Vegetarian Discussion: Jonathan's Fake Email From William T. Sessions (USDA)

Jonathan's Fake Email From William T. Sessions (USDA)
Posts: 15

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Derek
2005-09-11 06:40:21 EST
You really ought to read this post in full before
responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
explaining to do.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published
>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [start - me]
>>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>>>>>> > proposal and
>>>>>>>> [you]
>>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it.
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, they haven't,
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>
>>>>No it has not been dropped,
>>>
>>>Yes, it has.
>>>
>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped
>>
>> You have no evidence to support that claim other
>> than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks.
>> I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA
>> and your email from William Sessions, the associate
>> deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the
>> Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in
>> charge of writing the standard for the "meat
>> marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing
>> claim standards are still under review by USDA."
>
>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail,
>
> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
> USDA will be published with a public comment period.
> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
> know if further information is needed. Thanks,
>
> William T. Sessions
> Associate Deputy Administrator
> Livestock and Seed Program

Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to
have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then
altered it in this post to fit your argument, giving the
impression that the proposed claims standard had been
dropped. Read on and see where you've changed the
original informational part in Sessions' email from;

"The marketing claim standards are still under
review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards
have not been published in a final form for use."

to

"A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing
claim proposed by USDA will be published with
a public comment period."

Both emails start with

"Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message."

and end with

"I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed.
Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program"

But the informational part in your second false email
has now changed. Read your first email again (below).

From: "Sessions, William" <William.Sessi...@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>

Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly,
the standards have not been published in a final form for
use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
if further information is needed. Thanks,

William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo

They're different. You wrote both those emails and
pretended the original one was from,

"William T Sessions, the associate deputy administrator
(how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program
at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
meat marketing claims"

How can you be so stupid, Jon? Just who do you think
you're trying to fool?

>You are completely stuffed, Dreck.

You are, and you know it.

> It's been sweet music, eh?

Beautiful.

B*@hotmail.com
2005-09-11 12:20:32 EST
~jonnie~ caught forging e-mail.......

PRICELESS!!

LOL!


Derek
2005-09-11 12:53:27 EST
On 11 Sep 2005 09:20:32 -0700, banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:

>~jonnie~ caught forging e-mail.......
>
>PRICELESS!!
>
>LOL!

The evidence from USDA crushed him, so he pretended
that he'd received a private email from the author of that
evidence, "the associate deputy administrator (how's that
for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA
that is in charge of writing the standard for the meat
marketing claims" in the hope that that evidence would be
easily discarded as out of date or dropped by the author
according to how Jon wanted. It's impossible to believe a
single word Jon writes here. He lies, forges emails from
officials at USDA, and will do anything to keep the lie
behind grass fed beef alive.

B*@hotmail.com
2005-09-11 13:03:20 EST

Derek wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2005 09:20:32 -0700, banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >~jonnie~ caught forging e-mail.......
> >
> >PRICELESS!!
> >
> >LOL!
>
> The evidence from USDA crushed him, so he pretended
> that he'd received a private email from the author of that
> evidence, "the associate deputy administrator (how's that
> for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA
> that is in charge of writing the standard for the meat
> marketing claims" in the hope that that evidence would be
> easily discarded as out of date or dropped by the author
> according to how Jon wanted. It's impossible to believe a
> single word Jon writes here. He lies, forges emails from
> officials at USDA, and will do anything to keep the lie
> behind grass fed beef alive.



Good work!

~jonnie~ is fuming and foaming at the mouth and amending his "People I
Hate" list.

He's moving your name to the top for showing him to be a LIAR in front
of the whole world.

LOL!!


Derek
2005-09-11 13:12:41 EST
On 11 Sep 2005 10:03:20 -0700, banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 11 Sep 2005 09:20:32 -0700, banmilk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >~jonnie~ caught forging e-mail.......
>> >
>> >PRICELESS!!
>> >
>> >LOL!
>>
>> The evidence from USDA crushed him, so he pretended
>> that he'd received a private email from the author of that
>> evidence, "the associate deputy administrator (how's that
>> for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at USDA
>> that is in charge of writing the standard for the meat
>> marketing claims" in the hope that that evidence would be
>> easily discarded as out of date or dropped by the author
>> according to how Jon wanted. It's impossible to believe a
>> single word Jon writes here. He lies, forges emails from
>> officials at USDA, and will do anything to keep the lie
>> behind grass fed beef alive.
>
>Good work!

My pleasure.

>~jonnie~ is fuming and foaming at the mouth and amending his "People I
>Hate" list.
>
>He's moving your name to the top for showing him to be a LIAR in front
>of the whole world.

I can live with that.

>LOL!!

Me too!

Rudy Canoza
2005-09-11 13:17:43 EST
Derek lied:

> You really ought to read this post in full

It's shit this time, too.

D*@.
2005-09-11 15:03:52 EST
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote:

>You really ought to read this post in full before
>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
>explaining to do.
>
>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>Derek wrote:
>>> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [start - me]
>>>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>>>>>>> > proposal and
>>>>>>>>> [you]
>>>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it.
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, they haven't,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>>
>>>>>No it has not been dropped,
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it has.
>>>>
>>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped
>>>
>>> You have no evidence to support that claim other
>>> than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks.
>>> I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA
>>> and your email from William Sessions, the associate
>>> deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the
>>> Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in
>>> charge of writing the standard for the "meat
>>> marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing
>>> claim standards are still under review by USDA."
>>
>>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail,
>>
>> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
>> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
>> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
>> USDA will be published with a public comment period.
>> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
>> know if further information is needed. Thanks,
>>
>> William T. Sessions
>> Associate Deputy Administrator
>> Livestock and Seed Program
>
>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to
>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then
>altered it in this post to fit your argument,

What a contemptible scum thing to do. Check out
this quote from Goo himself, written within the last
couple of days:

"Fuckwit believes it is ethical to mangle others' quotes
in order to try to "win" a point cheaply"

>giving the
>impression that the proposed claims standard had been
>dropped. Read on and see where you've changed the
>original informational part in Sessions' email from;
>
> "The marketing claim standards are still under
> review by USDA. Accordingly, the standards
> have not been published in a final form for use."
>
>to
>
> "A revised grass-fed marketing claim is under
> development by USDA. Any grass-fed marketing
> claim proposed by USDA will be published with
> a public comment period."
>
>Both emails start with
>
> "Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message."
>
>and end with
>
> "I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
> if further information is needed.
> Thanks,
>
> William T. Sessions
> Associate Deputy Administrator
> Livestock and Seed Program"
>
>But the informational part in your second false email
>has now changed. Read your first email again (below).
>
>From: "Sessions, William" <William.Sessi...@usda.gov>
>To: <jonball@[...]>
>
>Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
>standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly,
>the standards have not been published in a final form for
>use. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know
>if further information is needed. Thanks,
>
>William T. Sessions
>Associate Deputy Administrator
>Livestock and Seed Program
>http://tinyurl.com/dkdxo
>
>They're different. You wrote both those emails and
>pretended the original one was from,
>
> "William T Sessions, the associate deputy administrator
> (how's that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program
> at USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
> meat marketing claims"
>
>How can you be so stupid, Jon?

Yeah, but then again, is there any chance he could
improve even if he tried too? Not that he ever will of
course, but I wonder if he even could...

>Just who do you think
>you're trying to fool?
>
>>You are completely stuffed, Dreck.
>
>You are, and you know it.
>
>> It's been sweet music, eh?
>
>Beautiful.

You two are a pair of liars anyway. You are as
he is. You are Goochild. Really the only reason to
read either of your posts about anything is to see
what you're lying about at the time. Right? Right!

Rudy Canoza
2005-09-11 15:18:48 EST
fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon of animal
abuse, lied:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You really ought to read this post in full before
>>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
>>explaining to do.
>>
>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>[start - me]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>>>>>>>>>proposal and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>[you]
>>>>>>>>>>...have now dropped it.
>>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/754e8
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, they haven't,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No it has not been dropped,
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it has.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have no evidence to support that claim other
>>>>than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks.
>>>>I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA
>>>>and your email from William Sessions, the associate
>>>>deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the
>>>>Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in
>>>>charge of writing the standard for the "meat
>>>>marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing
>>>>claim standards are still under review by USDA."
>>>
>>>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail,
>>>
>>> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
>>> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
>>> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
>>> USDA will be published with a public comment period.
>>> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
>>> know if further information is needed. Thanks,
>>>
>>> William T. Sessions
>>> Associate Deputy Administrator
>>> Livestock and Seed Program
>>
>>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to
>>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then
>>altered it in this post to fit your argument,
>
>
> What a contemptible scum thing to do.

I didn't do it.



Derek
2005-09-11 15:26:36 EST
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:03:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You really ought to read this post in full before
>>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
>>explaining to do.
>>
>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>> On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [start - me]
>>>>>>>>>> > U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
>>>>>>>>>> > proposal and
>>>>>>>>>> [you]
>>>>>>>>>> ...have now dropped it.
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/754e8
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, they haven't,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No it has not been dropped,
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it has.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped
>>>>
>>>> You have no evidence to support that claim other
>>>> than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks.
>>>> I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA
>>>> and your email from William Sessions, the associate
>>>> deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the
>>>> Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in
>>>> charge of writing the standard for the "meat
>>>> marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing
>>>> claim standards are still under review by USDA."
>>>
>>>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail,
>>>
>>> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
>>> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
>>> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
>>> USDA will be published with a public comment period.
>>> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
>>> know if further information is needed. Thanks,
>>>
>>> William T. Sessions
>>> Associate Deputy Administrator
>>> Livestock and Seed Program
>>
>>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to
>>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then
>>altered it in this post to fit your argument,
>
> What a contemptible scum thing to do.

Fuck off, you contemptible, animal abusing piece of
scum. Sadistic and twisted animal abusers who breed
animals to fight in pits don't get to make any opinions
on the posts I write, one way or the other. Are we
clear on that, Harrison?

Ron
2005-09-11 16:26:36 EST

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon of animal
> abuse, lied:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:40:21 +0100, Derek <usenet.email@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You really ought to read this post in full before
> >>responding to it, Jon. You've got some serious
> >>explaining to do.
> >>
> >>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:37:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza <someguy@ph.con> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Derek wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:57:16 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 17:23:18 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 16:42:54 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:33:27 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 Sep 2005 14:04:51 -0700, "Rudy Canoza" <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Derek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The initial claims standard proposal was published
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>for comment in 2002
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>...and is now being revised
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>You said that it had been dropped,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>I didn't say that the entire endeavor had been dropped
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>[start - me]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
> >>>>>>>>>>>proposal and
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>[you]
> >>>>>>>>>>...have now dropped it.
> >>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/754e8
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>And indeed they have dropped that
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No, they haven't,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Yes, they have. That proposed standard is dropped.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No it has not been dropped,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes, it has.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actual prior proposed standard: dropped
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You have no evidence to support that claim other
> >>>>than your word, and that, as we all know, stinks.
> >>>>I, on the other hand, have evidence from USDA
> >>>>and your email from William Sessions, the associate
> >>>>deputy administrator (how's that for a title) at the
> >>>>Livestock and Seed Program at USDA who is in
> >>>>charge of writing the standard for the "meat
> >>>>marketing claims", and he says that, "The marketing
> >>>>claim standards are still under review by USDA."
> >>>
> >>>No, you imbecile - I have William Sessions's e-mail,
> >>>
> >>> Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. A revised
> >>> grass-fed marketing claim is under development by
> >>> USDA. Any grass-fed marketing claim proposed by
> >>> USDA will be published with a public comment period.
> >>> I hope this information is helpful. Please let me
> >>> know if further information is needed. Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> William T. Sessions
> >>> Associate Deputy Administrator
> >>> Livestock and Seed Program
> >>
> >>Gotcha! That email is different to the email you claim to
> >>have received from Sessions. YOU wrote it and then
> >>altered it in this post to fit your argument,
> >
> >
> > What a contemptible scum thing to do.
>
> I didn't do it.



Now Goober is reduced to borrowing a line from Bart Simpson.

Do you realize how pathetic you are coming across Gooby?

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron