Nancy Young wrote:
> "Omelet" > wrote
>
>> Bob Kolker > wrote:
>>
>>> Omelet wrote:
>
>>>> China, Mexico, Thailand, South America.......
>>> Are you saying Mexico cannot feed its own people? I don't understand. It
>>> is one of the most fertile regions on earth. If the Mexicans have to
>>> import their food to stay alive, then it is because their government has
>>> ****ed it up.
>
>> No, dumbass, WE get lots of Mexico imports!
>>
>> Mexico grows enough to EXPORT.
>
> (giggling) But they were talking about net food IMporters.

What sort of comprehension do you expect a twit who
calls himself "omelet" to have?

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote
>>
>>> Bob Kolker > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>> China, Mexico, Thailand, South America.......
>>>> Are you saying Mexico cannot feed its own people? I don't understand. It
>>>> is one of the most fertile regions on earth. If the Mexicans have to
>>>> import their food to stay alive, then it is because their government has
>>>> ****ed it up.
>>> No, dumbass, WE get lots of Mexico imports!
>>>
>>> Mexico grows enough to EXPORT.
>> (giggling) But they were talking about net food IMporters.
>>
>> nancy
>
> Ok, then, I got the wrong impression... The thread looked like it was
> talking about major food producers at the point I answered it.

No it didn't. Your post in which you bizarrely wrote
"China, Mexico, Thailand, South America......."
contains my statement that many nations are net food
importers; Kolker's listing of Japan as one such net
food importer; and then your weird comment.

"Bob Kolker" > wrote in message
...
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Bob Kolker wrote:
>>
>>>grinder wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
>>>
>>>This is a break for Florida though.
>>
>>
>> Not really. I heard a Californian agricultural official say on public
>> radio today that Florida fresh citrus isn't allowed into California
>> because they have a lot of diseases down there that are not present in
>> California. And I don't think they were talking about the STDs that
>> are epidemic among the hick crackers in the citrus growing regions of
>> Florida.
>
> But the rest of us can buy Florida orange juice at our supermarkets.
>
> Bob Kolker
>

And for one don't expect the price to increase.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> > Bob Kolker wrote:
>> >> grinder wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
>> >>
>> >> This is a break for Florida though.
>> >
>> > Not really. I heard a Californian agricultural official say on public
>> > radio today that Florida fresh citrus isn't allowed into California
>> > because they have a lot of diseases down there that are not present in
>> > California. And I don't think they were talking about the STDs that
>> > are epidemic among the hick crackers in the citrus growing regions of
>> > Florida.
>>
>> Um, I might be wrong here but I think he was referring to a supply and
>> demand thing.
>
> No, he was specifically saying that fresh Florida citrus is prohibited
> by regulation from being brought into California because they have
> citrus diseases in Florida that California doesn't have.
>
>> IOW the amount that the Florida crop is worth is going to
>> skyrocket because the California loss will short the nationwide supply.
>
> No, because the other guest on the program said that most Florida
> oranges are for processing, not for sale as oranges in grocery stores.
>

True but the slope of the trend line for OJ futures in the last 2 weeks is
almost vertical as is the slope of the trend line.

The bottom line is the freeze is going to hurt California's economy for a
few months to a few years.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

>
>
> Life is something people want to have. It's not a need, and food is not
> a need in and of itself.

The body is built to stay alive for a long period of time. There is no
conscious will involve. Blood clotting, imune response, breathing are
totally automatic.


>
> There is no legitimate reason for farmers to be coddled.

I agree, but your characterization of life as just another whim is
totally off the wall.

Bob Kolker

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Bob Kolker wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've covered that already.
>>
>>
>> No you havent -covered it-. You have simply misunderstood it.
>
>
> Yes, I've coved it, and no, I haven't "misunderstood" it.

Yes you have. Our life presevering processes are automatic, not the
result of whims.

Bob Kolker

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> What sort of comprehension do you expect a twit who calls himself
> "omelet" to have?

Eggsaxtly.

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Life is something people want to have. It's not a need, and food is
>> not a need in and of itself.
>
> The body is built to stay alive for a long period of time. There is no
> conscious will involve. Blood clotting, imune response, breathing are
> totally automatic.

That still doesn't make living a "need", and it doesn't
make food a "need" relative to golf clubs.


>> There is no legitimate reason for farmers to be coddled.
>
> I agree, but your characterization of life as just another whim is
> totally off the wall.

I didn't characterize it as a whim.

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> Bob Kolker wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've covered that already.
>>>
>>>
>>> No you havent -covered it-. You have simply misunderstood it.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I've covered it, and no, I haven't "misunderstood" it.
>
> Yes you have.

No, I haven't.


> Our life presevering processes are automatic, not the
> result of whims.

I didn't say or imply whim.

On 2007-01-17, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> Yes you have.
>
> No, I haven't.


Not exactly the Yale debating team, is it. :|

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2007-01-17, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> Yes you have.
>> No, I haven't.
>
>
> Not exactly the Yale debating team, is it.

No, it's usenet. You get what you pay for.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> notbob wrote:
> > On 2007-01-17, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>> Yes you have.
> >> No, I haven't.
> >
> >
> > Not exactly the Yale debating team, is it.
>
> No, it's usenet. You get what you pay for.


We paid NOTHING for you Goober and GET nothing from you.

Tell us about smudge pots.........Goober.

Omelet wrote:

>>> No, dumbass, WE get lots of Mexico imports!
>>>
>>> Mexico grows enough to EXPORT.
>> (giggling) But they were talking about net food IMporters.
>>
>> nancy
>
> Ok, then, I got the wrong impression... The thread looked like it was
> talking about major food producers at the point I answered it.

Now the decent thing to do would be to apologize to the poster you
called a "dumbass"....

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> the other day when he was relating that it was going to cost him
> something like $1800 PER NIGHT to light his smudge pots. I have no
> doubt that he'll quickly snap up any financial assistance offered by the
> county, state or federal governments.

Citrus growers used to use smudge pots to protect from freezing, but I'm
sure that there must be environmental restrictions on them by now.

SMS wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>> the other day when he was relating that it was going to cost him
>> something like $1800 PER NIGHT to light his smudge pots. I have no
>> doubt that he'll quickly snap up any financial assistance offered by
>> the county, state or federal governments.
>
> Citrus growers used to use smudge pots to protect from freezing, but I'm
> sure that there must be environmental restrictions on them by now.

There may be, but the things are still in use.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2007-01-17, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Yes you have.
>>> No, I haven't.
>>
>>
>> Not exactly the Yale debating team, is it.
>
> No, it's usenet. You get what you pay for.

LOL!!!
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On 2007-01-17, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2007-01-17, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Yes you have.
>>> No, I haven't.
>>
>>
>> Not exactly the Yale debating team, is it.
>
> No, it's usenet. You get what you pay for.

Are you kidding? I pay $600 yr and what do I get? You and bob going,
"Yes, you have", "No I haven't". What? ...no "neener neener"?

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2007-01-17, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>notbob wrote:
>>
>>>On 2007-01-17, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Yes you have.
>>>>
>>>>No, I haven't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not exactly the Yale debating team, is it.
>>
>>No, it's usenet. You get what you pay for.
>
>
> Are you kidding? I pay $600 yr and what do I get? You and bob going,
> "Yes, you have", "No I haven't". What? ...no "neener neener"?
>
> nb


WoW! I thought *I* was getting screwed by my internet service. Now I
learn someone is foolish enough to pay $600/yr for only 5 newsgroups and
only ONE thread in those groups with no options but to read everything
in that thread - you, my friend, have some *real* bitchin' time comin',
let 'er rip...

AL

Just went to the supermarket. Store-brand butter is $3.99 and Land o'
Lakes is $4.99. Is that a prevailing price? Did the cold weather kill
all the butter trees, or what?

David Ames

David Ames wrote:
> Just went to the supermarket. Store-brand butter is $3.99 and Land o'
> Lakes is $4.99. Is that a prevailing price? Did the cold weather kill
> all the butter trees, or what?
>
> David Ames
>

I pay no more than 2.99/pound for Land O'lakes butter.

grinder wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> > Bob Kolker wrote:
> >> >> grinder wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Not to mention the loss of $100 million in produce!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a break for Florida though.
> >> >
> >> > Not really. I heard a Californian agricultural official say on public
> >> > radio today that Florida fresh citrus isn't allowed into California
> >> > because they have a lot of diseases down there that are not present in
> >> > California. And I don't think they were talking about the STDs that
> >> > are epidemic among the hick crackers in the citrus growing regions of
> >> > Florida.
> >>
> >> Um, I might be wrong here but I think he was referring to a supply and
> >> demand thing.
> >
> > No, he was specifically saying that fresh Florida citrus is prohibited
> > by regulation from being brought into California because they have
> > citrus diseases in Florida that California doesn't have.
> >
> >> IOW the amount that the Florida crop is worth is going to
> >> skyrocket because the California loss will short the nationwide supply.
> >
> > No, because the other guest on the program said that most Florida
> > oranges are for processing, not for sale as oranges in grocery stores.
> >
>
> True but the slope of the trend line for OJ futures in the last 2 weeks is
> almost vertical as is the slope of the trend line.
>
> The bottom line is the freeze is going to hurt California's economy for a
> few months to a few years.

Not to worry. The Governator will see them through it.

W ; )

On 17 Jan 2007 16:06:44 -0800, "David Ames" >
wrote:

>Just went to the supermarket. Store-brand butter is $3.99 and Land o'
>Lakes is $4.99. Is that a prevailing price? Did the cold weather kill
>all the butter trees, or what?

Is that US$? Sounds a tad expensive, all right, unless you're up in
the mountains somewhere.

-- Roy L

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Bob Kolker wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
> > > meaningful distinction at all.
> >
> > Without food we die. Without cosmetics we are just ugly. Food is
> > necesssary for life. Most other stuff we buy or sell is not. What do you
> > need to stay alive? Food, water, clothes and shelter (assuming a cold
> > climate). Occassionaly medical help is required. Beyond these everything
> > else is bupkus.
>
> Nonetheless, there is no test you could show that would indicate a
> meaningful difference in people's behavior that would indicate a valid
> distinction between so-called "needs" and "mere wants". It's a moral
> distinction you're making, not a valid objective distinction.
>
> People want things. They don't need things. Some wants are felt more
> intensely than others, but they remain wants.





and you are a smudge pot genius............aren't you Goo?

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > So there ya go! They don't seem to be too worried that anyone is going
> > to hold them up; why should we?
>
> We are 'murkins and everybody hates us.
>
> Bob Kolker



That's "Mrrrknz".

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > Rudy Canoza at says...
> > > Bob Kolker wrote:
> > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
> > > > > be treated as, and behave as, other business people.
> > > >
> > > > The auto industry can go under but we will manage to survive. But if all
> > > > the farmers croak, then what. Do we live in wild berries and roots?
> > >
> > > Farmers aren't all going to croak.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At the root of every civilization in the last 10,000 years, there was
> > > > the farmer.
> > >
> > > There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Says the guy who buys Stoffer's.
>
> It's spelled "Stouffer's", and I don't buy or eat it. I buy fresh
> basic ingredients and cook meals from scratch.



Where do you buy fresh shit?

Bob Kolker wrote:
> Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
> >
> > Coddling farmers is a lot like making yogurt or sourdough batter. It's
> > called culture, and is what we do to make our lives better.
> >
> > Rudy has evidently never planted a seed and watched it grow.
>
> I suspect that also. I am no farmer, but I have done my share of
> gardening and I think I have the glimmer of a notion why farmers do what
> they do. Turning shit into food is a miracle and a sacrament.
>
> Bob Kolker



Then shouldn't we be able to turn Rudy Canoza (aka Jonnie Ball) into
something useful?

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Bob Kolker wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Kolker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I've covered that already.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No you havent -covered it-. You have simply misunderstood it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, I've covered it, and no, I haven't "misunderstood" it.
> >
> > Yes you have.
>
> No, I haven't.
>
>
> > Our life presevering processes are automatic, not the
> > result of whims.
>
> I didn't say or imply whim.





You're always saying "whim" Goo.

Frankly I think you overuse the term.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Kolker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.
>>>>
>>>>It differs from cosmetic manufactureing. We absolutely NEED FOOD.
>>>
>>>
>>>No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
>>>meaningful distinction at all.
>>>
>>
>>If you don't have food, you'll die. I dunno how "analytic" that is, but
>>it's a largely inarguable fact. Largely.
>
>
> You want to live, and food is necessary for that. Similarly, you may
> want to skydive (and live through it), and a parchute is necessary for
> that. But you don't "need" either food or parachutes in and of
> themselves.
>
> This is all going far astray. The fact is, there is no reason for
> farmers to be coddled.

There are *significant* reasons for farmers to be coddled. You just
don't see it. Anybody who thinks food is just a nice thing to have
should try to do without it.

> If they don't know what they're doing and
> aren't prepared to accept the risk, they should get out of the business
> and find some other line of work.
>

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bob Kolker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.
>>>>>
>>>>> It differs from cosmetic manufactureing. We absolutely NEED FOOD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
>>>> meaningful distinction at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you don't have food, you'll die. I dunno how "analytic" that is, but
>>> it's a largely inarguable fact. Largely.
>>
>>
>> You want to live, and food is necessary for that. Similarly, you may
>> want to skydive (and live through it), and a parchute is necessary for
>> that. But you don't "need" either food or parachutes in and of
>> themselves.
>>
>> This is all going far astray. The fact is, there is no reason for
>> farmers to be coddled.
>
> There are *significant* reasons for farmers to be coddled.

There are *no* valid reasons for farmers to be coddled.
They've just managed to corrupt Congress in order to
get it done.


>> If they don't know what they're doing and
>> aren't prepared to accept the risk, they should get out of the business
>> and find some other line of work.
>>
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > Rudy Canoza at says...
> > > Bob Kolker wrote:
> > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. No valid reason at all. Farming is a business. Farmers should
> > > > > be treated as, and behave as, other business people.
> > > >
> > > > The auto industry can go under but we will manage to survive. But if all
> > > > the farmers croak, then what. Do we live in wild berries and roots?
> > >
> > > Farmers aren't all going to croak.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At the root of every civilization in the last 10,000 years, there was
> > > > the farmer.
> > >
> > > There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Says the guy who buys Stoffer's.
>
> It's spelled "Stouffer's", and I don't buy or eat it. I buy fresh
> basic ingredients and cook meals from scratch.



The Rudy Doody Foody Poem
by Scented Nectar
Copyright 2005


There once was a jackass named Rudey.
In his pants he did drop a big doody.
It reeked and it stunk,
till it fell out, kerplunk.
He ate it cuz he thought it was foody..

> > There are *significant* reasons for farmers to be coddled.
>
> There are *no* valid reasons for farmers to be coddled.
> They've just managed to corrupt Congress in order to
> get it done.

Boiled eggs can get hard and rubbery and not pleasant to eat.
That never happens with coddled eggs.
Perhaps the same is true of farmers, when they are coddled (instead of
boiled) they are more delectable...

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:13:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
wrote:

>Les Cargill wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Kolker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It differs from cosmetic manufactureing. We absolutely NEED FOOD.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
>>>>> meaningful distinction at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you don't have food, you'll die. I dunno how "analytic" that is, but
>>>> it's a largely inarguable fact. Largely.
>>>
>>>
>>> You want to live, and food is necessary for that. Similarly, you may
>>> want to skydive (and live through it), and a parchute is necessary for
>>> that. But you don't "need" either food or parachutes in and of
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> This is all going far astray. The fact is, there is no reason for
>>> farmers to be coddled.
>>
>> There are *significant* reasons for farmers to be coddled.
>
>There are *no* valid reasons for farmers to be coddled.
> They've just managed to corrupt Congress in order to
>get it done.
>


For someone who doesn't know his shit, you sure like to spread it
around. You got any cites you haven't had to wrap in toilet paper?

Bob Ward wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:13:11 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
> wrote:
>
> >Les Cargill wrote:
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>> Les Cargill wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bob Kolker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is nothing magical or mystical about farming. It's a business.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It differs from cosmetic manufactureing. We absolutely NEED FOOD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No. There is no such things as "needs" vs "wants"; no analytically
> >>>>> meaningful distinction at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you don't have food, you'll die. I dunno how "analytic" that is, but
> >>>> it's a largely inarguable fact. Largely.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You want to live, and food is necessary for that. Similarly, you may
> >>> want to skydive (and live through it), and a parchute is necessary for
> >>> that. But you don't "need" either food or parachutes in and of
> >>> themselves.
> >>>
> >>> This is all going far astray. The fact is, there is no reason for
> >>> farmers to be coddled.
> >>
> >> There are *significant* reasons for farmers to be coddled.
> >
> >There are *no* valid reasons for farmers to be coddled.
> >They've just managed to corrupt Congress in order to
> >get it done.
> >
>
>
> For someone who doesn't know

I do know what I'm talking about, bobbie.

Jonathan Ball of Pasadena California wrote:

> > Jonathan Ball of Pasadena California wrote:
> >
[....]
> > >
> > >There are *no* valid reasons for farmers to be coddled.
> > >They've just managed to corrupt Congress in order to
> > >get it done.
[....]
>
> I do know what I'm talking about, bobbie.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Bob Kolker wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I've covered that already.
> >
> > No you havent -covered it-. You have simply misunderstood it.
>
> Yes, I've coved it, and no, I haven't "misunderstood" it.


You usually misunderstand everything Goo. For instance, mistaking
Arabic for Urdu-Hindi. You do that all the time.

Is the following Arabic or Hindi Goo?

hQQOAzMgnIZLWURuEBAAoFMkF8wh0swOMjePJbMcPldFkSrPD4 doRu+YXaUZ1+vT
yHTxOP/SWyAAT6+WgQlkc3G17rwDQIb5UL7hlTJP06Ud+8hDXRED6Kl+Y 5+4oA3R
gpmrgNbIQBhfvBXbSeiUXseFSNRslHGmE+miaO5Qyt0emWwG6u 2jmxp1tDVch1fR
q4W5CqeEHTZyvXZW+oooxwDgTd3SDp2nOFZymFFoY7nO5fOWrU ca8eq/yu/N9shY