Doctor Balz > wrote in message >...
> 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.
> You simply make claims and outright lies and submit it as a response when you are
> hopelessly making an ass out of yourself. You consistently argue that grain fed to
> live stock is not fit for human consumption 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).
>
> Starving people is not the point, the point is what is the most efficient way to
> feed 6 billion plus human beings? Meat or plant? You are not sufficiently educated
> to be in this argument and are here only (as you have confessed) 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!


Thank you - maybe after explaining this simple point to him a couple
hundred times he'll get it... Nah, I won't hold my breath.