pearl wrote:
> "Oz" > wrote in message ...
>> Buxqi > writes
>>> Is this with current or future crops? Most of what I read suggests that GM
>>> crops have yet to yield any real benefits.
>> Oh, that's simply not so. Notill in the states has drastically reduced
>> erosion and improved cropping patterns resulting in yield increases
>> simply because high yielding crops can be sown more often. Its huge use
>> in south america, india and china strongly suggests (virtually proves)
>> that the local farmers consider GM to have significant benefits.
>>
>>> Mind you I live in a country
>>> where the vast majority of people, including journalists seem somewhat
>>> prejudiced against them.
>> Indeed. Ignorance is bliss. However in this case the simple
>> unavailability of world supplies of NON-GM soya and maize has and will
>> cause problems. EU farmers cannot get or use such materials so
>> inevitably we will be buying pork and chicken from the countries that
>> can feed cheaper and more available maize and soya, that is south
>> america and asia. These areas are well known for their high levels of
>> animal welfare and hygiene (irony).
>>
>>> It's a shame because the technology has the
>>> potential to be highly beneficial.
>> It is, its just completely passed the EU by.
>>
>> --
>> Oz
>> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>
> (Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
> by Jeffrey M. Smith.)

Smith is a crackpot, and is not considered
authoritative. You can always find some published
Luddite on this kind of thing; doesn't mean he's right.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...

> pearl wrote:

> > 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
> >
> > (Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
> > by Jeffrey M. Smith.)
>
> Smith is a crackpot, and is not considered
> authoritative.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html .

> You can always find some published
> Luddite on this kind of thing; doesn't mean he's right.

'Review from Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts,
[- the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation]
December 2003
Review by Sally Fallon

"The Washington Post reported that mice, usually happy to munch on
tomatoes, turned their noses up at the genetically modified FlavrSavr
tomato that scientists were so anxious to test on them. . . . The mice
were eventually force-fed the tomato through gastric tubes and
stomach washes. Several developed stomach lesions; seven of forty
died within two weeks. The tomato was approved without further tests."

This is one of many reports admirably presented in Jeffrey Smith's
important book on genetically engineered organisms (GMOs), Seeds
of Deception.
.....'
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/util...e/?objectID=96

'Review from The Milkweed, September, 2003
(Dairy Industry Newspaper)
Book Review by Pete Hardin

In mid-August, Jeffrey M. Smith self-published a fact-packed new
book, Seeds of Deception, that lays bare the complex world of
genetically modified foods. In my opinion, Smith's book is the
next Silent Spring. The facts included in Seeds of Deception
devastate the vacuous arguments laid out by biotechnology industry
proponents, their hirelings, and government officials who supposedly
protect the safety of our nation's food supply.
.....'
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/util.../?objectID=101

'Foreword to UK Edition of Seeds of Deception, by Jeffrey Smith
By Michael Meacher

This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true
nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and
environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the
manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry.

Despite the British Government's GM Nation Debate in mid-2003, the
level of understanding of GM remains alarmingly low in the UK. This
book should be compulsory reading, not only for the general public,
but for the decision-makers even more so who have never been
exposed to systematic analysis of the problems created by GM.
.....'
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/util...e/?objectID=11

'Good Enough To Eat? I Doubt It
Reviewed By John Newton, A Herald Food Writer.
Sydney Morning Herald
April 3, 2004 Pg. 12

Seeds Of Deception
By Jeffrey M. Smith
Scribe, 292 pp, $30
...
The scientific arguments around this topic are complex for the
non-scientist. Smith has managed to explain both argument and
process clearly.

Anybody with an interest in the safety and regulation of our food
supply anybody interested in what goes into their and their family's
mouths should read this book. Most especially our own Gene
Technology Regulator.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/util...e/?objectID=48

'Review from GM Weekly, December 2003
From 12/5/03 GM Weekly watch number 50
Book of the Month
...
Jeffrey Smith, who used to work for a GM testing company, has
written the story of the GM foods scam in an account that is as
compelling as it is lucid. Once I'd started it, I couldn't put it down.
Smith has an extraordinary gift for writing about this complex and
highly technical subject in prose that romps along as effortlessly
as a railway station novelette -- but without compromising one
iota of journalistic integrity or scientific rigour.

Among the glowing commendations of the book is one by Arpad
Pusztai that pays tribute to Smith's presentation of the science:
"A particular strength of the book -- and this will be hated by the
pro-GM lobby -- is that it uses a very colourful but easily
understandable language to describe what is usually described as
'high' science. My greatest compliment is that even though I am
a scientist I got some special insights into the workings of the
recombinant DNA technology from Jeffrey Smith's enjoyable
presentation."
....
Now we know: it's no accident that supposedly balanced TV and
radio programmes about GM name all the scientific credentials of
the pro-GM spokespersons and show them looking important and
serious in their labs, whereas the anti-GM voices are worried
housewives and angry bearded greenies shown chopping veg in
their kitchens or ripping up crops in a field. References by anti-GM
spokespeople to scientific research are edited out; all that's left is
the 'emotive' element that the pro-GM lobby uses as a stick to beat
us with.

The biotech industry wants us to see and swallow such messages,
products of a spin machine they hope remains in the shadows.
Smith gives us a clear vision of what they don't want us to see: a
master plan by corporations to take over the control of the world's
food supply. At a 1999 industry conference, a consultant from
Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how he helped
Monsanto create that plan. He asked Monsanto to describe what
their ideal future looked like in 15-20 years. Monsanto executives
described a world in which 100% of all commercial seeds were
genetically modified and patented. Anderson worked backwards
from that goal and developed the tactics to achieve it. Those tactics
are laid bare in this book. Smith interviews courageous scientists
and officials who were expected to fall in with the plan but wouldn't
- and there are more of them than you might think -- often paying
with their reputations and careers.

Sprinkled between the big GM stories are fascinating anecdotes that
Smith has evidently picked up from his privileged position on the
fringes of the industry. We read of a biochemist's shocked response
at an industry conference to a company's vaunting of a GM tomato
that looks fresh 150 days after it's picked: "I have a problem. If this
doesn't rot or decay in 150 days, then what have you done with the
nutrient value?" The industry honcho refuses to answer in front of
the other delegates, but leads the biochemist outside the room and
says: "We're not interested in the nutritive value. What we're
interested in is if it's picked now, will a housewife buy it in 180 days?"

If such stories strike a chill into your heart, you can warm it up
again by reading the inspirational chapter on how former prisoners
and disruptive schoolchildren in Wisconsin turned their lives
around JUST by changing their diet. Out go the junk foods, in
come the fresh unprocessed foods. One judge even 'sentences'
new probationers to the healthy diet, warning them that if they
don't stick to it they'll be back in trouble, and then it'll be jail. One
previously violent school has seen no incidents of weapons, drugs,
suicides, dropouts or expulsions in the five years since it put its
students on the program. The story shows that the sort of people
we become and the sort of societies we inhabit depend heavily on
the quality of the food we eat. All the more reason for genetic
engineers and their friends in government to take responsibility
and end their insane acts of terror against our food.
....'
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/util...e/?objectID=95

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>
>> pearl wrote:
>
>>> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>>>
>>> (Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
>>> by Jeffrey M. Smith.)
>> Smith is a crackpot, and is not considered
>> authoritative.
>
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html .

Amateurish bullshit; all you ever do.


I *told* you you wouldn't be able to refrain from
replying to me. I know you far better than you know
yourself, you diseased slag.


>
>> You can always find some published
>> Luddite on this kind of thing; doesn't mean he's right.
>
> 'Review from Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts,
> [- the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation]
> December 2003
> Review by Sally Fallon
>
> "The Washington Post reported that [snip ugly copypasta]


Shut the **** up. You don't know what you're talking
about.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:20:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pearl wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> pearl wrote:
>>
>>>> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>>>>
>>>> (Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
>>>> by Jeffrey M. Smith.)
>>> Smith is a crackpot, and is not considered
>>> authoritative.
>>
>> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html .
>
>Ama

pretty polly jonny, pretty polly.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>
>> pearl wrote:
>
>>> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>>>
>>> (Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
>>> by Jeffrey M. Smith.)
>> Smith is a crackpot, and is not considered
>> authoritative.
>
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html .


Laughably amateurish bullshit; one of the worst web
pages ever published in terms of design and layout.

I *told* you you wouldn't be able to refrain from
responding to me, and as always, I was right:


lesley the foot-rubbing who
Flame on. liar. I've wasted too much time on you
already.

Rudy the scholar:
Ha ha ha ha ha! This is at *LEAST* the 20th time
you've said you've wasted too much time on me! But
you'll be back - you can't help yourself. You have
no self control.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...cf067b5f275b33


Actually, you held out a little longer than I thought,
but I always knew you'd come back.

pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:20:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>>>>>
>>>>> (Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
>>>>> by Jeffrey M. Smith.)
>>>> Smith is a crackpot, and is not considered
>>>> authoritative.
>>> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html .
>> Amateurish bullshit; all you ever do.
>
> pretty polly

**** off, pete.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:31:16 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:20:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> pearl wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
>>>>>> by Jeffrey M. Smith.)
>>>>> Smith is a crackpot, and is not considered
>>>>> authoritative.
>>>> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html .
>>> Amateurish bullshit; all you ever do.
>>
>> pretty polly
>

Pretty polly sqwarkkkkk

pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:31:16 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:20:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
>>>>>>> by Jeffrey M. Smith.)
>>>>>> Smith is a crackpot, and is not considered
>>>>>> authoritative.
>>>>> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html .
>>>> Amateurish bullshit; all you ever do.
>>> pretty polly
>
> Pretty polly sqwarkkkkk

You're really a stupid shitbag, pete - stupid and
unimaginative.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>> news:ab0f0832-283c-411c-b7b9- .
>>

>
> And I hereby offer pearl the use of an acre so that she can prove to us
> all how she can survive on an acre in the UK with an vegan diet purely off
> that patch of land
>


I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).

"Buddenbrooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>> news:ab0f0832-283c-411c-b7b9- .
>>>
>
>>
>> And I hereby offer pearl the use of an acre so that she can prove to us
>> all how she can survive on an acre in the UK with an vegan diet purely
>> off that patch of land
>>
>
>
> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
> produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).

had I a million acres I might possibly be able to offer that ;-)
It is just the fact that it is only when you put it in these hard practical
terms that people realise exactly what is meant. For example the
Mediterranean diet people talk about, in its classic form is shown us by the
Spartan mess accounts which consisted of grain, wine, cheese, figs and
opsonion, the latter mainly being olive oil. Meat was actually included but
was provided at sacrifices, and came would probably be once or twice a week
on average.

Jim Webster

>

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:30:06 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"Buddenbrooks" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>>> news:ab0f0832-283c-411c-b7b9- .
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> And I hereby offer pearl the use of an acre so that she can prove to us
>>> all how she can survive on an acre in the UK with an vegan diet purely
>>> off that patch of land
>>>
>>
>>
>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>> produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).
>
>had I a million acres I might possibly be able to offer that ;-)
>It is just the fact that it is only when you put it in these hard practical
>terms that people realise exactly what is meant.

No jimmy it was a nonsense statement and has rightly been treated with
the contempt it deserves.

> For example the
>Mediterranean diet people talk about, in its classic form is shown us by the
>Spartan mess accounts which consisted of grain, wine, cheese, figs and
>opsonion, the latter mainly being olive oil. Meat was actually included but
>was provided at sacrifices, and came would probably be once or twice a week
>on average.

Was that in code or something?

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:34:19 +0000, Osvald Hotz De Baar
> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:30:06 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Buddenbrooks" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:ab0f0832-283c-411c-b7b9- .
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I hereby offer pearl the use of an acre so that she can prove to us
>>>> all how she can survive on an acre in the UK with an vegan diet purely
>>>> off that patch of land
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>>> produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).
>>
>>had I a million acres I might possibly be able to offer that ;-)
>>It is just the fact that it is only when you put it in these hard practical
>>terms that people realise exactly what is meant.
>
>No jimmy it was a nonsense statement and has rightly been treated with
>the contempt it deserves.

Yes in your fantasy world you might feel we need vast amounts of land
per person to feed ourselves, and in the case of a meat diet you are
certainly right to appreciate it a wasteful resource.

Don't confuse what we currently use in wasting the earths resources at
full speed per person, with what we actually need to live on per
person.

http://tinyurl.com/3ybk6e

The world's ticking timebombEarth 'will expire by 2050'Our planet is
running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a
damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be
colonised

The end of earth as we know it?

Observer Worldview

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50
years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current
rate, according to a report out this week.
A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday,
warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that
outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption
levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth)
will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals
that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by
humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark
illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that
either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the
planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests -
which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and
freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their
extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to
locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is
unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North
Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock
of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems
between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about
12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater
ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking
level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and
freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a
value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the
space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data
for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the
numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems
things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has
one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering
uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen
from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants
have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a
million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent
during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the
corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and
2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70
per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species
have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years
before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg,
the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements
will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to
attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to
be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there
will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month,
was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British
politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of
blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and
corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the
environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double
the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of
some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood
and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from
industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for
each country by showing how much land is required to support each
resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of
population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole
stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half
a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful
lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the
exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has
doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per
cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific
actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural
resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would
require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000
tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment,
with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2
hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each
Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half
a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen
dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the
past 30 years.

Buddenbrooks > writes
> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).

Pearl seems to think that forage acres are just as good as arable acres.
Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland acre can be
farmed arably BY HAND.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:50:43 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Buddenbrooks > writes
>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>>produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).

>Pearl seems to think that forage acres are just as good as arable acres.

No she doesn't. Land is land and there is no such thing as forage
acres you bullshitter. You can do anything with any land once it's
prepared properly.

>Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland acre can be
>farmed arably BY HAND.

Well there you go, who's a clever boy then! At last the message is
getting through.

Now perhaps you could explain why the CLA seem to think otherwise?

Oz wrote:
> Buddenbrooks > writes
>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>> produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).
>
> Pearl seems to think that forage acres are just as good as arable
> acres.

A little reading in to the lives of areas like this might give a different
perspective, mind you, it depends on the quality of life folks are now
aspiring to!

> Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland
> acre can be farmed arably BY HAND.

That would keep folk occupied
I wonder how long it would last?

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

In message >, Oz
> writes
>Buddenbrooks > writes
>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>>produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).
>
>Pearl seems to think that forage acres are just as good as arable acres.
>Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland acre can be
>farmed arably BY HAND.

Huh! Many months of my childhood were spent bouncing a push-hoe from
one flint to the next. The trick was to avoid damaging the crop rather
than destroying the weeds.

The land was chosen for convenience rather than quality as it could be
watered and was within shotgun reach for pigeons. However, none of my
land within 1/2 mile of a Domesday book village is any better.

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:33:56 -0000, "Jill"
> wrote:

>Oz wrote:
>> Buddenbrooks > writes
>>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>>> produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).
>>
>> Pearl seems to think that forage acres are just as good as arable
>> acres.
>
>A little reading in to the lives of areas like this might give a different
>perspective, mind you, it depends on the quality of life folks are now
>aspiring to!
>
>> Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland
>> acre can be farmed arably BY HAND.
>
>That would keep folk occupied
>I wonder how long it would last?

It has lasted for a good few thousand years. Not that you'd notice. A
good days work would kill you. It's one thing throwing a few chickens
in to a cage to fend for themselves whilst you do your stalking on
newsgroups. It's quite another to live off the land.

Jill > writes

Oz:
>
>> Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland
>> acre can be farmed arably BY HAND.
>
>That would keep folk occupied
>I wonder how long it would last?

About two days.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Jill" > wrote in message
...
> Oz wrote:
>> Buddenbrooks > writes
>>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>>> produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).
>>
>> Pearl seems to think that forage acres are just as good as arable
>> acres.
>
> A little reading in to the lives of areas like this might give a different
> perspective, mind you, it depends on the quality of life folks are now
> aspiring to!
>
>> Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland
>> acre can be farmed arably BY HAND.
>
> That would keep folk occupied
> I wonder how long it would last?
>

life long.
If you have no alternative

Jim Webster

Tim Lamb > writes
>In message >, Oz
> writes
>>Buddenbrooks > writes
>>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>>>produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).
>>
>>Pearl seems to think that forage acres are just as good as arable acres.
>>Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland acre can be
>>farmed arably BY HAND.
>
>Huh! Many months of my childhood were spent bouncing a push-hoe from
>one flint to the next. The trick was to avoid damaging the crop rather
>than destroying the weeds.

There weren't many who would do it then, and almost none now.
As a child, of course, you had little option.
For me one spring/summer was enough to understand why hoemen got paid so
much, and were so hard to get.

>The land was chosen for convenience rather than quality as it could be
>watered and was within shotgun reach for pigeons. However, none of my
>land within 1/2 mile of a Domesday book village is any better.

Quite.

Should be used for forage and proper downland/brekland soils for arable.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Oz wrote:
> Jill > writes
>
> Oz:
>>
>>> Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland
>>> acre can be farmed arably BY HAND.
>>
>> That would keep folk occupied
>> I wonder how long it would last?
>
> About two days.

Certainly the WWOOfer farms can find it hard to find enough labour.
For anyone who is really interested in supporting holding who are trying to
be organic, ecofriendly etc its a great way to spend some time
www.wwoof.org.uk

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 9, 8:42 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> > > wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>
> > Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> > that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> > animals like sheep?
>
> > ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> > wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> > Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>
> Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
> interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
> the observation that land has value to animals as well
> as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
> than the hills and moors?
>
> ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.

Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
contention anyhow.

--- With certainty, a substantial area could be woodland...

'Data on new woodland planting can give an indication of
the growth in woodland area across the country, which has
an important influence on landscape, biodiversity and water.

It is likely that a greater proportion of marginal land on
which production has become less profitable will be entered
into Environmental Stewardship, set-aside or left fallow.
Another alternative for this land is woodland.
...'
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ace/df2_fact.htm -----

> "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than
> an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (beans,
> peas, lentils) can produce 10 times more protein and leafy
> vegetables 15 times more."

I've seen a spread of estimates. Growing crops for animals
is an inefficient use of land. Grazing animals is also inefficient
*assuming* that the land in question is cultivatable...

--- Even if not, when needs can be met without grazing. ---

> Currently only 25% of the UK's "agricultural land" is used
> to produce human-consumable plant foods. Going by the
> above figures, in order to replace the 'food value' of meat:
> 75% / 10 = an additional 7.5% of current agricultural land.
> 10% of current total agricultural land is now used to grow
> grain crops for livestock, so there's you're needed 7.5% +.

Two problems with the analysis though correcting the
first would actually make your case stronger. A: You should
be measuring calories per acre rather than protein per acre.

--- lol. If measured in calories, you'd ask for protein...

'For every 3,000 calories in the form of corn that are fed
to a cow, only 600 are returned in milk; if the meat is
eaten, only 120 calories are available for human use.
...'
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-7409377.html

- 1/25th.

Here's a direct estimate of land needed:

'Depending on the type of meat, it takes 6-17 times more
land to feed the average American meat eater than to feed
a vegetarian.30
...
30 L. Reijinders and Sam Soret, PhDs 2003,
...'
http://www.massanimalrights.org/enviroflier.html -----

B: You should consider the % of world agricultural land or if
you want to consider just the food needs of the UK, the %
of agricultural land used to grow food for consumption in
the UK. % agricultural land in the UK is meaningless in
this context given how much crosses national borders.

--- It's not meaningless to consider the current situation
within the UK, and what the alternatives would look like.
As for the imports, we'd calculate using the same ratios of
protein, calories or land, substituting animal feed with food. ---

> And remember - we've just freed-up vast areas for Nature,
> Britain needn't be a vast grass mono-culture animal farm.

If we stopped growing mono-crops for animal feed it would
indeed free up vast areas for nature. If we use marginal lands
to raise animals it would free up fertile areas for nature.
Admittedly the acreage of fertile areas would be considerably
smaller than the acreage of marginal lands taken up but
then again the fertile areas can support more wildlife per acre
than the marginal. No?

--- What do you mean by 'marginal'? Any of the following?

'Around 37% of the land on agricultural holdings is considered
to be croppable land, i.e. land currently under crops, set-aside,
bare fallow or temporary grass. Almost half of this croppable
area is occupied by cereal crops. Horticultural crops (including
vegetables, orchards, soft fruit and crops grown under glass)
account for just 1% of the area on agricultural holdings.
Permanent grassland and sole right rough grazing accounts for
57% of the area on agricultural holdings - see Figure 1.

Cereal crops 17%
Other arable crops 8%
Horticultural crops 1%
Fallow land 1%
Set-aside 3%
Temporary grass 7%
Permanent grassland 33%
Sole right rough grazing 24%
Woodland 4%
All other land 2%

Figure 1: A breakdown of the total area on agricultural holdings
as at June 2007
...'
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/june_uk.pdf

More detailed figures at link.

<..>
> Interesting points. However is that not part of the point of
> rotations,
> so that cattle are not made to regraze the same area in a single
> season?
>
> ----- Again, large herbivores really do need a lot of land,
> so with a herd of any size, you require a large acreage of
> pasture. That's vast areas of grass, likely seeded as grass
> and sprayed with herbicides, and even grazed once a year
> will prevent regeneration of natural flora - food and shelter.
> In addition, to protect 'livestock' and feed, farmers will
> often kill native wild predators, 'competitors' and 'pests'.
> ----

How is the killing of native wild predators, 'competitors'
and pests to protect livestock different to farmers killing
pests to protect their crops?

--- Can you give some examples of that in the UK? --

> > > > to satisfy your addiction to animal fat.
>
> > > I'm not addicted. I could stop just like that if you convinced
> > > me it was the right thing to do. I have done it before, albeit
> > > briefly and I could do it again, no problem.
>
> > > ---
> > > But that's what addicts always say. It's called "denial".
>
> > Ok. Prove that I'm addicted.
>
> > --- You transgress your own moral convictions for it.
>
> > "They have moral rights."
>
> The moral rights I claim they have do not prevent us from
> consuming animal fats in all circumstances.
>
> --- Meaning, as a last resort to survive?

I guess when I talk of animals having rights I mean that
we have an obligation to high welfare standards for the
animals we raise. I don't treat animal life as sanctitious.

--- There's no such word. If you mean "sanctified"...

'sanc·ti·fy
...
4. To give social or moral sanction to.
...'
http://www.answers.com/sanctified&r=67

'sanc·tion
...
3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates
an ethical choice.
...
http://www.answers.com/sanction

The moral rights you claim they have conveniently end
at the point where you get to have your fat fix, isn't it. ----

> Are you? ---
>
> > "Suffering is self evidently contrary to their interests"
>
> Which is why I try to avoid consuming food that results
> from cruel animal practices.
>
> --- There's no such thing as "kind slaughter". ---

Compared with natural deaths?

--- Compared to not slaughtering animals. ---

> > > Did you ever also quit eating fish "Pesco-Vegan"?
>
> > Briefly, yes. I eat it now sometimes.
>
> > > Why didn't you respond to the post about depletion?
>
> > Remind me....
>
> > --- In the thread where you spoke of spreading your own
> > ecological footprint over both land and sea. Ring a bell?---
>
> Yup. I will try to find it.
>
> --- Here you go:
>
> 'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
> state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
> generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
> problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
> stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
> of the real situation.
>
> 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
> 20% are moderately exploited
> 17% are overexploited
> 7% are depleted
> 1% is recovering from depletion
>
> The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
> are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
> exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
> (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
> total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
> exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
> 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
> ..
> We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
> the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
> at risk of collapse.
> ..'http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php
> ----

This is not an indication that we can't fish sustainably but
that in many cases we don't. It seems highly improbable that
from an area of over 1 billion cubic kilometres of water, there is
not enough fish to make a meaningful contribution to our diet.
Indeed we have harvested the oceans for millenia and it's only
in recent years that overfishing has become a problem.

--- There are over 6 billion humans now. ---

Nor is the problem simply down to population growth - if it were
we could simply reduce fish consumption per person so that
total fish consumption remained constant.

--- ~6 billion fish a week? You think that's acceptable? ---

Problems: fishing
is now highly efficient, and can easily locate and wipe out whole
swarms at a time. Modern methods: (a) have significant bycatch,
which is wasteful if nothing else, (b) in some cases damage the
seabed thus harming populations not directly affected (c) target
a limited number of species heavily. There are over 100 edible
species surrounding the UK shores. How many do we eat in
significant quantities? (d) frequently target long-living,
slow-reproducing species

--- We don't need any. Marine life *needs to recover*. ---

However just as with meat and vegetables, one can choose
which fish to eat thus avoiding the problems described above.
At the very least we can eat less popular species and/or
species with greater reproduction rates. We can choose line
caught fish or hand picked shellfish. We can choose fish that
is recognized by the marine stewardship conservastion trust
as being from sustainable sources.

--- You think ~60 million fish a week for the UK is ok? ---

> > > Would you be prepared to have done to you what you
> > > seem to think there's nothing wrong with doing to others?
>
> > You mean being killed for food? Nope.

So tell me now, Dave.. how can you so easily have done
to others what you wouldn't want to have done to you?

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
> news:f785919f-82e7-4eaf-8313-

>>
>> ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
>
> Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
> contention anyhow.
>

depends entirely on the species, some species have evolved to fill a niche
in marginal land, some have evolved to cope with land under cultivation.
Some use both

Jim Webster

pearl wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
> On Mar 9, 8:42 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
>> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>>
>> On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>>> On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
>>>> wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
>>> Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
>>> that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
>>> animals like sheep?
>>> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
>>> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
>>> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>> Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
>> interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
>> the observation that land has value to animals as well
>> as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
>> majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
>> than the hills and moors?
>>
>> ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
>
> Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
> contention anyhow.

How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species
than is cultivable land?

You're an idiot. You don't have a clue.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in message
> > news:f785919f-82e7-4eaf-8313-
>
> >>
> >> ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
> >
> > Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
> > contention anyhow.
> >
>
> depends entirely on the species, some species have evolved to fill a niche
> in marginal land, some have evolved to cope with land under cultivation.
> Some use both

"Buxqi" wrote what you're replying to. My replies begin and end with "----".

On Mar 13, 7:10*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
> > On Mar 9, 8:42 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
>
> >> On Mar 8, 1:00 am, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >>> "Buxqi" > wrote in ...
> >>> On Mar 7, 12:21 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> --- I don't see how the case could be made that a vegan diet
> >>>> wouldn't be more efficient. Grazing animals need a lot of land,
> >>> Sure. The questions are 1. Is there really such a thing as land
> >>> that is too marginal to cultivate crops but which can support
> >>> animals like sheep?
> >>> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> >>> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> >>> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
> >> Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My
> >> interest in ecological efficiency is based largely upon
> >> the observation that land has value to animals as well
> >> as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> >> majority of cropland could support much more wildlife
> >> than the hills and moors?
>
> >> ---- That so-called marginal land is valuable to wild species.
>
> > Less valuable than cultivatable land in general. That's my
> > contention anyhow.
>
> How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species
> than is cultivable land?

Well, which is more fertile on average?
>
> You're an idiot. *You don't have a clue.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
>
> How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species
> than is cultivable land?

Well, which is more fertile on average?
>

marginal land does tend to be marginal because of low fertility, and also
because it has been farmed less, as farming can increase the fertility over
time if you are doing it right

Jim Webster

Jim Webster > writes
>
>"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species
>> than is cultivable land?
>
>Well, which is more fertile on average?
>>
>
>marginal land does tend to be marginal because of low fertility, and also
>because it has been farmed less, as farming can increase the fertility over
>time if you are doing it right

Its also worth remembering that, like humans, wildlife crops biomass.
Fertile soils produce more biomass than infertile ones and thus ought to
have more wildlife.

Of course this isn't true where plants have gained the upper hand, pine
forest for example, where biodiversity is low and non-plants relatively
scarce compared to non-forest.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

"Oz" > wrote in message ...
> Jim Webster > writes
> >
> >"Buxqi" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> >> How is "marginal" land less valuable to wild species
> >> than is cultivable land?
> >
> >Well, which is more fertile on average?
> >>
> >
> >marginal land does tend to be marginal because of low fertility, and also
> >because it has been farmed less, as farming can increase the fertility over
> >time if you are doing it right

##
> Jim Webster wrote:
pearl wrote:
>>>>> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
>>>>> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
>>>>> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>>>>
>>>> nonsense, you forget these landscapes were created by grazing, in
>>>> the UK water meadows, grazing marshes and the Lakeland fells and
>>>> uplands are all created by grazing animals
>>>
>>> What was there before?
>>
>> when?
##

IOW... this less fertile 'marginal' land has "always" been grazed.

And what's been said about such grazing and land degradation..?

Basically, jim, you're well and truly hoisted by your own petard.

> Its also worth remembering that, like humans, wildlife crops biomass.
> Fertile soils produce more biomass than infertile ones and thus ought to
> have more wildlife.
>
> Of course this isn't true where plants have gained the upper hand, pine
> forest for example, where biodiversity is low and non-plants relatively
> scarce compared to non-forest.

From Irish Forest Service Guidelines

'Forests are among the most diverse and complex ecosystems in
the world, providing a habitat for amultitude of flora and fauna.
Ireland's forests represent an important opportunity to conserve
and enhance biodiversity at both a local and national level.
...
The selection of tree species has a major influence on the habitat
value and biodiversity of a forest.

* Species diversity at the property, compartment and stand level
contributes to the habitat value and biodiversity of a forest.
Mixtures can include native and non-native broadleaves and
conifers, and must be silviculturally compatible. For example, the
light shade cast beneath a compatible mixture of broadleaves and
European larch encourages the development of native shrub and
ground layers.
* Favour broadleaf species as much as possible, where appropriate
to site conditions. In conifer forests, plant broadleaves in swathes
and not as single stems within the canopy. These swathes are
particularly valuable when positioned along the forest's external
and internal margins.
*Biodiversity also relates to the conservation and enhancement of
genetic biodiversity. Where possible, select native tree species
suited to the site and geographical location, ideally using local or
Irish provenances.
....'
https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/fores...odiversity.pdf

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

>
> IOW... this less fertile 'marginal' land has "always" been grazed.

no, because some marginal land is used for forestry and even ploughed


>
> And what's been said about such grazing and land degradation..?
>
> Basically, jim, you're well and truly hoisted by your own petard.

no, you just don't understand what you are talking about I'm afraid.
The increased fertility of the lowlands is also due to grazing, grazing can
be used to improve land where land is capable of being improved through
grazing. Much fell land can be improved by grazing, the adding of lime and
similar, a lot was done after the war, which means it is now inbye and
ploughable.


Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > IOW... this less fertile 'marginal' land has "always" been grazed.
>
> no,

##
> Jim Webster wrote:
pearl wrote:
>>>>> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
>>>>> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
>>>>> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>>>>
>>>> nonsense, you forget these landscapes were created by grazing, in
>>>> the UK water meadows, grazing marshes and the Lakeland fells and
>>>> uplands are all created by grazing animals
>>>
>>> What was there before?
>>
>> when?
##

> because some marginal land is used for forestry and even ploughed

More recently - "a lot was done after the war" - just below.

> > And what's been said about such grazing and land degradation..?
> >
> > Basically, jim, you're well and truly hoisted by your own petard.
>
> no, you just don't understand what you are talking about I'm afraid.
> The increased fertility of the lowlands is also due to grazing, grazing can
> be used to improve land where land is capable of being improved through
> grazing. Much fell land can be improved by grazing, the adding of lime and
> similar, a lot was done after the war, which means it is now inbye and
> ploughable.

IOW, so called marginal land can be used for horticulture. Very good.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...

> no, you just don't understand what you are talking about I'm afraid.
> The increased fertility of the lowlands is also due to grazing, grazing can
> be used to improve land where land is capable of being improved through
> grazing

'Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland
produces the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most
resistance to soil erosion. Livestock production has damaged
the Earth's grassland more than has any other land use, and has
transformed roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester
Brown of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now be seen
on every continent."
...'
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> > no, you just don't understand what you are talking about I'm afraid.
> > The increased fertility of the lowlands is also due to grazing, grazing can
> > be used to improve land where land is capable of being improved through
> > grazing
>
> 'Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
> more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
> masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland
> produces the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most
> resistance to soil erosion. Livestock production has damaged
> the Earth's grassland more than has any other land use, and has
> transformed roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester
> Brown of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
> grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now be seen
> on every continent."
> ..'
> http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html

Correct link: http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html .

On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:

Just a quick aside he

Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
product????

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
> wrote:

>On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>
>Just a quick aside he
>
>Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>product????

Good question but in this case you are undoubtedly wrong.

I could be wrong and I don't speak for the lady herself, but the way
she makes the likes of Jim dance I'd say it was 4. something precious
or choice; the finest example of anything: pearls of wisdom.



pearl1 /p?rl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[purl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a smooth, rounded bead formed within the shells of certain
mollusks and composed of the mineral aragonite or calcite in a matrix,
deposited in concentric layers as a protective coating around an
irritating foreign object: valued as a gem when lustrous and finely
colored. Compare cultured pearl.
2. something resembling this, as various synthetic substances for use
in costume jewelry.
3. something similar in form, luster, etc., as a dewdrop or a capsule
of medicine.
4. something precious or choice; the finest example of anything:
pearls of wisdom.
5. a very pale gray approaching white but commonly with a bluish
tinge.
6. mother-of-pearl: a pearl-handled revolver.
7. Printing. a 5-point type.
8. Also called epithelial pearl. Pathology. a rounded mass of keratin
occurring in certain carcinomas of the skin.
–verb (used with object) 9. to adorn or stud with or as with pearls.
10. to make like pearls, as in form or color.
–verb (used without object) 11. to dive, fish, or search for pearls.
12. to assume a pearllike form or appearance.
–adjective 13. resembling a pearl in form or color.
14. of or pertaining to pearls: pearl diving.
15. set with a pearl or pearls or covered or inlaid with pearls or
mother-of-pearl: a pearl necklace.
16. having or reduced to small, rounded grains.
—Idiom17. cast pearls before swine, to offer or give something of
great value to those incapable of appreciating it: She read them
Shakespeare but it was casting pearls before swine.


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

[Origin: 1300–50; ME perle < MF < It or assumed VL *perla (> G Perle,
OE pærl), for L *pernula (> Pg perola, perh. OS përula), dim. of L
perna sea mussel]

"Dragonblaze" > wrote in message ...
> On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> Just a quick aside he
>
> Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
> product????

http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php .

Now don't prove yourself a swine.

"Julie" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
> > wrote:
>
> >On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
> >
> >Just a quick aside he
> >
> >Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
> >product????
>
> Good question but in this case you are undoubtedly wrong.
>
> I could be wrong and I don't speak for the lady herself, but the way
> she makes the likes of Jim dance I'd say it was 4. something precious
> or choice; the finest example of anything: pearls of wisdom.

Awwww.... thank you!

>
> pearl1 /p?rl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
> Pronunciation[purl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> -noun 1. a smooth, rounded bead formed within the shells of certain
> mollusks and composed of the mineral aragonite or calcite in a matrix,
> deposited in concentric layers as a protective coating around an
> irritating foreign object: valued as a gem when lustrous and finely
> colored. Compare cultured pearl.
> 2. something resembling this, as various synthetic substances for use
> in costume jewelry.
> 3. something similar in form, luster, etc., as a dewdrop or a capsule
> of medicine.
> 4. something precious or choice; the finest example of anything:
> pearls of wisdom.
> 5. a very pale gray approaching white but commonly with a bluish
> tinge.
> 6. mother-of-pearl: a pearl-handled revolver.
> 7. Printing. a 5-point type.
> 8. Also called epithelial pearl. Pathology. a rounded mass of keratin
> occurring in certain carcinomas of the skin.
> -verb (used with object) 9. to adorn or stud with or as with pearls.
> 10. to make like pearls, as in form or color.
> -verb (used without object) 11. to dive, fish, or search for pearls.
> 12. to assume a pearllike form or appearance.
> -adjective 13. resembling a pearl in form or color.
> 14. of or pertaining to pearls: pearl diving.
> 15. set with a pearl or pearls or covered or inlaid with pearls or
> mother-of-pearl: a pearl necklace.
> 16. having or reduced to small, rounded grains.
> -Idiom17. cast pearls before swine, to offer or give something of
> great value to those incapable of appreciating it: She read them
> Shakespeare but it was casting pearls before swine.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [Origin: 1300-50; ME perle < MF < It or assumed VL *perla (> G Perle,
> OE pærl), for L *pernula (> Pg perola, perh. OS përula), dim. of L
> perna sea mussel]
>
>

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:16:41 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Julie" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >
>> >Just a quick aside he
>> >
>> >Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>> >product????
>>
>> Good question but in this case you are undoubtedly wrong.
>>
>> I could be wrong and I don't speak for the lady herself, but the way
>> she makes the likes of Jim dance I'd say it was 4. something precious
>> or choice; the finest example of anything: pearls of wisdom.
>
>Awwww.... thank you!

One speaks as one finds )

>
>>
>> pearl1 /p?rl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>> Pronunciation[purl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>> -noun 1. a smooth, rounded bead formed within the shells of certain
>> mollusks and composed of the mineral aragonite or calcite in a matrix,
>> deposited in concentric layers as a protective coating around an
>> irritating foreign object: valued as a gem when lustrous and finely
>> colored. Compare cultured pearl.
>> 2. something resembling this, as various synthetic substances for use
>> in costume jewelry.
>> 3. something similar in form, luster, etc., as a dewdrop or a capsule
>> of medicine.
>> 4. something precious or choice; the finest example of anything:
>> pearls of wisdom.
>> 5. a very pale gray approaching white but commonly with a bluish
>> tinge.
>> 6. mother-of-pearl: a pearl-handled revolver.
>> 7. Printing. a 5-point type.
>> 8. Also called epithelial pearl. Pathology. a rounded mass of keratin
>> occurring in certain carcinomas of the skin.
>> -verb (used with object) 9. to adorn or stud with or as with pearls.
>> 10. to make like pearls, as in form or color.
>> -verb (used without object) 11. to dive, fish, or search for pearls.
>> 12. to assume a pearllike form or appearance.
>> -adjective 13. resembling a pearl in form or color.
>> 14. of or pertaining to pearls: pearl diving.
>> 15. set with a pearl or pearls or covered or inlaid with pearls or
>> mother-of-pearl: a pearl necklace.
>> 16. having or reduced to small, rounded grains.
>> -Idiom17. cast pearls before swine, to offer or give something of
>> great value to those incapable of appreciating it: She read them
>> Shakespeare but it was casting pearls before swine.
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [Origin: 1300-50; ME perle < MF < It or assumed VL *perla (> G Perle,
>> OE pærl), for L *pernula (> Pg perola, perh. OS përula), dim. of L
>> perna sea mussel]
>>
>>
>

On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
> > On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > Just a quick aside he
>
> > Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
> > product????
>
> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>
> Now don't prove yourself a swine.

Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting, let's take a leaf out of her
book:

"A pearl is a hard, pretty object produced within the soft tissue
(specifically the mantle) of a living shelled mollusk. Just like the
shell of mollusks, a pearl is composed of calcium carbonate in minute
crystalline form, which has been deposited in concentric layers. The
ideal pearl is perfectly round and smooth, but many other shapes of
pearls occur, see baroque pearl.

The finest quality pearls have been highly valued as gemstones and
objects of beauty for many centuries, and the word pearl has become a
metaphor for something rare, fine, and admirable.

Almost any shelled mollusk can, by natural processes, produce some
kind of "pearl" when an irritating microscopic object becomes trapped
within the mollusk's mantle folds, but virtually none of these
"pearls" are considered to be gemstones.

True iridescent pearls, the most desirable pearls, are produced by two
groups of molluscan bivalves or clams. One family lives in the sea:
the pearl oysters. The other, very different group of bivalves live in
freshwater, and these are the river mussels, for example, see the
freshwater pearl mussel.

Sal****er pearls can grow in several species of marine pearl oysters
in the family Pteriidae. Freshwater pearls grow within certain (but by
no means all) species of freshwater mussels in the order Unionida, the
families Unionidae and Margaritiferidae. All of these bivalves are
able to make true pearls because they have a thick inner shell layer
composed of "mother of pearl" or nacre. The mantle of the living
bivalve can create a pearl in the same way that it creates the pearly
inner layer of the shell.

Fine gem quality sal****er and freshwater pearls can and do sometimes
occur completely naturally, but this is a rare occurrence. Many
hundreds of pearl oysters or pearl mussels have to be gathered and
opened (killed) in order to find even one pearl, and for many
centuries that was the only way pearls were obtained. This was the
main reason why pearls fetched such extraordinary prices in the past.
In modern times however, almost all the pearls for sale were formed
with a good deal of expert intervention from human pearl farmers.

A true pearl is made from layers of nacre, by the same living process
as is used in the secretion of the mother of pearl which lines the
shell. A "natural pearl" is one that formed without any human
intervention at all, in the wild, and these are very rare. A "cultured
pearl" on the other hand, is one that has been formed on a pearl farm.
The great majority of pearls on the market are cultured pearls."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl

Nuff said, methinks....

Dragonblaze

- God? I'm no God. God has mercy. -

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
> wrote:

>On 14 Mar, 15:57, "pearl" > wrote:
>> "Dragonblaze" > wrote in ...
>> > On 14 Mar, 13:07, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> > Just a quick aside he
>>
>> > Why would a vegan use the nic 'pearl', as a pearl is an animal
>> > product????
>>
>> http://www.serapii-kisu.net/essence/...ism/pearls.php.
>>
>> Now don't prove yourself a swine.
>
>Since pearl is so fond of copy-pasting,

The history books know more than we can ever tell. Why would you have
an aversion to established history?

> let's take a leaf out of her
>book:

<snip irrelevant dribble>

She just told you what it means in her case, so why look for another
reason that's untrue and pointless?