pearl's list update

"usual suspect" <support.TakeThisOut@our.troops> wrote in message
news:oY6tb.47400$Mc.20316@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:

Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
something original? Or better yet, reject name-calling
altogether? At least you could appear to be your own
person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.



> >>>Lesley (aka pearl, Lotus, lilweed, etc.) believes that a controlled
> >>>explosion brought down the WTC buildings on 11 September 2001, so it's
> >>>time to update the list of her loony thoughts. In addition to adding
her
> >>>peculiar crackpot ideas on 9-11, I'm also adding the general point that
> >>>she gets her "news" from Jeff Rense's website. What a ditz.
> >
> > In order not to be seen as a crackpot yourself, you need to
> > provide evidence (such as specific quotes from her) supporting
> > each one of these.
>
> There are only a few which she disputes. In fact, she agreed the list is
> 56.25% correct.

If it's only a little more than half right, why are you posting it?


> > She's asked repeatedly.
>
> No, she's *complained* repeatedly.

She's asked.


> > Why haven't you provided that?
>
> I told her she'd have to wait for the next rainy weekend. We got some
> rain last weekend (first rainy weekend in a long time), but not enough
> to be a washout. We have a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so her wish may
> come true.

Yeah, right. You wouldn't even be saying that you're
considering it this weekend, if I hadn't mentioned it.

I know this by observing your behavior here. See Jon
if you have any doubts about the reliability and
persuasiveness of this "argument."



> <snip>
>
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

farrell77 wrote:

> "usual suspect" <support.RemoveThis@our.troops> wrote in message
> news:oY6tb.47400$Mc.20316@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:
>
>
> Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
> something original? Or better yet, reject name-calling
> altogether? At least you could appear to be your own
> person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.

He is no one's sycophant or lapdog.

>
>
>
>
>>>>>Lesley (aka pearl, Lotus, lilweed, etc.) believes that a controlled
>>>>>explosion brought down the WTC buildings on 11 September 2001, so it's
>>>>>time to update the list of her loony thoughts. In addition to adding
>
> her
>
>>>>>peculiar crackpot ideas on 9-11, I'm also adding the general point that
>>>>>she gets her "news" from Jeff Rense's website. What a ditz.
>>>
>>>In order not to be seen as a crackpot yourself, you need to
>>>provide evidence (such as specific quotes from her) supporting
>>>each one of these.
>>
>>There are only a few which she disputes. In fact, she agreed the list is
>>56.25% correct.
>
>
> If it's only a little more than half right, why are you posting it?

Bad observation again, dummy. It isn't only a little
more than half right; a little more than half is what
the stupid HIV-infected whore Lesley *agreed* is right.

You see, Boob? You aren't observant.

>
>
>
>>>She's asked repeatedly.
>>
>>No, she's *complained* repeatedly.
>
>
> She's asked.

She has complained.

>
>
>
>>>Why haven't you provided that?
>>
>>I told her she'd have to wait for the next rainy weekend. We got some
>>rain last weekend (first rainy weekend in a long time), but not enough
>>to be a washout. We have a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so her wish may
>>come true.
>
>
> Yeah, right.

Yes. Right.

> You wouldn't even be saying that you're
> considering it this weekend, if I hadn't mentioned it.

Mind reading again, Boob. You see? You fundamentally
don't get the distinction. You (think you) mind-read;
I observe.

>
> I know this by observing your behavior here.

No, you don't. Clearly, you do not. You are
fundamentally unobservant, as well as a shitbag. See
above for proof.
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

farrell77 wrote:
>>Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:
>
> Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
> something original? Or better yet, reject name-calling
> altogether? At least you could appear to be your own
> person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.

I think my posts show I'm my own man. I'll make a deal with you: I'll
reject name-calling when you fight your own battles rather than trying
to stick up for others OR simply interjecting threads with insults and
your own name-calling.

<...>
>>There are only a few which she disputes. In fact, she agreed the list is
>>56.25% correct.
>
> If it's only a little more than half right, why are you posting it?

No, SHE has agreed it's mostly correct. *I* submit it's fully accurate.

>>>She's asked repeatedly.
>>
>>No, she's *complained* repeatedly.
>
> She's asked.

Complained.

>>>Why haven't you provided that?
>>
>>I told her she'd have to wait for the next rainy weekend. We got some
>>rain last weekend (first rainy weekend in a long time), but not enough
>>to be a washout. We have a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so her wish may
>>come true.
>
> Yeah, right. You wouldn't even be saying that you're
> considering it this weekend, if I hadn't mentioned it.

Bullshit. Take a look at Austin's weather history for the last few
months and tell me when I could've done it (aside from late Sept to
early Oct when I was on vacation). The offer has *always* been for a
rainy weekend.

> I know this by observing your behavior here.

Cyber-stalker.

> See Jon
> if you have any doubts about the reliability and
> persuasiveness of this "argument."

Go back and review the times the little skag has complained. You'll find
that I've offered to do it on a rainy weekend.
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

"usual suspect" <support.TakeThisOut@our.troops> wrote in message
news:%28tb.47673$Mc.6078@twister.austin.rr.com...
> farrell77 wrote:
> >>Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:
> >
> > Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
> > something original? Or better yet, reject name-calling
> > altogether? At least you could appear to be your own
> > person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.
>
> I think my posts show I'm my own man. ...

We disagree at this point, but I'm open to changing my opinion.


> ...I'll make a deal with you: I'll
> reject name-calling when you fight your own battles rather than trying
> to stick up for others OR simply interjecting threads with insults and
> your own name-calling.

Deal on the name-calling and I'll do my best to live up to it, as
far as discussions with you are concerned. Will you consider
applying this to others too?

That said, I have to dispute your claim that I'm not fighting my own
battles (what a strange choice of words!). This is an open, public forum
where any "battle" belongs to anyone who chooses to participate.
As it turns out, the libertarian / AR discussion is one that holds
particular interest to me.


> >>There are only a few which she disputes. In fact, she agreed the list is
> >>56.25% correct.
> >
> > If it's only a little more than half right, why are you posting it?
>
> No, SHE has agreed it's mostly correct. *I* submit it's fully accurate.

I doubt it, but we'll see when you post your evidence.

[...]
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

"Bill" <BillC.DeleteThis@kenstarr.not> wrote in message news:EQ7tb.398$n56.212@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> farrell77 wrote:
> > "usual suspect" <support.DeleteThis@our.troops> wrote in message news:oY6tb.47400$Mc.20316@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >>Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:
> >
> > Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
> > something original? Or better yet, reject name-calling
> > altogether? At least you could appear to be your own
> > person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.
>
> He is no one's sycophant or lapdog.
>
We've all noticed it, Ball. It's a sickening thing to behold.

Since self-confessed vegan, USuspect's recent
mesalliance with Jonathan after catching Dutch's
nasty cold, I thought it might be in everyone's
interest to refresh their memories on his earlier
views before Jonathan told him how to start
thinking his way. By the end of this post you'll see
that usual suspect, although temporarily misguided
by the Anti's disinformation, is in fact a closet ARA.
Through his attempts to conceal this fact and stay
on Jonathan's good side, he has had to make several
changes in position, and this can be shown by the
quotes I've brought here to demonstrate his many
inconsistencies.

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

"I dislike flesh, though my reasons for being vegan
are overwhelmingly health-oriented: I want to live
a long, healthy life, and I think the consumption of
meat, dairy, and eggs is bad for me, animals, my
environment, and the whole world. Is that first part
selfish? Perhaps to some people. Do the other,
more selfless consequences of my diet (no animal
must die for my nourishment or enjoyment, less
pollution and less harm to the environment, etc.)
mitigate the selfish notion of wanting to live long and
without serious health problems associated with an
animal-based diet?"
usual suspect Date: 2002-09-09

From that, only a year ago, USuspect clearly believed
his vegan lifestyle had "selfless consequences", namely
that "no animal must die for his nourishment or
enjoyment," so why does he now insist that my vegan
lifestyle kills animals while his doesn't?

Also, in response to Jonathan's pressure that he
accept animals die for his benefit, he tackles Jon's
CD argument with nothing but a whimper.
[Jonathan Ball]
> Here's how "vegan" engage in Denying the Antecedent:
> If I eat meat, animals died for my diet.
> I don't eat meat.
> Therefore, no animals died for my diet.
[usual suspect]
That is not well-thought out (but thanks for sparing
the algebra). It has one glaring problem: it's just not
true.
[end]

But now, for some unfathomable reason, his logical
reasoning tells him that Jon's illogical argument is
valid and sound. How's that for inconsistency?

ANIMAL RIGHTS

He also believes that animals, though oughtn't be
given rights, must be protected as human children
are, and not be killed for our own benefit;
"I personally subscribe to a more COMMON law
position that animals should not be granted rights
but protection under the law (same as used to apply
to minors)..."
usual suspect Date: 2002-06-11

But, if he once believed animals should to be given
protection using the SAME LAWS as used to apply
to minors, why does he advocate animal research and
testing on them? Also while holding such beliefs, why
does he criticise others when protesting against how
these fellow *minors* are being treated? This very day
he wrote;
"When was the last time you visited a family or
factory farm? Tell us about the conditions you
observed. Did they have someone roaming around,
willfully causing harm to the animals? Or were the
animals well-fed, able to move around, etc.?"
usual suspect Date: 2003-09-08

What sort of "protection under the law (same as used
to apply to minors)..." is he thinking about if it allows
the eating and use of them for research?

This last statement is particularly interesting, seeing
as it was written by someone who refutes the idea
of animal rights;
"I also favor humane treatment, which to me means
not killing them simply for my own benefit."
usual suspect 2002-10-09

What's wrong with killing animals for one's own benefit,
unless that person is a firm believer in that our benefit
cannot trump the inherent rights of an animal? USuspect
is a closet ARA.
Derek 2003-09-08
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

Ipse dixit wrote:

> "Bill" <BillC.TakeThisOut@kenstarr.not> wrote in message news:EQ7tb.398$n56.212@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>farrell77 wrote:
>>
>>>"usual suspect" <support.TakeThisOut@our.troops> wrote in message news:oY6tb.47400$Mc.20316@twister.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:
>>>
>>>Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
>>>something original? Or better yet, reject name-calling
>>>altogether? At least you could appear to be your own
>>>person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.
>>
>>He is no one's sycophant or lapdog.
>>
>
> We've all noticed it, Ball. It's a sickening thing to behold.

Nope. Proof, again, that the "vegans" who post here
are unobservant.
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

farrell77 wrote:
>>>>Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:
>>>
>>>Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
>>>something original? Or better yet, reject name-calling
>>>altogether? At least you could appear to be your own
>>>person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.
>>
>>I think my posts show I'm my own man. ...
>
> We disagree at this point, but I'm open to changing my opinion.

I doubt your sincerity. That's not a baseless swipe, either. I remember
your "aged smoking friend" you met at a high school reunion and how you
tried to use "him" to make cheap points.

>>...I'll make a deal with you: I'll
>>reject name-calling when you fight your own battles rather than trying
>>to stick up for others OR simply interjecting threads with insults and
>>your own name-calling.
>
> Deal on the name-calling and I'll do my best to live up to it, as
> far as discussions with you are concerned. Will you consider
> applying this to others too?

You want me to refrain from calling others names?

> That said, I have to dispute your claim that I'm not fighting my own
> battles (what a strange choice of words!). This is an open, public forum
> where any "battle" belongs to anyone who chooses to participate.

Agreed, but your MO is to enter in without discussing the merits on the
table. Instead, you merely lash out at others (usually Jonathan). And as
noted in a another response to you, you rarely support your contentions.
Unless you make up aged chain-smokers.

> As it turns out, the libertarian / AR discussion is one that holds
> particular interest to me.

Then you should address the messages rather than the messengers.

>>>>There are only a few which she disputes. In fact, she agreed the list is
>>>>56.25% correct.
>>>
>>>If it's only a little more than half right, why are you posting it?
>>
>>No, SHE has agreed it's mostly correct. *I* submit it's fully accurate.
>
> I doubt it,

Yes, you like to announce that you doubt stuff without explaining why.

> but we'll see when you post your evidence.

Will you be man enough to apologize for being a dick about it?
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

"usual suspect" <support RemoveThis @our.troops> wrote in message
news:Lz8tb.47797$Mc.19457@twister.austin.rr.com...
> farrell77 wrote:
> >>>>Sophist Bob crawled out from under his rock and wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Can't you be more than Jon's sycophant and come up with
> >>>something original? Or better yet, reject name-calling
> >>>altogether? At least you could appear to be your own
> >>>person, rather than his weak-minded, weak-willed lapdog.
> >>
> >>I think my posts show I'm my own man. ...
> >
> > We disagree at this point, but I'm open to changing my opinion.
>
> I doubt your sincerity. That's not a baseless swipe, either. I remember
> your "aged smoking friend" you met at a high school reunion and how you
> tried to use "him" to make cheap points.

I had a few rare spare minutes and was just looking for some
conversation that day. There was no cheap point. It was valid.

Sheesh! It's pretty bad when a forum has become so polarized
that even relatively innocuous topics become so controversial.


> >>...I'll make a deal with you: I'll
> >>reject name-calling when you fight your own battles rather than trying
> >>to stick up for others OR simply interjecting threads with insults and
> >>your own name-calling.
> >
> > Deal on the name-calling and I'll do my best to live up to it, as
> > far as discussions with you are concerned. Will you consider
> > applying this to others too?
>
> You want me to refrain from calling others names?

Yes. Why not follow your own advice?

--------------- insertions ----------------

"Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
-'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03

"Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.
...
... the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue."
-'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03

"Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the
issues rather than attack the character of others."
-'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03

"Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of
debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03

------------- end of insertions ----------------------


> > That said, I have to dispute your claim that I'm not fighting my own
> > battles (what a strange choice of words!). This is an open, public
forum
> > where any "battle" belongs to anyone who chooses to participate.
>
> Agreed, but your MO is to enter in without discussing the merits on the
> table. Instead, you merely lash out at others (usually Jonathan). And as
> noted in a another response to you, you rarely support your contentions.
> Unless you make up aged chain-smokers.

1. I would love to engage in thoughtful lengthy discussions
about how humans do and should treat animals. But I simply
don't have the time. As a result, I will sometimes interject
comments and pick up on sub-arguments. Sorry but's all
my schedule currently permits. You will find that back in the
early 1990s, I posted extensively and more substantively.

2. Jon is the one who has lied repeatedly about me. He's also
called me and many others names. He's done this to a far
greater extent than anyone else who's ever posted in this
forum (TPA). No one comes close. All this is undeniable.
So when I lash out at him, ... well it's something he's earned.
AFAIK I have never initiated it. But he has, very often.


> > As it turns out, the libertarian / AR discussion is one that holds
> > particular interest to me.
>
> Then you should address the messages rather than the messengers.

I did address the messages.


> >>>>There are only a few which she disputes. In fact, she agreed the list
is
> >>>>56.25% correct.
> >>>
> >>>If it's only a little more than half right, why are you posting it?
> >>
> >>No, SHE has agreed it's mostly correct. *I* submit it's fully accurate.
> >
> > I doubt it,
>
> Yes, you like to announce that you doubt stuff without explaining why.
>
> > but we'll see when you post your evidence.
>
> Will you be man enough to apologize for being a dick about it?

I will, IF you can convincingly support all the items on your list and you
agree to treat her respectfully, even though you may disagree
vehemently with her views.

BTW what's the purpose of the list? To make a personal attack on
another. Why not stick to issues? Like your own advice above
calls for.
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

"farrell77" <farrell77.RemoveThis@spamfree.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Obctb.1820$196.73816@news.uswest.net...
>
>
> "usual suspect" <support.RemoveThis@our.troops> wrote in message
> news:Lz8tb.47797$Mc.19457@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > farrell77 wrote:
<..>
> > > but we'll see when you post your evidence.
> >
> > Will you be man enough to apologize for being a dick about it?
>
> I will, IF you can convincingly support all the items on your list

He can't.

> and you
> agree to treat her respectfully, even though you may disagree
> vehemently with her views.

Thank you, farrell.

> BTW what's the purpose of the list? To make a personal attack on
> another. Why not stick to issues? Like your own advice above
> calls for.
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

>
> Not with that inane list, which she's on record as
> disputing, you haven't.

Here's the list again, Bob. Let's have a look at some of them a
little closer.

"veganism"

That's actually far enough. That one stupid belief is all anyone
needs to know. I doubt you're disputing her belief in this one.

"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"

I'm one of many people who have argued against her insane belief
in these two fantasies. Why would you defend someone who is so clearly
not in command of all her mental faculties?

that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe

The stupid bitch thought you could receive a patent for a
geographical discovery. My wife pointed out exactly what the patent
category numbers meant, and "pearl' (or whatever silly name she was
using at the time) continued to argue against all reason. I think this
was about the time that other ignorant halfwit, Dreck, began to
realize his sweetheart just ain't playing with a full deck.



your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef

She and Dreck post that one often. In the last discussion I had on
the issue, the numbers started out ridiculously high, and since
neither of them is intelligent enough to know what they are doing,
they kept adding to the numbers until they reached stratospheric
proportions. At the exponential rate their "ratio" kept increasing,
had they continued for a few more days, they'd have "shown" there's
not enough vegetation on the planet to feed one friggin' cow!

rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)

Jonathan has discussed these two at length.

Stolen French flying saucer

That's a new one to me, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the
ignorant bitch believes in all sorts of things of this nature. Damn
Bob, she believes the FUCKING EARTH is HOLLOW with an "inner sun" and
is inhabited by a SUPERHUMAN RACE! Fuck, what would someone that
mentally unstable NOT be likely to believe in?

Zapper

Are you disputing this one?

Foot massage (as cure-all)

Ask Dreck.

Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction

I don't recall seeing these actually mentioned, but the other stuff
she believes practically requires that she also subscribes to these
three. Hell, she probably thinks she is an alien abductee.

Holocaust denial

I don't know about this one.

Leprechauns

Hehe.

Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles

Every single one of those is a natural belief for the way her mind
works and she has alluded to everyone of them in the past, and has
probably defended them outright. The "hollow earth" nonsense involved
both channeling and polar fountains. Tell me which ones you don't
believe and I'll see what i can find.

sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

Those are all quite recent, I've read the posts. In fact, I think
you already know this list is damn near 100$ accurate (and likely is
100% true) but wanted to waste someone's time by forcing them to
verify something you already know. What's your next stunt to defend
the semi-intelligent vegans on these groups? If I said feraltwat
thinks moles can outrun cats, are you going to demand I go back and
find the exact post? Don't get me wrong, I understand asking for
verification on items that are in serious dispute. However, you know
sleazeweed has been posting fantasy-laden, pseudo-scientific nonsense
for years and no weird belief is outside her realm of acceptance. Like
most on "the side", you simply lack thte integrity to be honest where
one of "your own" is concerned. Why are you wasting time asking
someone to substantiate common knowledge? Come on Bob, show some
honesty and admit this bitch has some serious problems with rational
thinking.

Kevin
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

I tried to commit suicide by sticking my head
in the oven, but there was a cake in it.
-Lesley Boone.

;)

Seriously though;

Freedom hath a thousand charms to show,
That slaves however contented never know.
- Cowper

:p
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:39:20 -0000, "pearl" <tea.TakeThisOut@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>valid:
>hollow earth
>inner-earth beings
>chemtrails
>9/11 controlled demolition
>veganism
>Aids and Ebola man-made
>astrology
>'zappers'
>reflexology
>crop-circles
>telepathy (channelling)
>Rense

I don't know what "zappers" are or "Rense" is, but the rest are
sufficient to show your beliefs indiscriminate and your skepticism
level profoundly lacking.

>lied about:
>feed:beef ratio

No, he didn't. Your original ratio of 8:1 was about right. Then you,
along w/ help of other ar/evs, began adding irrelevant factors
(transportation of livestock and livestock feeds) and omitting
relevant ones (finishing, silage). By the time you were done bloating
the ratio, you'd proven that mammalian life can't exist on Earth.
Since *most* of us have the ability to look around and see
observational evidence to the contrary, we logically concluded your
numbers were grossly inaccurate. Your challenge that we parse your
numbers and double-check your arithmetic was a hollow bluff and
unnecessary exercize.

Just so you know, if ruminants required the staggering 85-90:1 feed to
meat ratio you eventually rocketed to, a cow pie would have more
potential chemical energy than TNT. Another fantastic possibilty is
that livestock are running internal temps in the 1000F range, in which
case 5000 head of cattle are producing enough energy to light Chicago.

You and your number-juggling "disproved" the First Law of
Thermodynamics. You didn't know you were doing this, but when the
obvious flaws were pointed out to you, you continued to insist your
ratios were arrived at accurately. Thus, suspect's accusation is/was
valid. I don't recall participating in the other discussions, but I'll
bet his other accusations are valid as well.

-- swamp
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update 

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:33:57 -0000, "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>"swamp" <swamp.DeleteThis@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:rb4isvoap0qb24q4aqat170t6ac8gjl9ep@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:39:20 -0000, "pearl" <tea.DeleteThis@signguestbook.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >valid:
>> >hollow earth
>> >inner-earth beings
>> >chemtrails
>> >9/11 controlled demolition
>> >veganism
>> >Aids and Ebola man-made
>> >astrology
>> >'zappers'
>> >reflexology
>> >crop-circles
>> >telepathy (channelling)
>> >Rense
>>
>> I don't know what "zappers" are or "Rense" is, but the rest are
>> sufficient to show your beliefs indiscriminate and your skepticism
>> level profoundly lacking.
>
>Ipse dixit.

Nope. Those beliefs "dixit" themselves.

>> >lied about:
>> >feed:beef ratio
>>
>> No, he didn't. Your original ratio of 8:1 was about right.
>
>8:1 is about right for grain (excluding silage/hay) : liveweight gain.

8:1 is about right for every juvenile, land-based herbivorous mammal.
The ratio goes down upon maturity.

[snip of bad math and misapplied, undocumented data]

>Right?

Wrong. Let's work backwards, just to double-check your results. For
ease of calculation, let's say the average steer gains 1000# from
birth to slaughter and you argue it takes 100# of feed per # to gain
the weight. That means the animal consumes 100,000# of feed during
that time. 1 oz. of wheat contains 80 calories. Once again, for ease
of calculation let's say 750 calories/#. So, given the ratio you
provide, a single steer consumes 75 million calories before slaughter.

Since beef is about twice as "calorie dense" as wheat, you have 60
million calories/steer to account for. Some would go toward movement
and maintaining body temp, and some would be excreted in feces, urine,
and sweat, but nowhere close to 80% of a ruminant's intake goes there.

>> Then you,
>> along w/ help of other ar/evs, began adding irrelevant factors
>> (transportation of livestock and livestock feeds) and omitting
>> relevant ones (finishing, silage). By the time you were done bloating
>> the ratio, you'd proven that mammalian life can't exist on Earth.
>> Since *most* of us have the ability to look around and see
>> observational evidence to the contrary, we logically concluded your
>> numbers were grossly inaccurate. Your challenge that we parse your
>> numbers and double-check your arithmetic was a hollow bluff and
>> unnecessary exercize.
>
>Huff and puff all you like, swamp, you can't blow the data away.

I just did, or more accurately, your dishonest manipulation of them.
The physical impossibility of a mathematical result, in itself, isn't
damning. It often happens when you're engaged in lengthy calculations.
You go back over your math and find the mistake(s). Could be a decimal
point out of place, a polarity or transcription error, anything. You,
otoh, are clearly more interested in propogating mistakes than finding
them.

>> Just so you know, if ruminants required the staggering 85-90:1 feed to
>> meat ratio you eventually rocketed to,
>
>DM.

???

>> a cow pie would have more
>> potential chemical energy than TNT.
>
>Welcome to the real world.

The real world? You do realize cow pies aren't actually land mines,
don't you? I ask because your grasp of the real world is...
unscientific. You can add ~1 qt. of ammonia to a 60# bag of steer
manure and get roughly the equivalent of one stick of dynamite. I
don't know how many cow pies it takes to make 60# of manure, but it's
definitely a helluva lot more than one.

>> Another fantastic possibilty is
>> that livestock are running internal temps in the 1000F range, in which
>> case 5000 head of cattle are producing enough energy to light Chicago.
>
>No need to exaggerate. Really.

You're hardly one to be admonishing anyone about exaggerating. Using
your techniques, here's the math:

75 million calories = 87.225 kilowatt hours, or enough energy to light
7 typical US households. So, 5000 head would light a town of 35,000.
Since we're allowed a 10:1 exaggeration factor, that'd be a town of
350,000. And since we're allowed a 10:1 mathematical error, that'd a
town of 3,500,000. That's Chicago, baby.

>> You and your number-juggling "disproved" the First Law of
>> Thermodynamics. You didn't know you were doing this, but when the
>> obvious flaws were pointed out to you, you continued to insist your
>> ratios were arrived at accurately. Thus, suspect's accusation is/was
>> valid. I don't recall participating in the other discussions, but I'll
>> bet his other accusations are valid as well.
>
>No flaws were pointed out. Suggest you do your own thinking.

I do, and strongly suggest you don't, (both meanings intended)

-- swamp
 >> Stay informed about: pearl's list update