Re: pearl's list update

"pearl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "rick etter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "pearl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > "swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:21:14 -0000, "pearl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > <..>
> > > > >Show where the math is 'bad', swamp, also where the data
> > > > >is 'misapplied and undocumented'.
> > > >
> > > > You came up w/ the wildly impossible figures. Fixing your calcs is
> > > > *your* job, not mine.
> > >
> > > Support your claims.
> > >
> > > restore;
> > >
> > > (Information from the USDA's Economic Research Service
> > > shows that only one pound of beef is produced for every sixteen
> > > pounds of grain consumed.
> > > http://royal.okanagan.bc.ca/mpidwirn/agriculture/agriculture.html )
> > >
> > > The figures I've worked out, using industry data, is total feed
> > > (grain + silage/hay) required for beef gain.
> > ==================
> > Again, there is no requirement, killer.
>
> You moron.
================
that's you.

snippage... of pure BS.