.
>>>
>>>The part you admittedly altered
>>
>>Was only my e-mail address.
>
>
> That's a blatant and repeated lie

No, it's the truth. It's all I changed.