Re: Redneck gunloon murders 3 year old while target shooting
Scout
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:55:25 +1300, Scout
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:16:52 +1300, Scout
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:06:04 +1300, Scout
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:27:06 +1300, Phxbrd
>>>>>>> <lesliese...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Greg.Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:op.u3j2qvkht7a1n0@promodel-5a9821...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:44:54 +1300, Phxbrd
>>>>>>>>> <lesliese...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Greg.Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:op.u3gfxxw6t7a1n0@promodel-5a9821...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:15:22 +1300, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>>>>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Greg.Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:16:53 +1300, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Greg.Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We produce enough food to feed quite a proportion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> World
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [chuckle]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's funny, Greg. I guess 1/1,000,000 *is* a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proportion...... Australia food exports- 2006 - 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/196081/afs-2006.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA food exports 2008 - 108 trillion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.trade.gov/press/press_releases/2009/export-factsheet_021109.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given 6 billion people, 1,000,000 is 6 thousandths or 0.6%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the World's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> food production.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And Australia doesn't even come CLOSE to exporting enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> food to feed
>>>>>>>>>>>> "quite a proportion" of the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nor does Panama!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you still haven'th figured out that Australia is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another country
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a quite different location to New Zealand
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't mention New Zealand- are you still having trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>> keeping your mind off sheep?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sheesh>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. Even if you exported ALL your food, you'd still
>>>>>>>>>>>> come up short.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We produce far more food than we consume - been doing that
>>>>>>>>>>> since the 1880s.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's only because you insist on calling nasty sheep meat
>>>>>>>>>> "food".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You yanks are one of our most consistant customers for our
>>>>>>>>> lamb. Your importers constantly request more, but your
>>>>>>>>> government maintains a very low quota and protectionist
>>>>>>>>> policies and subsidies for your crap producers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you still clinging to that sad lie? I tell you what let's
>>>>>>>> do; let's have a poll right here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All persons reading this please add your name to this list of
>>>>>>>> people here who admit to eating dead sheep on anything near a
>>>>>>>> regular basis: 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phuxey, old phuckwit, it doesn't matter if you get 300 million
>>>>>>> people who don't sign - all we care about is selling our high
>>>>>>> grade lamb. As (some) yanks want to buy it, we sell it to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can you possibly sell what you claim you don't have.
>>>>>> Specifically sheep,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course we have sheep - hell scout even _you_ know that.
>>>>> <sheesh>
>>>>> We don't have sheep near where I am.
>>>>> ("near" being a relative and broadly undefined term)
>>>>
>>>> And since we have already established what "near" means to you,
>>>
>>> Within half a day's travel.
>>
>> Which we further refined to 250 miles.
>
> No Scout, you claimed 250 miles - I certainly don't.
> We would have to agree before you can claim "we already established
> ..."
>>
>>>
>>>> and we have
>>>> already established that there are sheep near you (some
>>>> 30,000-50,000 sheep
>>>> on one farm alone)
>>>
>>> Only in your little mind!
>>
>> Well, you did change your location, to a place West North West of
>> Wellington, hardly the north you claimed).
>
> Lines of latitude run east-west (or west-east if you're going to
> argue the point)
> Takaka is north of Wellington and south of New York)
> <sheesh>
>
>>
>> However, since I found a nice 4,000 acre sheep farm just 25 miles
>> away, and
>> another smaller one just 4 miles away.....plus those lovely pictures
>> of the
>> sheep in your area that you claim aren't there......looks like you
>> lose again. Though I'm sure you will once again claim to live
>> someplace else now
>> that you've been shown to be lying yet again.
>
> You found some sheep kept to keep the grass down in an orchard and
> some sheep kept on a farm to amuze tourists - neither qualifies as
> "sheep farming country".
Already proven elsewhere, I will simply note that according to local sources
sheep farming is one of the three principle industries of the area.
Hardly sounds like a few sheep to keep the grass down or for tourists to me,
but hey, you only LIVE there, and still can't see the fucking sheep when
they are standing in the middle of the fucking road.
Additional newsgroups added from New Zealand.
Let's see if they agree with Greg's little fantasy that sheep farming isn't
a major industry in the Golden Bay/Takaka/Nelson area.
Scout
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:55:36 +1300, Scout
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:50:03 +1300, Scout
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:47:49 +1300, Scout
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:11:15 +1300, Scout
>>>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:41:19 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
>>>>>>>>> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:04:05 +1300, Bama Brian
>>>>>>>>>> <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:28:11 +1300, Scout
>>>>>>>>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:14:35 +1300, Bama Brian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phxbrd wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nick" <pizzalovi...@allstared.gg> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:4af4727f$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Phxbrd" <lesliese...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where Muslims are shot down like dogs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If we are to be ethnic about all this, one cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help noticing that gun massacres in schools and public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> institutions seem to be a notable product of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern American psyche."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/christopherhowse/100004606/fort-hood-not-a-muslim-massacre-but-a-very-american-crime/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aparantly it was more that he was an American than any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion that lead him to massacre those around him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You make it sound as if it's the Christer mentality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that makes us attack and kill people in countries that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have not attacked us or harmed us in any way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either that, or the memes inherent in the English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language and culture. Despite the firearm related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death rates in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Britain, these five countries share very similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal assault rates, measured per capita.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather be here in NZ and be assaulted with a fist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than there in the US and assaulted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with bullets from an AK47!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.taragana.com/n/indian-beaten-to-death-in-new-zealand-road-rage-26809/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure the politically correct means will mean so much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than if he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were shot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, and when exactly has anyone been ducking bullets from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an AK47 in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, since you pulled this up as your example it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must occur here on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty regular basis or you wouldn't have used it as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example. After all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you wouldn't want people to think you engage in dishonesty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the form of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hyperhole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AK47 = the only yank gun name that comes to mind - would
>>>>>>>>>>>> my comment have the same effect if I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> used names like BSA or Allis-Chalmers?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An AK-47 is as American as Stolichnaya vodka.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Avtomat Kalishnikov of 1947 is named for the Russian
>>>>>>>>>>> fellow who invented it in 1947 and put it in half the
>>>>>>>>>>> world's armies. AK's are neither invented in the US nor
>>>>>>>>>>> built here, even including the ATF legal "assembled" ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.vodkakalashnikov.com/history.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bama Brian,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks for the history lesson.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually I really don't care, or I wouldn't have made that
>>>>>>>>>> basic error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The US produces more than 50% of the World's weapons and
>>>>>>>>>> supplies far more weapons to terrorists than those the AK47s
>>>>>>>>>> and clones reach.
>>>>>>>>> Not quite, but thanks for following along. Although for a
>>>>>>>>> fellow who doesn't know who invented the AK (or care) you
>>>>>>>>> certainly think you know enough about other interrelated
>>>>>>>>> things -- you don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hell, since when did Greg ever show that he needed to know what
>>>>>>>> he was talking about before making assertions about it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hell, he doesn't even know his own nation and claims there are
>>>>>>>> NO sheep within 1/2 days drive of where he lives. I suppose he
>>>>>>>> just managed to miss
>>>>>>>> the FIVE THOUSAND ACRE sheep farm that's only about 90 minutes
>>>>>>>> away. Never
>>>>>>>> mind the rest of the 60 million head of sheep scattered
>>>>>>>> throughout NZ. Yep,
>>>>>>>> according to Greg there aren't any sheep near him. Even though
>>>>>>>> sheep outnumber people in NZ by 10 to 1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5,000 acres of sheep farm is miniscule
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure it is. Anyone here believe that a FIVE THOUSAND ACRE FARM
>>>>>> would be considered "miniscule"???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - generally such farms are
>>>>>>> well away
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet this one is only about 90 minutes away from you, quite a bit
>>>>>> less than
>>>>>> the 1/2 day drive you claimed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if you want something closer, give me the nearest
>>>>>> intersection by
>>>>>> you and I will find something even closer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from human population as they exist on the lowest grade
>>>>>>> farmable land.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet there are 60 MILLION head in New Zealand. Odd that there
>>>>>> aren't reports that you have such shitty farmland.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you stupidly imagine they are spread out evenly across the
>>>>> whole country???
>>>>
>>>> Nope, but I also bet there isn't a fuck 500 mile hole in which
>>>> there are NO
>>>> sheep.
>>>
>>> Depends - if you mean "no sheep" in an absolute sense then you might
>>> be right,
>>> but there certainly are some 500 km holes where they are rarely
>>> farmed.
>>
>> I accept your admission you lied when you stated there were NO sheep
>> within
>> 250 miles of you.
>>
>>>> Hell, I've even PROVEN there isn't.
>>>
>>> Only in your little mind.
>>
>>
>> I see, so when I prove you wrong, you dismiss the facts presented
>> because,
>> what, they don't match the fantasy world you think you live in?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And all you have are exucses, evasions, and bullshit to try to hide
>>>> the fact
>>>> you don't know shit even about where you fucking live.
>>>
>>> I know exactly where I live.
>>
>> One has to wonder, given that Takaka is hardly NORTH of wellington.
>> West is
>> more like it, but hey, who ever said you know what you're talking
>> about.
>>>> <snip excuses of land, feed, profitability and all the other
>>>> excuses made,
>>>> addressed and refuted by in 2005 when this was discussed>
>>>
>>>
>>> No Scout, I've told you numerous times that sheep are normally
>>> farmed on poor quality land, generally at considerable altitudes and
>>> normally away from areas where most NZers live. Why can't you get
>>> that into your
>>> thick head?
>>
>> interesting revision of your prior claims. I will simply not that you
>> claimed there were NO sheep there.....and the facts are that there
>> are sheep
>> there.
>
> I had assumed we were talking about viable sheep stations.
Bullshit asshole.
We were talking SHEEP, and the fact you claimed there were NONE.
Now you wish to backpedal and claim that there aren't viable sheep stations.
Ok.
Disproven.
Why?
Because here it is several years later and THE SHEEP STATIONS ARE STILL
THERE.
Thus, they are viable.
Now, do you want to try to revise your bullshit claims yet again?
> A statement that is often made in NZ is that we have no snakes - that
> falls down
> because there are dead ones in various zoos, live ones in zoos, live
> ones in research instututes, one in a container from India or Australia
> ...
> There's probably some idiot somewhere who has smuggled one in from
> abroad in his luggage. However, I can confidently assume I won't meet
> one in the long grass when I mow my lawn and I can confidently assume I
> won't trip over any sheep in my normal travels in Northland, nor in
> Golden Bay/Takaka when I lived there.
And yet I've already posted pictures of sheep ON THE FUCKING ROAD IN GOLDEN
BAY OUTSIDE OF TAKAKA.
Oh, that's right, those sheep really weren't there. They were just cardboard
cut outs put in the road as a photo op.
Really Greg, are you really this stupid or shall I just accept you are a
brain dead idiot who doesn't know shit, and refuses to accept reality even
when it's proven that you're wrong?
Now make sure you don't trip over those sheep there Greg, because everyone
can see they are really there, even though you can't.
>Admittedly I don't frequent hippie
> orchards nor tourist farm-stays ...
IOW, You don't know shit about the very area you're living in.
Yet, that doesn't stop you from claiming knowledge you don't have.
Here's a picture of a farm in the Golden Bay area, and I suppose you're
going to assert they are all a tourist farm-stay or some sort of hippie
orchard?
http://www.michellemoran.com/Gallery/newzealand.htm
Seems a lot of sheep there, but I suppose they are invisible to you.
However, let's stick a fork in this, and let the Golden Bay Promotional
Association tell you what is around there.
"Golden Bay is a rural community with the main township being
Takaka.....Sheep, dairy and deer farming are the main industries in the
area."
Sheep farming.....main industry.
Yep, certainly looks like sheep stations in the Golden Bay area certainly
aren't viable since they are one of the three main industries there.
http://www.goldenbaynz.co.nz/d_shoppingandservices.html
Must be a LOT of tourist farm-stays or hippie orchards there to make farming
sheep one of the top three industries.
> Years ago, I camped overnight at the Te kuiti motorcamp on my way
> home to Wellington. I was in the shower when I heard a roar.
> I recovered my glasses and looked out the louver window - what I saw
> was something of a surprise - keepers/trainers were leading a collection
> of animals,
> a lion, a camel, an elephant and another half dozen species ...
> Now, when I went to bed the night before I would have been happy to
> make an absolute statement that I had no expectation of seeing a camel in
> the
> morning
> and that the entire region was devoid of elephants and lions, that
> heing largely
> a sheep farming region. Only an idiot would have called me a liar.
> You would qualify.
> (a circus had rested there overnight on it's travels)
And yet, I'm not calling you a liar because you claim to have seen
something. I'm saying you are a liar becuse you didn't despite the fact that
I've proven that sheep farming is a MAJOR industry in Golden Bay where you
claim to have lived and know all about, and yet you never managed to see
even a single sheep in all the time you were there.
Further, it wasn't just the fact that you claim they weren't there, it's the
fact you've continued to make this bullshit assertion even after it's been
PROVEN that they are.
That's what makes you a liar.
>>> Sure, somewhere within X miles of Takaka there was a farm running
>>> sheep, but
>>> it is an abnormal situation and I was unaware of it.
Unnormal hey?
"Golden Bay is a rural community with the main township being
Takaka....Sheep, dairy and deer farming are the main industries in the
area."
http://www.goldenbaynz.co.nz/d_shoppingandservices.html
Yep, certainly looks like sheep farming is "abnormal" since it's only one of
the three top industries in the area.
>> Can you say making excuses. Sorry, but your ignorance of your own
>> locality
>> is your problem. I'm simply showing that you never seem to know
>> anything about your subject. Indeed, there seems to be no limit to
>> things you are unaware of, but which you are perfectly willing to
>> make assertions about as
>> if you actually know that the hell you're talking about.
>>
>>
>>>> Oh, and greg, if you would like to go back and see where I refuted
>>>> all the
>>>> same points then that you are again raising....let google be your
>>>> guide.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are refuting reality - when you "prove" that the reality of the
>>> NZ situation
>>> isn't reality you effectively prove your own ignorance and
>>> stupidity. Admittedly I need to be more careful in using absolutes
>>> but one exception doesn't
>>> destroy a rule.
>>
>> Except you keep making those absolute statements, and they keep
>> turning out
>> to be wrong.
>>
>> Like WD-40 is NOT a lubricant.
>>
>> Yea, another assertion of yours that turned out to be utter bullshit.
>
> You really are stupid - any liquid or semi-liquid is a "lubricant".
Well, then by your own admission you were wrong.
> Try spitting on your bum and then sliding down a road - you'll find it
> is an inadequate lubricant for the intended task.
> WD-40 is also inadequate for almost any lubricating task, in that the
> fluid is
> an alcohol which quickly evaporates.
Well, the carrier seems to be some sort of alcohol, but the point is a
carrier for what? A low weight oil? Isn't oil a lubricant?
> It will attack rust, which is a
> perfectly good use for the product. However, if you have rubbing or
> rotating contact
> of parts, such as bearings, WD 40 is not adequate as a lubricant.
Depends on how much lubrication is required doesn't it?
Some things only require a very minimal amount of lubricant to greatly
improve function...and the MAKER says it lubricates. If anyone should know
what their product does, it should be the people who make it and are legally
obligated to back up their claims. So if they say it lubricates and it
doesn't, then they are guilty of advertising fraud. Yet, I don't know of
anyone that has successfully sued them on this claim.
Now I admit they didn't say HOW much it lubricates, but the point is ANY is
more than NONE, which is your assertion.
Further, even a simple little test will indicate that WD-40 does leave a
trace amount of something slick long after the carrier evaporates. If you
need only a little bit of lubrication, then a shot of WD-40 may be all you
need.
>>>> Until then it's simply enough to note that even now you assert
>>>> there are no
>>>> sheep within 250 miles of you even when it has been proven to you
>>>> that this
>>>> is an utter lie.
>>>
>>> Where are these 500 and 250 miles and 90 minutes comming from?
>>> Definitely not from me!
>>
>> Actually they are. You said 1/2 day's drive, which we defined as 250
>> miles
>> as that is typically the distance you can cover by car in 1/2 day.
>
> Are you talking 12 hours, or 4 hours?
>
> 400 km in 12 hours is 33.3 km/hr.
> 400km in 4 hours is 100km/hr.
And 100km/hr per the picture below (speed limit sign is on the left of the
picture), still wouldn't be an unreasonable speed to expect someone to
drive.
Oh, and just in case Greg has never seen a speed limit sign in New
Zealand...
There is an example here.
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/roadcode/about-signs/main-types.html
Further a little minor searching finds that the normal open road (rural or
motorways) is 100km/hr in New Zealand.
So clearly asking someone to do 100km/hr is hardly unreasonable.
> We have a 100km/hr speed limit in New Zealand, which it is advisable
> not to break too often.
Fine, so asking someone to do that isn't unreasonable.
> I have my GPS set to buzz at 105km/hr which one can normally get away
> with. My best time from Takaka to Motueka (50km) was 55 minutes.
Bing puts the travel time at 42 min.
> 58 minutes all out in a modern Subaru Legacy 2L.
> Where I live now I can make Whangarei in a little over 25 mins (30
> km. State Highway 1)
> To Kawakawa is 25km, I did that in 17 mins each way last week. (State
> highway 1)
I will simply note that where you claim to live NOW, is actually north of
wellington, like you claimed way back in 2005.
So one has to wonder how much of your claims of living in Takaka are
actually true, given you claimed then to live to the North of Wellington,
while Takaka is actually West, and were you claim to live now is actually to
the North of Wellington. Certainly interesting that your current residence
is in the direction you use to claim you lived from Wellington, where the
residence you claimed to live in was in a different direction entirely.
> No Scout, I can't (legally/near legally) do 400km in 4 hours.
Well, I'm sorry you seem to be able to drive only at about 1/2 of the posted
speed limit.
Indeed, based on your averages it seems you can't get your car out of second
gear since your average speed seems to be only 35 miles per hour.
Pretty interesting
Particularly given that State Highway 60 is part of the New Zealand State
highway network and normally posted at 100km/hr and yet according to you it
takes you some 55minutes to drive 50km on it.
Well I suppose with all those sheep on the road.
It would be a bit hard to stay at 100km/hr but it would actually require one
to SEE the sheep in order to slow down or stop, but since you claim there
are NO sheep there, then they would hardly be an obstacle.
So care to tell me why you can only average about 1/2 of the posted speed
limit?
However, I've already shown you a 4,000 acre sheep farm that's only 50km
away from Takaka just off Highway 60, so even if it takes you 3 hours to get
up the side road and the driveway, you're still there WELL under your
alloted time.
Heck, most people could even WALK to the one that's about 8km away.
>> Now, needless to say that is a radius, and from a radius comes the
>> diameter
>> of 500 miles.
>
> From Golden Bay there is 1 (one) road leading any distance - It goes
> south-east
> over a mountain range.
Sure, and the posted speed outside of urban areas is typically 100km/hr
So what's your point? You drive slow?
or maybe it's all those invisibe sheep in the road
>> 90 minutes is time period considerably less than half a day.
>>
>
> 90 minutes from Takaka would get me approximately 75 km towards
> Nelson.
And since you only have to drive about 50km.... to get to a 4,000 acre sheep
farm, your problem IS???
> Actually, 90 minutes would get me to a sheep station south-west of
> Takaka! I had forgotten that one.
You mean the 4,000 acre one I pointed out, or yet another one where you
claimed there were none?
>>> As I pointed out yesterday, a 100km trip east from Takaka is a 9
>>> hour trip to another
>>> island - further north than that is even longer. That puts it _not_
>>> near here, by my
>>> reckoning.
>>
>> Yep, and how long does it takeyou to go 8km?
>
> 5km to Takaka in perhaps 6 minutes - 3km up a track perhaps another 30
> mins.
So let's see, according to Greg once he gets off the road he drives at the
blazing speed of 3.5 miles per hour, or just a bit over the rate at which a
person WALKS.
Now, is there anyone else here who drives up a drive way 1.5 miles long at a
WALK???
That does sort of explain why you can only go 50km in 55 minutes on a road
posted 100km/hr, you spend most of the time just pulling out of your
driveway.
So let's see 30 minutes getting out of the drive way, leaving 25 minutes to
do 47km....I can see why you have to set your GPS, you have to drive like
110km/hr to make it in 55 minutes.
What's strange is I live on a dirt road and even the urbanite with the fancy
car does 15 miles per hour at least.
>> Hell, even walking you should be able to do that in less than half a
>> day.
>
> I'll have to admit that there are many places in Golden Bay I haven't
> been to,
> most of them a barely drivable and my walking ability is about 10
> minutes.
Well, given the way you drive once you get off the state highways, I can see
why so much of the country is beyond your reach. Though I would think you
could see at least some of these farms from the road....particularly when
the sheep are walking down the fucking road
Scout
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:H1LNm.45386 $de6....@newsfe21.iad:
>
>> Jim Alder wrote:
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>> news:ifJMm.16944 $We2....@newsfe09.iad:
>>>
>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Let's clear this up right now - I am _NOT_ lying and I implied
>>>>> that you are silly.
>>>>
>>>> Not lying, hey?
>>>>
>>>> What do you call this?
>>>>
>>>> "5,000 acres of sheep farm is miniscule"
>>>>
>>>
>>> The biggest sheep ranch in NZ is 445,000 acres.
>>>
>>> The kiwis love their sheep. Literally.
>>
>> Oh, I realize there are some much larger farms, but 5,000 acres is
>> still not miniscule, even in New Zealand.
>
> I don't know. I didn't find any averages (didn't look for long).
> And you know Proctor isn't going to enlighten you. He's one of those
> "I know something and you don't so I'm not going to tell you" kind of
> people. You know, an idiot.
Well, from memory, I had a listing from their ag department of various farms
from memory, I seem to recall the average was a couple of hundred acres,
which makes one of several thousand well above average. Indeed, I suspect a
farm of 5,000 acres is well in the 95% for farm size.
Jim Alder
$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad:
That could well be. But I feel certain that, while he has no problem
stating without authority that you are wrong, he will not accept your
statement 'from memory'.
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
Scout
>>>>>>
I would have accepted that if when I first proved you wrong, you had simply
admitted you didn't know. However, that's not how it happened, is it?
Instead you told me they weren't there, made excuses why such a farm
wouldn't exist, or if it did would be miniscle or unviable or just a tourist
trap, or any of the other excuses you made.
Which means, you KNEW better and continued to assert you were right in the
face of evidence that showed you were wrong.
Repeating a claim when you know it's wrong....is called LYING. It's done by
people who are LIARS.
Like you.
>>>> Hell, I've even PROVEN there isn't.
>>>
>>> Only in your little mind.
>>
See what I mean about refusing to accept the evidence?
Evidence you now admit does prove you were wrong.
See it's statements like this that compound a mistaken remark into a lie.
Because you continue to assert it to be true, long after you know it to be
false.
>>
>> I see, so when I prove you wrong, you dismiss the facts presented
>> because,
>> what, they don't match the fantasy world you think you live in?
>
>
> The arguement was Golden Bay is dairying/cattle country, not sheep
> farming country.
> That still stands.
And oddly enough according to local sources Golden bay has THREE main
industries. One of which is SHEEP.
Seems you are once again lying to me, because clearly Golden Bay IS sheep
farming country since sheep farming occurs there. Since you know this, since
I've proven this, then your assertion it's not can only be a result of your
intent to LIE.
>>>> And all you have are exucses, evasions, and bullshit to try to hide
>>>> the fact
>>>> you don't know shit even about where you fucking live.
>>>
>>> I know exactly where I live.
>>
>> One has to wonder, given that Takaka is hardly NORTH of wellington.
>> West is
>> more like it, but hey, who ever said you know what you're talking
>> about.
>
>
> So you're saying Takaka _isn't_ north of Wellington???
> Got your atlas on upside down???
I certainly do, and the closest compass direction from Wellington towards
Takaka, is NOT NORTH but WEST. Since most people typically only refer to the
8 primary compass directions.
Though I suppose if we wished extreme accuracy you might be able to claim it
to be West North West of Wellington, but then that would only compound your
error since with 8 major directions you are allowed about 25 degrees either
way, but if you're going to go with 16 directions then you should be
accurate to about 10 degrees.
Instead you are off by almost 80 degrees.
Most people would say you have a lousy sense of direction.
But again, like everything else you prove that even when you're shown to be
wrong, you continue to assert you're right. Since you know you're not, and
it's been proven you're not. That's lying.
Something you do a lot of in order to avoid showing you don't know what the
hell you're talking about.
>>>> <snip excuses of land, feed, profitability and all the other
>>>> excuses made,
>>>> addressed and refuted by in 2005 when this was discussed>
>>>
>>>
>>> No Scout, I've told you numerous times that sheep are normally
>>> farmed on poor quality land, generally at considerable altitudes and
>>> normally away from areas where most NZers live. Why can't you get
>>> that into your
>>> thick head?
>>
>> interesting revision of your prior claims. I will simply not that you
>> claimed there were NO sheep there.....and the facts are that there
>> are sheep
>> there.
>
> Whatever - you're an idiot.
Right, I'm an idiot becaue I know more about where you claim to live than
you do.
Yea, that is certainly up to your usual standards of intellectual honesty.
>>> Sure, somewhere within X miles of Takaka there was a farm running
>>> sheep, but
>>> it is an abnormal situation and I was unaware of it.
>>
>> Can you say making excuses. Sorry, but your ignorance of your own
>> locality
>> is your problem. I'm simply showing that you never seem to know
>> anything about your subject. Indeed, there seems to be no limit to
>> things you are unaware of, but which you are perfectly willing to
>> make assertions about as
>> if you actually know that the hell you're talking about.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> Oh, and greg, if you would like to go back and see where I refuted
>>>> all the
>>>> same points then that you are again raising....let google be your
>>>> guide.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are refuting reality - when you "prove" that the reality of the
>>> NZ situation
>>> isn't reality you effectively prove your own ignorance and
>>> stupidity. Admittedly I need to be more careful in using absolutes
>>> but one exception doesn't
>>> destroy a rule.
>>
>> Except you keep making those absolute statements, and they keep
>> turning out
>> to be wrong.
>>
>> Like WD-40 is NOT a lubricant.
>>
>> Yea, another assertion of yours that turned out to be utter bullshit.
>
> It's not a lubricant - you can trust me on that one or you can take
> your car for a half days drive with WD-40 in place of engine oil.
I can't trust you. I've proven you can't be trusted. Hell, you told me there
were no sheep within 1/2 days drive of Takaka, and we can see how much THAT
statement could be trusted.
Oh, and the maker still says it's a lubricant, and oddly enough THEY don't
have a history of lying like you do.
Oh, but that's right, this is a lie because it has been shown to you where
the maker specifically states that it IS a lubricant. So you either know a
whole hell of a lot more about wd-40 than the maker, or you are lying
because you refuse to accept that once again your claim has been shown to be
false.
Now what do you call making the same claim again when it's been PROVEN to be
wrong?
A lie?
However, let's expound on your claim that you can be trusted to know what
you're talking about.
Let's see the government required Material Safety Data Sheet, indicated the
following ingredients.
"Petroleum Base Oil"
Now, I may just be an idiot, but it seems to me that OIL is a lubricant. You
know just as how oil lubricates an engine. Now, it's probably not 10W30 or
similar motor oil and wouldn't directly replace it, but then you couldn't
expect to pour 90W140 in your crankcase and have it work properly either
even though 90W140 is petroleum base oil. Heck, for that matter engine oil
IS a pertroleum base oil. Yet, it seem capable of LUBRICATION.
Now I will even make a guess that the petroluem base oil is mineral oil.
http://www.wd40company.com/files/pdf/msds-wd494716385.pdf
So let's check shall we, after all that CAS# refers to a specific compound
within the database.
Hmmm. Refers to it as Distillates (Pertroleum, solvent-dewaxed heavy
paraffinic...which isn't very helpful for finding out the common name. So
let's plug in mineral oil with the CAS# and see if it pops up anywhere.
Well, now we're talking, another MSD page, but this time they use to common
names.
And damn, we have the heading "Mineral Oil" with the exact same CAS No.
meaning it is the exact same ingredent in WD-40.
Now let's check to see if mineral oil is actually a lubricant or if the
makers of WD-40 are less smart than you.
So let's go to Wikipedia...
"Mineral Oil is also used as a lubricant."
Well, maybe they're just saying that because it's under Mineral oil, so
let's look under Lubricants.
"Mineral oil - This term is used to encompass lubricating base oil derived
from crude oil."
So let's see, under the MSD required by the federal government, mineral oil
is listed as a signifant ingredient. Mineral oil is a lubricant.
You said there are no lubricants in WD-40 and that you can be trusted in
this.
Looks like only an idiot would trust you to know what you are talking about,
or that you won't lie when reasonable evidence is presented to you that you
are wrong. Specifically the orginal referal to you to the wd40.com website
where the maker specifically states WD-40 is a lubricant. Instead you turn
around and turn what could have been a mistaken claim into an outright lie
because this time you did so KNOWING the maker says it is a lubricant, and
gee, they're right. Which means you're wrong, and you now knew it.
>>>> Until then it's simply enough to note that even now you assert
>>>> there are no
>>>> sheep within 250 miles of you even when it has been proven to you
>>>> that this
>>>> is an utter lie.
>>>
>>> Where are these 500 and 250 miles and 90 minutes comming from?
>>> Definitely not from me!
>>
>> Actually they are. You said 1/2 day's drive, which we defined as 250
>> miles
>> as that is typically the distance you can cover by car in 1/2 day.
>
> "We" would have to include me, and it certainly doesn't.
You had your chance to contest the distance when I put it out, and you did
not. Instead you have accepted it. But whatever, we have already established
there are sheep well within even YOUR slow rate of driving.
So you can pick this nit as you like, but it's still been proven that there
are sheep within 1/2 days drive even by your standards.
>> Now, needless to say that is a radius, and from a radius comes the
>> diameter
>> of 500 miles.
>>
>
> No you dick-head, that is a distance. I'd like to hear you suggest any
> point in New Zealand
> where one could drive in any and every direction for half a day and
> achieve 250 miles!
Actually, they could.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquada
Of course, they might end up driving through the water, but you never said
they had to stick to land.
>> 90 minutes is time period considerably less than half a day.
>
> Absolutely, and I can't drive 250 miles in ninety minutes either.
Now you are just being stupid. You're not being asked to drive 250 miles, in
90 minutes, you are being asked to drive 25 miles. Certainly even at the
speed you drive you can do 25 miles in 90 minutes? Particularly when the
main part of it is over a road with a speed limit of 100km/hr, or over 60
miles/hr.
>>> As I pointed out yesterday, a 100km trip east from Takaka is a 9
>>> hour trip to another
>>> island - further north than that is even longer. That puts it _not_
>>> near here, by my
>>> reckoning.
>>
>> Yep, and how long does it takeyou to go 8km?
>>
>> Hell, even walking you should be able to do that in less than half a
>> day.
Dead silence is noted.
Seems you've finally reached something so close to you that even you can't
make any excuses for why you couldn't reasonably be expected to get there in
1/2 day.
Scout
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:18:01 +1300, Scout
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:20:45 +1300, Scout
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:23:10 +1300, Scout
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:31:52 +1300, RD (The Sandman) <rdsandman
>>>>>>> <@comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Greg.Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:34:21 +1300, Jim Alder
>>>>>>>>> <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Greg.Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> 5a9821:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:52:49 +1300, Berry Oakley
>>>>>>>>>>> <AllmanB...@bass.gov>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Greg.Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one can hit hard one doesn't need to hide behind a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gun.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One does get old. I can no longer take someone apart
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like I used to. Ergo, carrying a gun is easier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Procter relys on his granny to hit for him.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, you consider relying on an inanimate object to be
>>>>>>>>>>> superior to relying on family - you're giving us a glimpse
>>>>>>>>>>> of your lack of abilities with human relationships.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO!! Boy, oh boy, I love these armchair shrinks.
>>>>>>>>>> Especially when they
>>>>>>>>>> pretend that not depending on your grandmother to defend your
>>>>>>>>>> life means you
>>>>>>>>>> have problems with family relations. BWAHAHAHAHA!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can't depend on your grandmother, just who can you
>>>>>>>>> depend on??? As to "defend your _life_", do you often find
>>>>>>>>> that your life is in danger and needs 'defending'???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've survived 60 years so far and the occassions when my life
>>>>>>>>> has been in danger
>>>>>>>>> have largely been covered by defensive driving techniques or
>>>>>>>>> teamwork on mountainsides.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "If one can hit hard one doesn't need to hide behind a
>>>>>>>>>> gun." And if one is not a pussy, he doesn't need to hide FROM
>>>>>>>>>> guns, either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I recognise that you're very close to brain-dead and are
>>>>>>>>> probably rattling off
>>>>>>>>> yank rifle association propaganda, but how does being brave as
>>>>>>>>> opposed to being
>>>>>>>>> a pussy deflect bullets??? Your being brave in all likelyhood
>>>>>>>>> just makes you a
>>>>>>>>> bigger and more steady target.
>>>>>>>>> Of course there is the fact that yanks are totally pathetic at
>>>>>>>>> hitting targets,
>>>>>>>>> but I assume you're assuming like vs like.
>>>>>>>>> On the occassions when there have been guns around me, I have
>>>>>>>>> tended to favour
>>>>>>>>> the not being a target option, as logically one is less likely
>>>>>>>>> to be shot that way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once
>>>>>>>>>> you admit that it is people that you fear and don't trust,
>>>>>>>>>> you'll be a lot
>>>>>>>>>> closer to discovering that it is really just yourself that
>>>>>>>>>> you don't trust.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO!! Boy, oh boy, I love these armchair shrinks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The idea of carrying a gun terrifies you because you don't
>>>>>>>>>> trust yourself to
>>>>>>>>>> be responsible with it or in control of your emotions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess the fact that I actually own a gun amply demonstrates
>>>>>>>>> that you are a total tosser.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lots of claims are easy to make on the internet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Err, are you asking that I go out and shoot someone to prove I
>>>>>>> own a gun, or are you suggesting Jim isn't as silly as he
>>>>>>> claims???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think he is simply noting you make a lot of claims, ands very
>>>>>> few aren't
>>>>>> shown to be false and fewer yet that are proven to be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, I would have to question the claims of someone that
>>>>>> has been proven to be wrong at least 3 times in the last few days
>>>>>> alone. Hell, you managed to miss all those sheep near your home,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your definition of "near" in this situation, Scout?
>>>>>
>>>>> When I was living in Takaka (2003-2006) I lived just north of
>>>>> Wellington. However, Wellington is on the north island, Takaka on
>>>>> the South.
>>>>
>>>> Hate to tell you dipshit, but Takaka is NOT north of wellington.
>>>> More like
>>>> West. Or at best West by North West.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is almost due-west of Wellington in terms of longtitude, but also
>>> slightly north of Wellington in terms of latitude.
>>
>> Thus most people would state it is West of Wellington, or if you
>> wished to
>> be more precise West North West of Wellington.....only an ignorant
>> idiot would claim it is North.
>>
>> Oh, but then that would be you.
>
>
> In the context of a lineal country, which most people consider NZ to
> be, most people assume Takaka to be south of Wellington.
So, by your own admission, one would hardly refer to where you lived as
being NORTH?
Yet, we see you claiming exactly that. Now you claim to live somewhere else
and oddly enough that location is actually north of Wellington. One might
even consider the possibility that you LIED about where you lived, and when
you said you lived over on the Golden Bay, NORTH OF WELLINGTON, what we
actually were seeing was a little slip of the truth, that you didn't live
over there and never did, but you didn't want to admit to where you actually
lived because you knew damn well there were sheep farms, big sheep farms
there. So instead you picked some place you had probably gone on holiday
where you hadn't seen any sheep and figured you would be safe to claim that
as your home, but then you screwed up and told us it was north of
Wellington, because were you live actually is north of wellington. Only
problem, NZ has so many sheep (and sheep farms) that it's probably
impossible to find any place where there isn't a sheep farm (with sheep)
within a reasonable 1/2 day's drive.
>>>> Indeed, the only thing that can be said to be north of wellington
>>>> is the rest of the North Island.
>>>
>>>
>>> The North-west portion of the south island is north of Wellington.
>>
>> Only if one utterly ignores the fact that it is primarily to the
>> West, but
>> then like I said your sense of direction is as fucked as your
>> knowledge of
>> everything else.
>
> We have a north island, a south island, Stewart Island and sudry other
> small islands.
> Refering to Takaka as being north of Wellington puts it into context.
Yep, you have already told us that virtually all of your country men would
say it was too the South, or the more geographically knowledgable might
actually say to the West.
So how is giving the totally wrong direction "[putting] it into context"?
Would that be the context in which you never seem to know what you're
talking about?
That context?
>>>> But I suppose they don't teach compass directions down there.
>>>>
>>>> However, you now want to say Takaka. Ok, let's go with that.
>>>
>>> That's approximately where I was living three years ago.
>>
>> Interesting then, that you don't know what direction it was in from
>> Wellington.
I didn't really bother to look, I simply assumed you would know the
directions of major cities around you. Clearly that was a bad assumption on
my part, and I have since learned to question anything you say because you
are nearly always wrong.
> There is no means to travel from Welinton to Takaka in a straight
> line, other than perhaps a helicopter. (of which I don't have access)
And if you told the pilot to fly north, I'm sure he would understand you
actually wanted to fly west?
>> But, hey, it's not like you know anything else about where you were
>> living.
>>
>>
>>>> Let's try Kairuru, a 4,000 acre working cattle & sheep farm located
>>>> on Takaka Hill, about 25 miles from Takaka.
>>>>
>>>> Even looks like they have quite a few sheep.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kairurufarmstay.co.nz/farm.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a hill (see land unsuitable for cattle) and it's a farm-stay.
>>
>> Sure, it includes a hill,
>
>
> That's worse than Takaka being north of Wellington. The farm doesn't
> "include a hill, it's a tiny farm on a huge mountain side.
Seems pretty much typical of all your other farms. and 4,000 acres is hardly
small. However, I suppose that's better than your calling a 5,500 acre farm
"miniscle".
>> and yes it's a farm stay. Seem most farms don't
>> typically advertise on the internet. So it's a bit harder to get
>> information
>> about them. However, you said "No sheep" and here they are. The very
>> thing
>> you claimed isn't there.....and only 25 miles away.
>
> We were talking in terms of farming cattle or sheep, not an absolute
> "no sheep at all.
Why not? That is EXACTLY what you stated. NO Sheep. None. Zero. Nada.
Now you wish to backpedal and claim you simply mean in terms of farming
sheep.
Well, since a local source in Golden Bay states that sheep farming is one of
the three main industries, looks like your claim is still utter bullshit
even in the sense of farming sheep.
> How could I possibly know there were no sheep at all.
Gee, maybe you could look out a window? Check the phone book? Drive down the
road?
Maybe check with some of your local organizations?
I mean they claim sheep farming as one of your three main industries.
Maybe you should call them up and tell them they don't know what the hell
they're talking about, because you know full well that the land won't
support sheep, or grass for sheep, or you would have to cut off two legs so
they could walk around, and if someone tried to farm sheep they would go
bankrupt because you know that sheep farming there isn't viable.
Yet, somehow, I suspect they know the area a whole hell of a lot better than
you.
Kind of like how the makers of WD-40 know the contents of their product and
what it will do, a whole lot better than I've proven you do not.
>>> That's where city folk and yanks go to experience "farm life".
>>> They have some cattle, a horse or ten, a few sheep, pigs, ducks ...
>>> It's situated between two National Parks so there's no way it can be
>>> expanded into a viable farm, hence the "farm-stay" addition.
>>
>> And yet almost ALL the larger farms are "farm-stay" and oddly enough
>> they seem to be viable even without the farm-stay.
>>
>
> Well, you know something I don't! I certainly wasn't aware that any
> of the big sheep stations offered farm-stay!
Well, I've already shown you ones for 4,000 acres and 5,500 acres.
But I suppose you're going to tell me they aren't 'big' enough for you.
So let's try something a bit larger shall we?
How about 100,000 acres?
Is that large enough for you?
http://www.greenwoodguides.com/display.asp?Page=21&country=new-zealand
Gee and only $250-$380
Oh, and to give US readers a sense of perspective, that is over 156 square
miles. To give you an idea, Washington DC is only 68.3 square miles. Alanta,
Georga metro area is only 131 square miles. Los Angeles is 469.1 square
miles, one of the largest (area wise) cities in the US, and this ONE farm
would cover 1/3 of the city.
However, I have faith in the ability of Greg to tell me that's too small. A
HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES isn't a big sheep station. After all, you're only
talking HALF A MILLION HEAD OF SHEEP. Na, greg is going to tell me that's
not big. He will probably claim that's tiny.
To bad for him it's listed as "One of the largest privately-owned stations
in the country".
But since Greg doesn't know about it, then it really doesn't exist.
I wonder if I should tell them they aren't viable since according to Greg
only unviable farms do farm-stay, and they only keep a few sheep around to
keep the grass down.
Oh, and let's not forget, based on the pictures, this is just a little farm
in the middle of mountains, yet they seem to be able to do a whole hell of a
lot of farming there.
>> I will simply acknowledge your desire to invent excuses for why you
>> are so
>> fucking ignorant.
>>
>>
>>>> However, maybe that's not 'near' enough for you. After all you did
>>>> say within 250 miles. So let's see if we can find something a bit
>>>> 'nearer'. How about this one?
>>>>
>>>> Only 8km from Takaka.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Orchard and sheep farm "
>>>>
>>>> Would that be close enough to be "near' you Greg. I mean you did
>>>> say 250 miles, and we're down to 8km or about 4 miles. Hell you
>>>> could easily WALK there in an hour or two.
>>>
>>> Shall I describe Golden Bay and Takaka to you?
>>
>> Would that be were you claimed there are no sheep?
>>
>> Sorry, but I think I will pass on listening to you try to tell me
>> about something you know nothing about.
>>
>> <snip>
Scout
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:55:36 +1300, Scout
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:50:03 +1300, Scout
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:47:49 +1300, Scout
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:11:15 +1300, Scout
>>>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zombywoof wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:41:19 +1300, "Greg.Procter"
>>>>>>>>> <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:04:05 +1300, Bama Brian
>>>>>>>>>> <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Scout
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:18:01 +1300, Scout
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:20:45 +1300, Scout
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greg.Procter wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:23:10 +1300, Scout
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote: