"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

Lotus wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

First we had to get you to
find out what was the difference between a lick and a block.

There is no difference. A mineral/salt lick and a mineralised block
are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.

no, because a mineral salt lick will not contain protein

And a mineralised block will?

Again, search results for mineralised + block + protein isn't
yielding a tin shilling.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...
Lotus wrote:
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Lotus wrote in message

[..]
First we had to get you to
find out what was the difference between a lick and a block.


There is no difference. A mineral/salt lick and a mineralised block
are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.

That's not the same off-key tune you were singing just
two days ago:

Someone was thoughtful enough to find a supplier of
mineralised supplementary feed licks for cattle
http://www.ccfarmers.co.uk/feed.asp , but that's
still a lick. I see Dry Cow Feed Blocks on the same
page

You didn't know then that a "lick" and a "block" were,
"for all intents and purposes, the same thing".

Yes, I did. It was JIM that said that 'salt licks' and 'mineralised blocks'
were two different things.

You introduced mineralised FEED block when you realised that.

Michael said "There are licks AND feed blocks. Both weigh about
fifty pounds. The feed blocks must be protected from the weather
or they will crumble and become inedible. The licks are solid enough
to be either simply dropped in the pasture or put in a salt block holder",
but showed us a link to a mineral lick/block containing grain products.
http://www.martindalefeed.com/Products/BLOCKS/3307.htm

I asked whether the feed block Michael had described were also
used in the UK. Now we know that supplementary feed blocks
which contain minerals are available, but I have yet to see them
referred to as 'mineralised feed blocks'.

[..]

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...

Filthy lies.

Lotus wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...
Lotus wrote:

'MINERALISED FEED BLOCKS', blockhead.

And I found one. It used the word "lick" instead of
"block",

Exactly.

but they are the same thing.

But I was not searching for 'LICKS'.

When you found references to "mineralized feed licks",
you ought to have recognized them as "blocks", you
stupid ****. Any educated person would. Your lack of
education is not anyone else's fault.


I found a reference to mineralized feed licks/blocks.

Still 'mineralized feed licks', not 'mineralized feed blocks'.

There are hundreds of references to 'mineralised licks/blocks',
but my search was for 'mineralized feed blocks', as SPECIFIED
by JIM.

You should have been more imaginative. Real, USEFUL
imagination, ~~shitweed~~, not that "inner earth being"
horseshit.

Lotus wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...
Lotus wrote:
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Lotus wrote in message

[..]
First we had to get you to
find out what was the difference between a lick and a block.


There is no difference. A mineral/salt lick and a mineralised block
are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.

That's not the same off-key tune you were singing just
two days ago:

Someone was thoughtful enough to find a supplier of
mineralised supplementary feed licks for cattle
http://www.ccfarmers.co.uk/feed.asp , but that's
still a lick. I see Dry Cow Feed Blocks on the same
page

You didn't know then that a "lick" and a "block" were,
"for all intents and purposes, the same thing".

Yes, I did.

No, you quite clearly did not. Otherwise, you wouldn't
have ****ed away so much time.

It was JIM that said that 'salt licks' and 'mineralised blocks'
were two different things.

If you REALLY had known that a "block" and a "lick"
were effectively the same thing, you wouldn't have
needed to **** away time on arguing with him.

Lotus wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...

Filthy lies.

Nope; the full truth.

You're a liar. We have quite a good idea of your
life. You believe in "inner earth beings", who
supposedly live under Mt. Shasta in northern
California, despite having NO evidence for their
existence. You practice BULLSHIT, QUACK medicine
in Ireland, CRIMINALLY swindling people out of
money through your promotion of "Doctor" (huh) Hulda
Clarke's "zapper", which is known to be a useless
piece of junk with no medical benefits.

You DO believe in "inner earth beings", and you DO
(mal)practice "medicine" in Ireland.

You are an utter charlatan.

Jonathan Ball wrote in message ...
Wim Jebster wrote:
Gordon Couger wrote in message
news:0AUP9.163736$qF3.10939@sccrnsc04...


They have hard lessons to learn in life if they ever hope to succeed
at anything.


they are lessons so far removed from their way of life that they cannot
even comprehend what the learning will teach them.
Remember these people ofter never impact on the real world. I remember
the ex wife of a friend of mine. She had no winter clothes, not even a
coat. She lived in a centrally heated house with garage built in, drove
to her centrally heated office, parked in the carpark underneath the
office building. She was known to wear less in winter than summer
because the office central heating was set a bit high.

expecting people like that to understand reality is like asking a
bullock to discuss quantum physics.

Just shut up, Wim. Every time you try to write
profundity, you fail and wind up looking stupid.

You and Gordon, and of course that stupid fat
hula-hooping pachyderm Sue Bitchup, all seem to think
that the only worthwhile lessons learned in life are to
be found in rural settings; in other words, "rural
life" = "reality".

You couldn't be more wrong. What a conceited bunch of
rustics you lot are! Don't you morons understand that
every time you write that kind of shit, you look ever
more stupid?

You still haven't answered what have you personally done for the
agricultural environment. Other than whine about it.

I didn't develop the prototype of www.greenseeker.com on a rural
environment. It will cut the nitrogen top dressed fertilzer in wheat by 50%
with out effecting yield and reduce broadcast spray uses of herbicide by 50%
an more with out effecting the weed control.

Gordon

Lotus wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Lotus wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

First we had to get you to
find out what was the difference between a lick and a block.

There is no difference. A mineral/salt lick and a mineralised
block
are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.

no, because a mineral salt lick will not contain protein

And a mineralised block will?

Again, search results for mineralised + block + protein isn't
yielding a tin shilling.

forget it, because I cannot be bothered wading through you two slagging
each other off I am not bothering downloading this thread any more as
most of it is just noise.
But just to explain in short sentences a mineralised feed block may well
contain protein which could well be part of the whole BSE/MBM problem. A
mineral salt lick will not.

If you want to discuss something as opposed to merely rave at the other
loon, start a new thread under a new subject line. This one had about
eleven messages of which ten were two clowns shrieking at each other. I
have no intention wasting my time wading through that sort of rubbish.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Gordon Couger wrote:
Jonathan Ball wrote in message ...

Wim Jebster wrote:

Gordon Couger wrote in message
news:0AUP9.163736$qF3.10939@sccrnsc04...




They have hard lessons to learn in life if they ever hope to succeed
at anything.


they are lessons so far removed from their way of life that they cannot
even comprehend what the learning will teach them.
Remember these people ofter never impact on the real world. I remember
the ex wife of a friend of mine. She had no winter clothes, not even a
coat. She lived in a centrally heated house with garage built in, drove
to her centrally heated office, parked in the carpark underneath the
office building. She was known to wear less in winter than summer
because the office central heating was set a bit high.

expecting people like that to understand reality is like asking a
bullock to discuss quantum physics.

Just shut up, Wim. Every time you try to write
profundity, you fail and wind up looking stupid.

You and Gordon, and of course that stupid fat
hula-hooping pachyderm Sue Bitchup, all seem to think
that the only worthwhile lessons learned in life are to
be found in rural settings; in other words, "rural
life" = "reality".

You couldn't be more wrong. What a conceited bunch of
rustics you lot are! Don't you morons understand that
every time you write that kind of shit, you look ever
more stupid?


You still haven't answered what have you personally done for the
agricultural environment. Other than whine about it.

No, ****wit. You didn't ask originally what I had done
for the **agricultural** environment; you asked:

Give an example of something you have done to
directly improve the envrionment.

Whatever the **** the "envrionment" is.

Now, you've moved the goalposts. Suddenly, it's for
the "agricultural" environment.

Listen, shit-for-brains: most of what you have done
FOR the "agricultural" environment would be considered
to have been done AGAINST the overall environment.

Got it, ****witted rube?


I didn't develop the prototype of www.greenseeker.com on a rural
environment.

It's doubtful you developed it at all, you stinking
self-absorbed liar, but if you DIDN'T develop it on a
rural environment, given that it's about a wheat
fertilizer, than just where the **** DID you develop
it? In South-Central Los Angeles?

What a ****witted liar you are!

It will cut the nitrogen top dressed fertilzer in wheat by 50%
with out effecting yield and reduce broadcast spray uses of herbicide by 50%
an more with out effecting the weed control.

Gordon

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...
Lotus wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...
Lotus wrote:
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Lotus wrote in message

[..]
First we had to get you to
find out what was the difference between a lick and a block.


There is no difference. A mineral/salt lick and a mineralised block
are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.

That's not the same off-key tune you were singing just
two days ago:

Someone was thoughtful enough to find a supplier of
mineralised supplementary feed licks for cattle
http://www.ccfarmers.co.uk/feed.asp , but that's
still a lick. I see Dry Cow Feed Blocks on the same
page

You didn't know then that a "lick" and a "block" were,
"for all intents and purposes, the same thing".

Yes, I did.

No, you quite clearly did not. Otherwise, you wouldn't
have ****ed away so much time.

A mineralised block (without 'protein') is the same thing as a
mineralised salt-lick. At this stage (above) I was looking for
feed blocks as Michael had described- "There are licks AND
feed blocks. Both weigh about fifty pounds. The feed blocks
must be protected from the weather or they will crumble and
become inedible. The licks are solid enough to be either simply
dropped in the pasture or put in a salt block holder". Now we
know that supplementary feed blocks which contain minerals
are available, but I have yet to see them referred to as 'mineralised
feed blocks'.

It was JIM that said that 'salt licks' and 'mineralised blocks'
were two different things.

If you REALLY had known that a "block" and a "lick"
were effectively the same thing, you wouldn't have
needed to **** away time on arguing with him.

A feed block/lick is not the same thing as a mineralised block/lick.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...
Lotus wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
...
Lotus wrote:

'MINERALISED FEED BLOCKS', blockhead.

And I found one. It used the word "lick" instead of
"block",

Exactly.

but they are the same thing.

But I was not searching for 'LICKS'.

When you found references to "mineralized feed licks",
you ought to have recognized them as "blocks", you
stupid ****. Any educated person would. Your lack of
education is not anyone else's fault.

That search was for 'mineralized feed blocks', as SPECIFIED
by JIM. Why is that SO hard for you to comprehend?

I found a reference to mineralized feed licks/blocks.

Still 'mineralized feed licks', not 'mineralized feed blocks'.

There are hundreds of references to 'mineralised licks/blocks',
but my search was for 'mineralized feed blocks', as SPECIFIED
by JIM.

You should have been more imaginative. Real, USEFUL
imagination, ~~shitweed~~, not that "inner earth being"
horseshit.

Go to hell, you ignorant delinquent potty mouth

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...

Filthy lies.

**** you and your immature ways,
Unbidden bullshit and childish displays,
Children the ones on which you prey while a
Kingdom of shit is what you survey!

You don't yet understand how fate always repays
Obtuse *******s like you for the games that they play.


- A. U. Plagiarist

Lotus wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...

Filthy lies.

Nope; the full truth.

You're a liar. We have quite a good idea of your
life. You believe in "inner earth beings", who
supposedly live under Mt. Shasta in northern
California, despite having NO evidence for their
existence. You practice BULLSHIT, QUACK medicine
in Ireland, CRIMINALLY swindling people out of
money through your promotion of "Doctor" (huh) Hulda
Clarke's "zapper", which is known to be a useless
piece of junk with no medical benefits.

You DO believe in "inner earth beings", and you DO
(mal)practice "medicine" in Ireland.

You are an utter charlatan.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...
Lotus wrote:

If you knew, as you now falsely claim to know, that a
"lick" and a "block" are the same thing, why would you
not have expanded your search?

A 'mineralised block', and a 'mineral lick' may be the same
thing, but I logically presumed a 'FEED block' to be a crumbly
block, not lick, of feed, as indeed Michael later described.

The 'mineralised supplementary feed lick' you found was a
mineralised block containing grain products, not what I
had in mind, nor what Michael described as a 'feed block'

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:71530 talk.politics.animals:203962 sci.agricultu57899

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...
Lotus wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
...

Lotus wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ...

Lotus wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message

...

Lotus wrote in message

[..]

First we had to get you to
find out what was the difference between a lick and a block.


There is no difference. A mineral/salt lick and a mineralised block
are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing.

That's not the same off-key tune you were singing just
two days ago:

Someone was thoughtful enough to find a supplier of
mineralised supplementary feed licks for cattle
http://www.ccfarmers.co.uk/feed.asp , but that's
still a lick. I see Dry Cow Feed Blocks on the same
page

You didn't know then that a "lick" and a "block" were,
"for all intents and purposes, the same thing".

Yes, I did.

No, you quite clearly did not. Otherwise, you wouldn't
have ****ed away so much time.

A mineralised block (without 'protein') is the same thing as a
mineralised salt-lick. At this stage (above) I was looking for
feed blocks as Michael had described- "There are licks AND
feed blocks. Both weigh about fifty pounds. The feed blocks
must be protected from the weather or they will crumble and
become inedible. The licks are solid enough to be either simply
dropped in the pasture or put in a salt block holder". Now we
know that supplementary feed blocks which contain minerals
are available, but I have yet to see them referred to as 'mineralised
feed blocks'.

It doesn't matter if you have or have not seen any
"references" to the words "mineralized feed blocks",

It does- crumbly 'feed blocks', as Michael described, and
which was the sort of thing I was looking for, are not the
same as the 'mineralized supplementary feed licks' you
found- mineralised blocks, containing grain products.

you stupid ****: such blocks EXIST and are sold, and a
reference has been provided to the THING, no matter
what it's called.

All sorts of blocks and licks exist apparently. I was
searching specifically for a mineralised block of feed.
'MINERALISED FEED BLOCK. Get it yet?

****ING LOSER! You're beating a dead horse.

Yeah, you.

It was JIM that said that 'salt licks' and 'mineralised blocks'
were two different things.

If you REALLY had known that a "block" and a "lick"
were effectively the same thing, you wouldn't have
needed to **** away time on arguing with him.


A feed block/lick is not the same thing as a mineralised block/lick.

It is the same thing. You are too stupid to know.

It is not. YOU don't know what you are talking about,
obviously, and ~you~ are way too stupid to know it.