"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 ...

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.

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

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



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.

Lotus wrote:
"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?

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?



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

Why would I want to go there? You already are fouling
the place.

"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:81090 talk.politics.animals:210418 sci.agricultu60159

"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.

Lotus wrote:
"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.

You don't know your doughy ass from your pimply face
about feed blocks, ~~shitweed~~, so you shouldn't have
been making any assumptions about them at all.

What YOU know about are "inner earth beings",
~~shitweed~~. In other words, what you "know" is
nonsense. You have no credibility.


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'

False. It is EXACTLY what Michael described as a feed
block.

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

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,

He did NOT describe anything as "crumbly". I did a
Google search, and he never used the word, or any
synonym. You are LYING.

But that's to be expected from someone who believes in
"inner earth beings". You have no credibility.

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 should have expanded your search. You simply don't
know what you're doing.



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?

You dishonestly kept your search too narrow, because
you didn't WANT to find references. You had a
polemical goal in mind from the start, and you didn't
want to find something else.

But that's to be expected from someone who believes in
"inner earth beings". You have no credibility.



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


Yeah, you.

Not me. I'm kicking your teeth in.



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.

It is. YOU have even now acknowledged that it is.

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

It doesn't work for you simply to try to redirect my
accurate accusations about you back at me,
~~shitweed~~. It's too blatant.

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

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

Gordon Couger wrote in message
.net...


You need a hobby. Try drink and women.

tsk tsk, temper temper,

He has a point, jim.

so in your own words what is the difference between a salt lick and
a
feed block.

Try actually addressing my points first, jim.

I can't find a SINGLE reference to the use of mineralised
FEED blocks in the UK.

now that's tough because I've seen them stacked up to the roof in many
feed merchants.


--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

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

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