Re: pearl's list update

"rick etter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.

Idiot troll.

>