"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.