On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:39:22 +0100, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity,
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"nick" <pizzalovingcriminals@no-spam> two-fingered to all:
|>
|>"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
|>
|>> |>> |>> |>> You pick one out of an area and test it. If it's clean, the
|>> |>> |>reasonable
|>> |>> |>> |>assumption is that all the others from that area are
|>> |>> |>> |>> clean. Do you think the packagers of that vat sludge you love
|>so
|>> |>much
|>> |>> |>> |>take a
|>> |>> |>> |>> dollup from every can?
|>> |>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>> |>Your meat packers are supposed to test the "downers", i.e. mad
|>cows,
|>> |>but
|>> |>> |>> |>apparantly they seldom bother.
|>> |>> |>>
|>> |>> |>> Test 'em for what?
|>> |>> |>
|>> |>> |>BSE, silly.
|>> |>
|>> |>> Necessity in the UK is not necessity in the US.
|>> |>
|>> |>You don't care if your meat is infected?
|>>
|>> I don't eat the brains.
|>
|>You don't know what you are eating.
Yes, I do. That's why I don't eat vat sludge, let alone call it a delicacy like
you lot.
|>> |>> You're twisting things again, poo-boy. You've claimed that all
|>downers
|>> |>are mad cows, as in carrying BSE.
|>> |>
|>> |>Where did I say that?
|>>
|>> "test the "downers", i.e. mad cows" - see above
|>
|>Some are mad, some are injured, some are diseased.
So, you were saying they were angry? Cattle don't generally get angry, but if
you wish to make that claim, I still fail to understand why angry cattle should
be tested. Nor do I comprehend why injured cattle should be tested when the
cause of the injury it well known. Nor do I understand your claimed need to
test all diseased cattle when the disease is likely well known. I'll agree that
the really questionable ones should be tested, and I believe that is what's
happening now. Of course, you'll disagree, then we'll be back at tossing
insults and getting nowhere slow.
|>Do I have to explain everything for you?
|>
|>> |>> While that may be true on your grubby little island, it's not the case
|>> |>here.
|>> |>
|>> |>How do you know, you don't test them.
|>>
|>> Your own "sources" say we do.
|>
|>2000 out of 35million.
|>
|>Good effort.
You can't even quote your own sources, poo-boy. You're about 300 shy on your
number there, according to your sources - sources you've failed to name dispite
repeated requests.
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
"Little John" <jammin1@no-spam> wrote in message
> |>> |>> |>> |>> You pick one out of an area and test it. If it's clean,
the
> |>> |>> |>reasonable
> |>> |>> |>> |>assumption is that all the others from that area are
> |>> |>> |>> |>> clean. Do you think the packagers of that vat sludge you
love
> |>so
> |>> |>much
> |>> |>> |>> |>take a
> |>> |>> |>> |>> dollup from every can?
> |>> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>> |>Your meat packers are supposed to test the "downers", i.e.
mad
> |>cows,
> |>> |>but
> |>> |>> |>> |>apparantly they seldom bother.
> |>> |>> |>>
> |>> |>> |>> Test 'em for what?
> |>> |>> |>
> |>> |>> |>BSE, silly.
> |>> |>
> |>> |>> Necessity in the UK is not necessity in the US.
> |>> |>
> |>> |>You don't care if your meat is infected?
> |>>
> |>> I don't eat the brains.
> |>
> |>You don't know what you are eating.
>
> Yes, I do.
Meat from cows possibly infected with BSE which have eaten chicken manure,
cement, other dead cows, roadkill, and cats and dogs.
> That's why I don't eat vat sludge, let alone call it a delicacy like you
lot.
Who called it a delicacy?
> |>> |>> You're twisting things again, poo-boy. You've claimed that all
> |>downers
> |>> |>are mad cows, as in carrying BSE.
> |>> |>
> |>> |>Where did I say that?
> |>>
> |>> "test the "downers", i.e. mad cows" - see above
> |>
> |>Some are mad, some are injured, some are diseased.
> So, you were saying they were angry? Cattle don't generally get angry,
but if
> you wish to make that claim, I still fail to understand why angry cattle
should
> be tested.
Mad as in deranged, as you are.
> Nor do I comprehend why injured cattle should be tested when the
> cause of the injury it well known. Nor do I understand your claimed need
to
> test all diseased cattle when the disease is likely well known. I'll
agree that
> the really questionable ones should be tested, and I believe that is
what's
> happening now. Of course, you'll disagree, then we'll be back at tossing
> insults and getting nowhere slow.
Surely you want to eat good food?
> |>Do I have to explain everything for you?
> |>
> |>> |>> While that may be true on your grubby little island, it's not the
case
> |>> |>here.
> |>> |>
> |>> |>How do you know, you don't test them.
> |>>
> |>> Your own "sources" say we do.
> |>
> |>2000 out of 35million.
> |>
> |>Good effort.
>
> You can't even quote your own sources, poo-boy. You're about 300 shy on
your
> number there, according to your sources
I'm sure it wasn't exactly 35 million either.
> - sources you've failed to name dispite repeated requests.
Patriots, every one.