"pearl" wrote in message
...
"(o)(o)" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:44:32 -0000, "pearl"
wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
..
Fair enough, pearl refuses to admit the details of her diet because
she
knows we'd take the rip out of her because of the air miles and the
fact
that most is imported from third world countries with water deficits.

You've some cheek, blame shifter.

You can't twist and wiggle your way off the hook, try as you might,
and the more you try, the more foolish and ignorant you look, jim.

That's our dimbo. He cares little for himself or his own family, let
alone the global community.

That is clear, and he doesn't seem to realise that most people reading
this
do care about other human beings, if not biodiversity and sustainability.

no, I'm posting for those intelligent enough to work out that the ones who
matter are the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians,
pete and pearl and irrelevent

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"(o)(o)" wrote in message
...
..
That's our dimbo. He cares little for himself or his own family, let
alone the global community.

That is clear, and he doesn't seem to realise that most people reading this
do care about other human beings, if not biodiversity and sustainability.

no, I'm posting for those intelligent enough to work out that the ones who
matter are the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians,

That doesn't require any working out.

pete and pearl and irrelevent

I do hope that you're enjoying the weather.

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"(o)(o)" wrote in message
...
..
That's our dimbo. He cares little for himself or his own family, let
alone the global community.

That is clear, and he doesn't seem to realise that most people reading
this
do care about other human beings, if not biodiversity and
sustainability.

no, I'm posting for those intelligent enough to work out that the ones
who
matter are the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians,

That doesn't require any working out.

you are having trouble grasping it

pete and pearl and irrelevent

I do hope that you're enjoying the weather.

of course, as our house was built four or more centuries before planning
acts it is in a sensible place.
As opposed to where local government would want us to build

Jim Webster

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:33:56 -0000, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"(o)(o)" wrote in message
...
..
That's our dimbo. He cares little for himself or his own family, let
alone the global community.

That is clear, and he doesn't seem to realise that most people reading
this
do care about other human beings, if not biodiversity and
sustainability.

no, I'm posting for those intelligent enough to work out that the ones
who
matter are the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians,

That doesn't require any working out.

you are having trouble grasping it

pete and pearl and irrelevent

I do hope that you're enjoying the weather.

of course, as our house was built four or more centuries before planning
acts it is in a sensible place.
As opposed to where local government would want us to build


Planning applications not quite going your way! lol.

"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"(o)(o)" wrote in message
...
..
That's our dimbo. He cares little for himself or his own family, let
alone the global community.

That is clear, and he doesn't seem to realise that most people reading
this do care about other human beings, if not biodiversity and
sustainability.

no, I'm posting for those intelligent enough to work out that the ones
who
matter are the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians,

That doesn't require any working out.

you are having trouble grasping it

No, you seem to be, but of course no one could be that stupid.

This is from my reply to the post you removed 3 Newsgroups
from, btw. You sorely need a better edjumacation, webster..

'The USSR was the largest grain importer in the world in the 1980s,
importing an average of 36 million tonnes per year, much of which
went to Russia (Figure 3). At the end of the 1980s the Russian
Federation was importing about 20 million tonnes of grain per year.
[3] After 1993, however, the Russian Federation drastically reduced
imports of grain. This is entirely reasonable, since feed demand for
grain had fallen due to the fall in livestock inventories. Meat imports,
particularly of poultry meat, increased rather dramatically in these
years (Figure 3). The rouble devaluation of 1998 caused a decrease
in meat imports. But healthy economic growth between 1999 and
2001 fuelled a growth in meat imports once again.

The main reasons for these revolutionary changes in Russian
agricultural production, use and trade lie in a change in the position
of the livestock sector in Russian agriculture in the Soviet period
and after. In the 1960s and 1970s, Krushchev and particularly
Brezhnev made the decision to improve the Soviet standard of
living primarily by increasing consumption of livestock products.
To increase meat production, the Brezhnev regime concentrated
on investing in "industrial" livestock production (Van Atta, 1993).
Demand for meat was ensured by keeping Soviet retail prices for
meat virtually constant from the mid-1960s to 1990. Increasing
livestock inventories also required increases in grain for feed.
Soviet grain production increases (predominantly in Russia and
Kazakhstan) of about 60 million tonnes per year from the early
1960s to the late 1970s was not sufficient to support the increase
in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year in
the 1980s (Shend, 1993).
...'
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5069e/y5069e03.htm

pete and pearl and irrelevent

I do hope that you're enjoying the weather.

of course, as our house was built four or more centuries before planning
acts it is in a sensible place.
As opposed to where local government would want us to build

Yeah, they sure don't make things like they used to or should
( http://www.kintaline.co.uk/stormatjims.html ) , but at least
these days there's insurance to pick up the tab, and as long as
jim personally is ok, then surely that's all that matters (to jim).

'Europe Mops Up After Storm Kills 47
By DAVID RISING
AP

BERLIN (Jan. 19) - Europeans worked Friday to restore
services across the continent after hurricane-force winds
toppled trees, brought down power lines and damaged
buildings, killing at least 47 people and disrupting travel
for tens of thousands.
...
Hurricane-force winds and driving rain left 14 people dead
in Britain, 12 in Germany, six each in the Netherlands and
Poland, four in the Czech Republic, three in France and
two in Belgium.

It was the highest death toll from a storm in Europe since
1999, when gales downed trees and driving snow brought
on avalanches, killing more than 120 in three days.

Climate researchers had been predicting stormy weather
this year for parts of Europe, saying that unusually high
temperatures in the North Atlantic, around 1 to 2 degrees
above normal _ would allow winds to accumulate more
moisture and surge in energy.

Researchers said that while no single storm could be linked
to rising temperatures, global warming could result in more
such tempestuous weather. Europe has been experiencing
an extremely warm winter and has already been hit by
several wind storms.

"In times of rapid climactic change, extreme events arise
more frequently," said Peter Werner of the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Research.
....
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles...90001?cid=2359

'Global warming: the final verdict

A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will
happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought

Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday January 21, 2007
The Observer

Global warming is destined to have a far more destructive and
earlier impact than previously estimated, the most authoritative
report yet produced on climate change will warn next week.

A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The
Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms - like the
ones that battered Britain last week - will increase dramatically.
Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre;
snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts
will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction
of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heatwaves will become
more prevalent.

The impact will be catastrophic, forcing hundreds of millions
of people to flee their devastated homelands, particularly in
tropical, low-lying areas, while creating waves of immigrants
whose movements will strain the economies of even the most
affluent countries.
........
'We are like alcoholics who have got as far as admitting there
is a problem. It is a start. Now we have got to start drying out
- which means reducing our carbon output.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...995348,00.html

'Livestock a major threat to environment
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...448/index.html

'As stocks run out and harvests fail, the world faces its worst
crisis for 30 years
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle1325467.ece

Alan Holmes wrote:

In all sorts of newsgroups, having deleted uk.rec.gardening, and without
snipping any of the rubbish

Why the bloody hell don't you restrict the posting to the group you read it
in, stop crossposting all this rubbish

1. If you are asking a question it is only reasonable for you to
include the group in which you read the original and from which you are
presumably responding. If you don't include that group you will never
see the reply.

2. It is also reasonable, and normal usenet etiquette, to snip from the
original post all except that portion which enables subsequent readers
to understand the response made.

3. Pearl, to whom you were responding, is one of the spammers who
deliberately targets many irrelevant groups with "this rubbish".

HTH

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

PS, I do not subscribe to URG

In article , pearl
wrote:
"Jim Webster" wrote in message news:51bs5nF1fub
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...

you are having trouble grasping it

No, you seem to be, but of course no one could be that stupid.

This is from my reply to the post you removed 3 Newsgroups
from, btw. You sorely need a better edjumacation, webster..

He removed the groups because none of them had shown any interest in your
meanderings. You are right in one thing however:

'The USSR was the largest grain importer in the world in the 1980s,
importing an average of 36 million tonnes per year, much of which

Jim has yet to learn that you are incapable of understanding -anything- with
a number in it, anything with a logical argument in it, and that although
everyone else is capable of scrolling upthread to review an argument you are
not.

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

"Derek Moody" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl
wrote:
"Jim Webster" wrote in message news:51bs5nF1fub
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...

you are having trouble grasping it

No, you seem to be, but of course no one could be that stupid.

This is from my reply to the post you removed 3 Newsgroups
from, btw. You sorely need a better edjumacation, webster..

He removed the groups because none of them had shown any interest in your
meanderings.

No meanderings here.

You are right in one thing

I'm right in all of it.

however:

'The USSR was the largest grain importer in the world in the 1980s,
importing an average of 36 million tonnes per year, much of which

That's what jim was claiming. You snipped the rest of it because
it shows the reason *why* imports went up from *near zero*:

'The USSR was the largest grain importer in the world in the 1980s,
importing an average of 36 million tonnes per year, much of which
went to Russia (Figure 3). At the end of the 1980s the Russian
Federation was importing about 20 million tonnes of grain per year.
[3] After 1993, however, the Russian Federation drastically reduced
imports of grain. This is entirely reasonable, since feed demand for
grain had fallen due to the fall in livestock inventories. Meat imports,
particularly of poultry meat, increased rather dramatically in these
years (Figure 3). The rouble devaluation of 1998 caused a decrease
in meat imports. But healthy economic growth between 1999 and
2001 fuelled a growth in meat imports once again.

The main reasons for these revolutionary changes in Russian
agricultural production, use and trade lie in a change in the position
of the livestock sector in Russian agriculture in the Soviet period
and after. In the 1960s and 1970s, Krushchev and particularly
Brezhnev made the decision to improve the Soviet standard of
living primarily by increasing consumption of livestock products.
To increase meat production, the Brezhnev regime concentrated
on investing in "industrial" livestock production (Van Atta, 1993).
Demand for meat was ensured by keeping Soviet retail prices for
meat virtually constant from the mid-1960s to 1990. Increasing
livestock inventories also required increases in grain for feed.
Soviet grain production increases (predominantly in Russia and
Kazakhstan) of about 60 million tonnes per year from the early
1960s to the late 1970s was not sufficient to support the increase
in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year in
the 1980s (Shend, 1993).
...'
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5069e/y5069e03.htm

Jim has yet to learn that you are incapable of understanding -anything- with
a number in it, anything with a logical argument in it, and that although
everyone else is capable of scrolling upthread to review an argument you are
not.

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

Well done, moody.

In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant220047bc8BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

He removed the groups because none of them had shown any interest in your
meanderings.

No meanderings here.

You just did another one.

You are right in one thing

I'm right in all of it.

however:

'The USSR was the largest grain importer in the world in the 1980s,
importing an average of 36 million tonnes per year, much of which

That's what jim was claiming. You snipped the rest of it because
it shows the reason *why* imports went up from *near zero*:

I snipped the rest of it because I am able to scroll upthread if I
want to review. You have once more demonstrated that you cannot.

it had numbers in btw, not an explanation of the underlying reasons.

Jim has yet to learn that you are incapable of understanding -anything- with
a number in it, anything with a logical argument in it, and that although
everyone else is capable of scrolling upthread to review an argument you are
not.

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

I'm not the one arguing from recycled rags of second hand opinion.

Well done, moody.

fx: Bows modestly.

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

"Derek Moody" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant220047bc8BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

He removed the groups because none of them had shown any interest in your
meanderings.

No meanderings here.

You just did another one.

?

You are right in one thing

I'm right in all of it.

however:

'The USSR was the largest grain importer in the world in the 1980s,
importing an average of 36 million tonnes per year, much of which

That's what jim was claiming. You snipped the rest of it because
it shows the reason *why* imports went up from *near zero*:

- actually, from self-sufficiency | + | , as noted.

I snipped the rest of it because I am able to scroll upthread if I
want to review. You have once more demonstrated that you cannot.

What a silly allegation. I'm using OE. It's very easy to use, really.

it had numbers in btw, not an explanation of the underlying reasons.

oooh, numbers. Look, this part has even more numbers -

'Soviet grain production increases (predominantly in Russia and
Kazakhstan) of about 60 million tonnes per year from the early
1960s to the late 1970s was not sufficient to support the increase
in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year
in the 1980s (Shend, 1993).
...'
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5069e/y5069e03.htm

Scroll up, as your sooo good at it (and it's no mean
feat with a sore hand), and look at the bit you left in.

The underlying reasons are all-important. Review
the thread to your heart's content, and ponder that.

Jim has yet to learn that you are incapable of understanding -anything- with
a number in it, anything with a logical argument in it, and that although
everyone else is capable of scrolling upthread to review an argument you are
not.

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

I'm not the one arguing from recycled rags of second hand opinion.

You seem to be implying that I do, which I do not.
I argue with facts. I'll give my own opinion from
time to time, and I sometimes quote others' views.

You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have
an argument. All you do is distort, lie and insult.

Well done, moody.

fx: Bows modestly.

Always the clown.

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant230241313BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

No meanderings here.

You just did another one.

?

Look up 'meander'.

I snipped the rest of it because I am able to scroll upthread if I
want to review. You have once more demonstrated that you cannot.

What a silly allegation. I'm using OE. It's very easy to use, really.

In that case post your copied verbiage once and once only. Don't
reinstate the stuff that already bored us all.

it had numbers in btw, not an explanation of the underlying reasons.

oooh, numbers. Look, this part has even more numbers -

I checked the UN article when you first referred to it. No need to
quote -any- of it here.

The underlying reasons are all-important. Review
the thread to your heart's content, and ponder that.

The underlying reasons are political, price manipulation by a command
economy. To maintain the distorted market the USSR had to import
grain - it couldn't feed itself.

This is all in the UN document you quoted - but blinded by the numbers
you don't seem to appreciate that this entirely negates your own
argument.

Current production is hampered by the remnants of the collective
system leaving ownership and access to too many people who have not
the resources to work the land. Where thay have been bought out the
new farms are far more productive than the old collectives.

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

I'm not the one arguing from recycled rags of second hand opinion.

You seem to be implying that I do, which I do not.

You raised the topic of recycled material. Or do you not know the
meaning of 'shoddy'?

I argue with facts. I'll give my own opinion from
time to time, and I sometimes quote others' views.

You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have
an argument. All you do is distort, lie and insult.

At least -read- the stuff you quote and try to understand it before you rant.

Well done, moody.

fx: Bows modestly.

Always the clown.

fx: Whirls illuminated bow tie and squirts water from fake rose

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

"Derek Moody" wrote in message ...
In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant230241313BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

No meanderings here.

You just did another one.

?

Look up 'meander'.

I know what the word means. I don't see how it applies to me.

I snipped the rest of it because I am able to scroll upthread if I
want to review. You have once more demonstrated that you cannot.

What a silly allegation. I'm using OE. It's very easy to use, really.

In that case post your copied verbiage once and once only. Don't
reinstate the stuff that already bored us all.

Quite the control freak, aren't you. A serial bully / psychopath.

If you're bored by my posts, you know what you can do, right?

it had numbers in btw, not an explanation of the underlying reasons.

oooh, numbers. Look, this part has even more numbers -

I checked the UN article when you first referred to it. No need to
quote -any- of it here.

LOL. Clearly there is.

The underlying reasons are all-important. Review
the thread to your heart's content, and ponder that.

The underlying reasons are political, price manipulation by a command
economy. To maintain the distorted market the USSR had to import
grain - it couldn't feed itself.

'Soviet grain production increases (predominantly in Russia and
Kazakhstan) of about 60 million tonnes per year from the early
1960s to the late 1970s was not sufficient to support the increase
in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year
in the 1980s (Shend, 1993).
...'
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5069e/y5069e03.htm

This is all in the UN document you quoted - but blinded by the numbers
you don't seem to appreciate that this entirely negates your own
argument.

See above.

Current production is hampered by the remnants of the collective
system leaving ownership and access to too many people who have not
the resources to work the land.

Huh?

Where thay have been bought out the
new farms are far more productive than the old collectives.

'The IMF has helped foster a severe depression in Russia

Russia in the 1990s has witnessed a peacetime economic contraction
of unprecedented scale. Many believe much of the blame for the social
and economic catastrophe rests with the IMF, which has had a central
role in designing and supervising Russia's economic policy since 1992.

The number of Russians in poverty has risen from 2 million to 60
million since the IMF came to post-Communist Russia. Male life
expectancy has dropped sharply from 65 years to 57. Economic
output is down by at least 40 percent.

The IMF's shock therapy - sudden and intense structural
adjustment - helped bring about this disaster

"In retrospect, its hard to see what could have been done wrong
that wasn't," Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research told a Congressional committee in late 1998.
"First there was an immediate de-control of prices. Given the
monopoly structure of the economy, as well as the large amount
of cash savings accumulated by Russian households, inflation
soared 520 percent in the first three months. Millions of people
saw their savings and pensions reduced to crumbs."

"Then the IMF and Russian policymakers compounded their
mistakes," Weisbrot explained. "In order to push inflation
down, the authorities slammed on the monetary and fiscal
brakes, bringing about a depression. Privatization was carried
out in a way that enriched a small class of people, while the
average persons income fell by about half within four years."

Meanwhile, Russia kept its economy functioning with an influx
of foreign funds, lent at astronomically high interest rates
because of the strong possibility of default. In 1998, with the
Asian crisis still unfolding and with Russian default seemingly
near, the IMF agreed to a $23 billion loan package to Russia,
seeking to maintain the rubles overvalued exchange rate. An
initial $4.8 billion portion of the loan left the country immediately
[...] some used to pay off foreign lenders, much of it stolen by
Russian politicians.

- IMF versus Russia by Vladimir Shestakov.

http://www.doublestandards.org/sap1.html

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

I'm not the one arguing from recycled rags of second hand opinion.

You seem to be implying that I do, which I do not.

You raised the topic of recycled material. Or do you not know the
meaning of 'shoddy'?

'shod·dy

1. Made of or containing inferior material.
2a. Of poor quality or craft.
b. Rundown; shabby.
3. Dishonest or reprehensible: ..
4. Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.

http://www.answers.com/shoddy&r=67

I argue with facts. I'll give my own opinion from
time to time, and I sometimes quote others' views.

You, on the other hand, don't even seem to have
an argument. All you do is distort, lie and insult.

At least -read- the stuff you quote and try to understand it before you rant.

There you go. You just can't help yourself, can you.

Well done, moody.

fx: Bows modestly.

Always the clown.

fx: Whirls illuminated bow tie and squirts water from fake rose

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

In article , pearl
wrote:
"Derek Moody" wrote in message news:ant231514064BxcK@half-ba
ked-idea.co.uk...
In article , pearl
wrote:

I checked the UN article when you first referred to it. No need to
quote -any- of it here.

LOL. Clearly there is.

No.

The underlying reasons are all-important. Review
the thread to your heart's content, and ponder that.

The underlying reasons are political, price manipulation by a command
economy. To maintain the distorted market the USSR had to import
grain - it couldn't feed itself.

in livestock inventories. For this reason, Soviet imports of grain
increased from near zero in 1970 to 36 million tonnes per year

It couldn't feed itself.

This is all in the UN document you quoted - but blinded by the numbers
you don't seem to appreciate that this entirely negates your own
argument.

See above.

Yes, it negates your argument.

Current production is hampered by the remnants of the collective
system leaving ownership and access to too many people who have not
the resources to work the land.

Huh?

Each individual owns too little to be worked economically.

Where they have been bought out the
new farms are far more productive than the old collectives.

snip text you haven't understood. As I said, price manipulation by a
command economy. When the brakes came off everything fell apart.

Jim isn't, and you have shown that you are another shoddy liar.

I'm not the one arguing from recycled rags of second hand opinion.

You seem to be implying that I do, which I do not.

You raised the topic of recycled material. Or do you not know the
meaning of 'shoddy'?

'shod·dy

1. Made of or containing inferior material.
2a. Of poor quality or craft.
b. Rundown; shabby.
3. Dishonest or reprehensible: ..
4. Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.

http://www.answers.com/shoddy&r=67

So you don't know what shoddy is.

N. Wool from shredded rags: cloth made from it, alone or mixed.
Chambers Dictionary.

Useful stuff, especially where oakum is too coarse.

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

Alan Holmes wrote:
"pearl" wrote in message
...

an awful lot of rubbish, which I don't bother to read

Why the hell don't you restrict your posts to the newsgroup you read them
in, rather than keep distributing this rubbish over so many unrelated groups

I have told you Alan, Pearl doesn't read, she just posts. Typically she
posts the rubbish about which you are complaining *and* cross posts it
to many irrelevant groups.

If you don't like seeing it, killfile her.

Oh, if you ask a question you might:

a. snip the post

b. leave your group in so that you receive any responses.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]