Doctor Balz wrote:

>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>"Jahnu" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>><"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
>>>humans. "
>>>
>>>I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
>>>grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
>>>grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
>>>argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
>>
>>Finally, you drift slightly away from the pure personal
>>invective, and at least attempt to address some
>>substance. Unfortunately, you get it utterly wrong.
>>
>>First of all, *I* am the one who explained that it is
>>the resources used to grow the grain for cattle that
>>are important, not the grain itself. Not you, blowjob;
>>I explained it.
>>
>>Secondly, you haven't explained WHY those resources
>>were used to grow cattle feed, rather than human food.
>> Why do you suppose that is, blowjob?
>>
>>Third, you haven't explained how it is that there
>>ALREADY are massive surpluses of human edible grains
>>and other food, in Europe and North America, and yet
>>still there are "starving" people in the world. How is
>>that, blowjob?
>>
>>You don't know economics and politics, blowjob; I do.
>>The issue of "starving" people in the world has NOTHING
>>to do with the production of livestock feed, blowjob;
>>nothing whatever to do with it.
>>
>>Get your ignorant pimply ass into a good community
>>college somewhere, blowjob.
>>
>>You still haven't explained why you've switched from
>>"Jahnu" through at least half a dozen other ****witted
>>pseudonyms in the last two weeks, blowjob.
>
>
> What you've done here is identical to the arguments found in the bible newsgroups.

I doubt it. What you've done is avoid explaining why
you've been nymshifting like 29-personality
schizophrenic. What you've also done is avoid
answering the logical critique of your ignorance-driven
hysterical misanalysis of world hunger.

> You simply make claims and outright lies and submit it as a response when you are
> hopelessly making an ass out of yourself.

Neither: what I'm writing is correct, and I'm not
making an ass out of myself at all. You've cornered
the market on that.

> You consistently argue that grain fed to
> live stock is not fit for human consumption

It isn't.

> and I keep telling you that the point
> of argument is that resources used to grow grain for cattle can at any time be
> stopped and switched to human use grain. You never pointed this out and I challenge
> you to show where (it will not happen).

No, punk. *I* am the one who told YOU about that.
Never forget that. I am the one with economics
training here; you are the fatuous sophomore.

>
> Starving people is not the point, the point is what is the most efficient way to
> feed 6 billion plus human beings?

No, that isn't the point at all. Thanks for
illustrating that you have never opened an economics
textbook or sat in an economics class in your life.
Economics is the relevant discipline here, and I know
it; you do not.

You have misdefined efficiency.

> Meat or plant? You are not sufficiently educated

I am vastly more educated than you, and far more than
sufficiently educated to perform the correct analysis
here. I'm terribly sorry; you're simply wrong, and far
out of your depth.

> to be in this argument and are here only (as you have confessed)

False. I never "confessed" anything.

> to deal with
> sanctimonious educated liberals that want to force you to wear motorcycle a helmet
> and make you pay your own medical bills when you get lung cancer from smoking. I
> imagine you feel like you are the voice of every backwater Bubba that didn't trash
> pick a computer and get online for himself! You are joke!

"You are joke!" Nice. May I refer you to some links
on the use of the indefinite article, "a"?

---------------------------------------------

You are henceforth going to be talking to yourself, and
not for very long, unless you identify yourself. You
may or may not be the saffron-robed cocksucker "Jahnu",
who disappeared almost exactly on the same day you
first appeared, but it's still the likeliest call. I'm
very familiar with your type. You'll quickly get bored
and run away if you don't get replies. You want
replies - that is, if there's any meaningful point to
your participation - then you identify yourself, even
if it's only what other ****witted pseudonym you used
to use. I'm not playing your game.