"Fred Weiss" papertig.com> wrote in message
news:93919e12-3ace-44e3-a3d9-22dc8d27d310@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 5:35 am, "Tim" q.con> wrote:

That may be but you have to demonstrate that's the case here.

---------------------------------

You demonstrated it. I merely pointed it out.

---------------------------------

Obviously you're desperate to change the subject and you're grasping
at whatever straws you can in the hopes that it might save you from
your current predicament.

---------------------------------

Wrong again. It's you who is a runnin'. White Flag Weazer, definately a
pattern there. The straws I'm grasping at are the 'facts' you are making
that led me to the conclusion that you make nonsensical statements. The one
testable fact that you've offered in your babblings re. economics is the N/T
pop. density. You were out to lunch. The rest of your pronouncements and
your assumed knowledge of economics are based on no testable facts
whatsoever. The best you offer is the non sequitor: think for yourself and
read ayn rand.

----------------------------------

As for my Netherlands/Texas comparison, I admit my numbers were way,
way off for which I can thank my self-appointed fact and typo checker,
the inimitable Tiny Tim. But the point remains the same. A relatively
small percentage of the world's land mass could comfortably accomodate
the world's population, still leaving vast habitable areas. Now if
you'd like to see how you would do addressing *that* point, feel free.
Though in your case it would probably end up being your usual jumping
from the frying pan into the fire.