Reply to this, if you must reply, or I won't see it, not that I want to.

"Derek Moody" wrote in message ...
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.

Yes, 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.

-restore-
'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
-end restore-

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.

Who exactly are you trying to fool, moody? Does it not bother
you in the teensiest-weensiest to blatently lie in everyone's face?

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.

Nonsense.

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.

Why not?

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

snip text you haven't understood.

You're an idiot.

As I said, price manipulation by a
command economy. When the brakes came off everything fell apart.

You could put it that way.

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.

I've just given you the pertinent definition, haven't I.

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

Useful stuff, especially where oakum is too coarse.

Not with a PC, and I don't see "second hand opinions" anywhere.


And stop messing with the followup newsgroups, derek.

Had you not removed your group you would have seen the following
response to your post.

Derek Moody wrote:
In article , Alan Holmes
wrote:
"pearl" wrote in message
...

And stop messing with the followup newsgroups, derek.

And why the hell don't you stop crossposting all this rubbish to so many
unrelated newsroups, just respond to the group you read it in.

Every time I cut the crossposts to groups for which it is relevant she
reinstates them.

Pearl (Lotus/Leslie &c.) works on the assumption that if she crossposts
widely enough then eventally she might convince someone by accident.

Btw; you might like to review your BI. It's way over threshold.

Cheerio,



--
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]