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]
> > > "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.
> =================
You should know, since you keep posting ignorant crap that doesn't even back
up what you claim..


> >
>
>