Bike shops, rules, principles and law

On 1/24/2021 5:21 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 10:52:53 -0800, Mike A Schwab scribed:


Also look up the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, where they pay for
Ports and Roads and Trains in the form of a loan, then foreclose on the
loan. One huge impact was on Australia, where they decided the work on
a port wasn't up to quality, so they didn't accept the work.

Do you have a source for that?
Which oort?
Darwin is a 99 year lease.

China
retaliated by banning the purchase of coal, and are running a severe
coal shortage this winter.

My understanding of the basis behind the widespread 'banning' of
Australian goods is that China is trying to diversify its sources, where
it can and not make it highly dependent on one supplier. There have been
a lot of dodgy quality complaints from China about specific Australian
goods.

The political aim appears to be to make Australian "more respectful of
China" and not comment or question the origin of covid-19, persecution of
Uyghar(sp), repression in Hong Kong, etc.

Australia's response so far is to look more closely at overseas ownership
of Australian companies and knock back many China based (aka CCCP
controlled) companies, review all joint research arrangements, stop any
further Belts & Roads agreements, and a few other hollow sabre rattling
PR releases.


Australia's lucky. For Canada they're taking hostages.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 17:35:32 -0600, AMuzi scribed:

On 1/24/2021 5:21 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 10:52:53 -0800, Mike A Schwab scribed:


Also look up the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, where they pay for
Ports and Roads and Trains in the form of a loan, then foreclose on
the loan. One huge impact was on Australia, where they decided the
work on a port wasn't up to quality, so they didn't accept the work.

Do you have a source for that?
Which oort?
Darwin is a 99 year lease.

China
retaliated by banning the purchase of coal, and are running a severe
coal shortage this winter.

My understanding of the basis behind the widespread 'banning' of
Australian goods is that China is trying to diversify its sources,
where it can and not make it highly dependent on one supplier. There
have been a lot of dodgy quality complaints from China about specific
Australian goods.

The political aim appears to be to make Australian "more respectful of
China" and not comment or question the origin of covid-19, persecution
of Uyghar(sp), repression in Hong Kong, etc.

Australia's response so far is to look more closely at overseas
ownership of Australian companies and knock back many China based (aka
CCCP controlled) companies, review all joint research arrangements,
stop any further Belts & Roads agreements, and a few other hollow sabre
rattling PR releases.


Australia's lucky. For Canada they're taking hostages.

They have regularly been doing so for Australians as well. AFAIK, all are
dual China-Aust citizens.

On 1/24/2021 5:54 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 17:35:32 -0600, AMuzi scribed:

On 1/24/2021 5:21 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 10:52:53 -0800, Mike A Schwab scribed:


Also look up the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, where they pay for
Ports and Roads and Trains in the form of a loan, then foreclose on
the loan. One huge impact was on Australia, where they decided the
work on a port wasn't up to quality, so they didn't accept the work.

Do you have a source for that?
Which oort?
Darwin is a 99 year lease.

China
retaliated by banning the purchase of coal, and are running a severe
coal shortage this winter.

My understanding of the basis behind the widespread 'banning' of
Australian goods is that China is trying to diversify its sources,
where it can and not make it highly dependent on one supplier. There
have been a lot of dodgy quality complaints from China about specific
Australian goods.

The political aim appears to be to make Australian "more respectful of
China" and not comment or question the origin of covid-19, persecution
of Uyghar(sp), repression in Hong Kong, etc.

Australia's response so far is to look more closely at overseas
ownership of Australian companies and knock back many China based (aka
CCCP controlled) companies, review all joint research arrangements,
stop any further Belts & Roads agreements, and a few other hollow sabre
rattling PR releases.


Australia's lucky. For Canada they're taking hostages.

They have regularly been doing so for Australians as well. AFAIK, all are
dual China-Aust citizens.



Bad enough, and not trivial especially to those held.
Worse:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...-in-china.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, January 24, 2021 at 4:09:26 p.m. UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 24, 2021 at 8:50:25 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2021 4:33 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:23:51 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

A proper tomato would splat when dropped from a much smaller height.

I just drop tested a Roma tomato.
https://www.google.com/search?q=roma+tomato&tbm=isch
At about 3ft high off my vinyl kitchen floor, it sorta bounced a
little. No damage or dents. I then dropped it 4 times from about 6ft
(by holding it over my head). The first 3 hits just bounced a tiny
amount and rolled. However, on the 4th hit, the tomato landed on the
blossom end (opposite the vine end) and split slightly open. Only the
outer wall split and none of the contents gushed out. I then cleaned
the tomato and added it to my salad lunch.

My guess(tm) is that a Roma tomato can probably survive falling off a
truck without splitting open or going splat mostly because it has a
rather thick and dense pulp.




A great effort for the advancement of science, thanks.

Tomatoes for grocery/restaurant are picked early but
tomatoes for canning are picked ripe. In my area, canning
plants run 24 hours in season with trucks running all over
the area.
I lived near a Del Monte cannery in San Jose that canned tomatoes and made catsup. It had an acrid odor that was not tremendously pleasant. My sister worked there during college in the summer and had stories about the allowable number of tomato worms what went into catsup -- and the amount floor sweeping allowed in pickle relish (another product produced there, although the pickles were pickled cross town, which produced its own smell).

-- Jay Beattie.

My mother worked for a while at a meat plant where luncheon meats were made.. She said that if you ever saw what went into those meats that you'd never buy them.

Cheers

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 13:09:55 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, January 22, 2021 at 11:42:55 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:33:30 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 8:32:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:31:43 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2021 12:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:06:20 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...us-since-2000/
:-) It's like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?
https://www.lodigrowers.com/wp-conte...012-census.jpg

It might help to use slightly later data. From the US Farm Census for
2017[1]:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0001_0001.pdf
Dividing 900,217,576 acres of farmland, by 2,042,220 farms, I get an
average of 441 acres per farm. Yet, you stated in a previous message:
"In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres"
I'm not aware of it so I would like to know where you found or how you
calculated a number that is off by a factor of 10.

More pubs and sources for US Farm Census:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/index.php
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/

[1] Nothing later seems to be available after the election of what's
his name in 2016.

Is there some reason you find it necessary to be consciously aware
that most of the corn and soybean farms in the great plains are
owned by a single company and comprise 100,000 acres or more which
offsets that "average farm size" to make that preposterous number
of 443 acres per farm? Why don't you go over to Half Moon Bay and
tell them that the farmers have 443 acre farms?
Nice commentary. Now, back to my question. Where did you find the 40
acres number or how did you calculate it? Quoting your previous
statement again:
"In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres"
I don't care where you think an easily calculated value of 443 acre
average farm size is right, wrong, slanted, tweaked, misleading, or
absurd. I want to know where you found or contrived the 40 acres
number. In case it's not obvious to you by now, I don't trust your
numbers.

By the way, what is a "standard farm"? Is that where they grow
standards?
I suppose the
question is: why did you posting when you should have known totally
different when Santa Cruz county is filled with 3 acre Christmas
Tree farms?
What do Christmas tree farms have to do with your statement that "the
standard farm is only 40 acres"? Nice try to divert the discussion to
Christmas tree farms.

It appears that I misunderstood what was based upon the Homestead Act.
You could GET 160 acres if you planted 40 acres.

It appears that you also misunderstood the Homestead Acts. There
wasn't just one act. There were eight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#History

You also misunderstood the intent of planting 40 acres. It wasn't
subsistence crops but to encourage homesteaders to plant 40 acres of
trees to help alleviate a shortage of lumber.

Timber Culture Act of 1873:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Culture_Act
160 acres (65 ha) of additional free land could be
obtained if they set aside 40 acres (16 ha) to grow
trees to solve the problem of lack of wood on the
Great Plains. After planting the trees the land
could only be completely obtained if it was occupied
by the same family for at least 5 years.

Note the word "additional". I'm not sure exactly how that worked, but
it seems that 160 additional acres was most likely to go to a family
which was already homesteading their first 160 acres. Doubling the
size of the homestead by planting 40 out of 320 acres with trees
strikes me as a bargain.

There was something called "40 acres and a mule". This had nothing to
do with Homesteading. It was General Sherman's Field Order 15, which
allocated 400,000 acres of confiscated Confederate land to be given to
freed slaves as 40 acres (quarter sections) sections. I could find
anything definitive on the mule.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/12/376781165/the-story-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule

Also, I found no mention of your "standard farm" of 40 acres.

All of the ranches and farms I knew in the family were 40 acre
plots

I'll take your word for it.

and my cousin's land in San Jose was grabbed by the state
government and El Camino Real put in over the Walnut orchard.
After these land grants I believe you had to farm these for a
certain number of years whereupon you gain complete possession
meaning that you could sell is as personal property.

5 years in residence and 2 additional years to bring the family and
move to the homestead. The 2 years was necessary as it could take
homesteaders from Europe a long time to dispose of their assets,
arrange financing, make travel arrangements, and move.

"The homestead was an area of public land in the West (usually
160 acres or 65 ha) granted to any US citizen willing to settle
on and farm the land. The law (and those following it) required
a three-step procedu file an application, improve the land,
and file for the patent (deed). Any citizen who had never taken
up arms against the U.S. government (including freed slaves after
the fourteenth amendment) and was at least 21 years old or the
head of a household, could file an application to claim a federal
land grant. Women were eligible. The occupant had to reside on
the land for five years, and show evidence of having made
improvements. The process had to be complete within seven years."

Nice quotation. Oddly, it doesn't mention 40 acres. I prefer to get
such information from the source. I'm too lazy to search for where
you cut-n-pasted the quote. Could I trouble you to provide the URL?

While I'm at it, you had the URL available when you cut-n-pasted that.
You even wrapped it in quotes. Why did you fail to provide the URL?
Are you trying to make me work harder just to demonstrate that you
screwed up on your original claim of:
"In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres"

Last time I checked, admitting that you made a mistake is not a
capital crime or likely to cause a fatal loss of reputation.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 24, 2021 at 2:02:08 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2021 3:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I lived near a Del Monte cannery in San Jose that canned tomatoes and
made catsup. It had an acrid odor that was not tremendously pleasant.
My sister worked there during college in the summer and had stories
about the allowable number of tomato worms what went into catsup --
and the amount floor sweeping allowed in pickle relish (another
product produced there, although the pickles were pickled cross town,
which produced its own smell).

-- Jay Beattie.

Well, there has to be some standard and zero is not it. Much like rat
hair limits for peanut butter and so on.

Worms are good protein. In this post-Victorian cannery (and as I recall
the story), the pickle sorting started at the top with the picturesque
pickles going into jars and the remainder getting swept through holes to
other areas -- and going down and down until only the dregs made it into
some dark and dank basement bog filed with rejected pickles, floor
sweepings, dead rats - all floating around together. My sister made it
sound like Indiana Jones and the Curse of the Death Pickle, but she could
be dramatic, and I'm sure there were inspectors somewhere, assuming they
were not killed by the water moccasins and asps.

I finally understand why Scharfie's "We'll build the Great Appleville Wall
and have San Jose pay for it" joke was considered tasteless: San Jose would
have to sell more cans of worms to finance it.

On 1/24/2021 9:47 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 24, 2021 at 4:09:26 p.m. UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 24, 2021 at 8:50:25 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2021 4:33 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:23:51 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

A proper tomato would splat when dropped from a much smaller height.

I just drop tested a Roma tomato.
https://www.google.com/search?q=roma+tomato&tbm=isch
At about 3ft high off my vinyl kitchen floor, it sorta bounced a
little. No damage or dents. I then dropped it 4 times from about 6ft
(by holding it over my head). The first 3 hits just bounced a tiny
amount and rolled. However, on the 4th hit, the tomato landed on the
blossom end (opposite the vine end) and split slightly open. Only the
outer wall split and none of the contents gushed out. I then cleaned
the tomato and added it to my salad lunch.

My guess(tm) is that a Roma tomato can probably survive falling off a
truck without splitting open or going splat mostly because it has a
rather thick and dense pulp.




A great effort for the advancement of science, thanks.

Tomatoes for grocery/restaurant are picked early but
tomatoes for canning are picked ripe. In my area, canning
plants run 24 hours in season with trucks running all over
the area.
I lived near a Del Monte cannery in San Jose that canned tomatoes and made catsup. It had an acrid odor that was not tremendously pleasant. My sister worked there during college in the summer and had stories about the allowable number of tomato worms what went into catsup -- and the amount floor sweeping allowed in pickle relish (another product produced there, although the pickles were pickled cross town, which produced its own smell).

-- Jay Beattie.

My mother worked for a while at a meat plant where luncheon meats were made. She said that if you ever saw what went into those meats that you'd never buy them.

Cheers


"Everything but the oink"

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:15:09 -0600,
AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2021 9:47 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 24, 2021 at 4:09:26 p.m. UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 24, 2021 at 8:50:25 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2021 4:33 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:23:51 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

A proper tomato would splat when dropped from a much
smaller height.

I just drop tested a Roma tomato.
https://www.google.com/search?q=roma+tomato&tbm=isch At
about 3ft high off my vinyl kitchen floor, it sorta bounced
a little. No damage or dents. I then dropped it 4 times
from about 6ft (by holding it over my head). The first 3
hits just bounced a tiny amount and rolled. However, on the
4th hit, the tomato landed on the blossom end (opposite the
vine end) and split slightly open. Only the outer wall
split and none of the contents gushed out. I then cleaned
the tomato and added it to my salad lunch.

My guess(tm) is that a Roma tomato can probably survive
falling off a truck without splitting open or going splat
mostly because it has a rather thick and dense pulp.

A great effort for the advancement of science, thanks.

Tomatoes for grocery/restaurant are picked early but
tomatoes for canning are picked ripe. In my area, canning
plants run 24 hours in season with trucks running all over
the area.
I lived near a Del Monte cannery in San Jose that canned
tomatoes and made catsup. It had an acrid odor that was not
tremendously pleasant. My sister worked there during college
in the summer and had stories about the allowable number of
tomato worms what went into catsup -- and the amount floor
sweeping allowed in pickle relish (another product produced
there, although the pickles were pickled cross town, which
produced its own smell).

My mother worked for a while at a meat plant where luncheon
meats were made. She said that if you ever saw what went into
those meats that you'd never buy them.

"Everything but the oink"

Or as I always say, "Hot dogs: lips and assholes."

Doesn't stop me from eating them, though.

--
Ted Heise West Lafayette, IN, USA

On Sunday, January 24, 2021 at 2:55:28 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 13:25:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, January 22, 2021 at 4:54:47 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:22:45 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 4:59:46 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:24:24 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 05:42:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:11:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/21/2021 12:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:06:20 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...us-since-2000/

:-) It's like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

Yup, but is sort of pitiful in today's world where information is
literally at one's finger tip.

Not quite. Data is at everyone's finger tip. However, to get
information, you either have to processes that data yourself, hire
someone to process it for you, or get it for free from talking heads
or organizations that manipulate the data for their own benefit.
True, one definition of information certainly is "a collection of
facts from which conclusions may be drawn" but one has to assume that
the average person is capable of, at least, limited thought and should
be capable of converting said collection of facts into a reasonably
facsimile of information.

Of course, if one dives straight into the informational stream one
might find that it is very shallow in some places. Or to translate,
"some information is not factual" but then it appears that non-factual
information suits some people's illusions (or delusions) far better
then actual facts :-)

You are perfectly happy to lie through your teeth to prove any point you wish to make. Either that or you are so ****ing stupid it doesn't even occur to you that 75% of all farms have under 100 acres and one farm with 10,000 acres offsets that number you used simply because you wanted to counter my argument. You have something seriously wrong in your head and you have shown it time after time after time in your postings here to the point where everyone but Kragowski doesn't bother with your stupidity. And the only reason that Kragowski does is because he is a communist by nature and doesn't want any conservative thought to be voiced anywhere in the world.
Tommy your problem is that you are somewhat divorced from reality.
Nobody posts simply to counter your posts. Note that when you post one
of your usual sagas about how you rode ten miles and climbed 10,000
feet nobody leaps up and shouts, "No! No! Tommy, it was only 9,999
feet. Do they.

It is only when you post one of your usual great seaming heaps of
manure that people counter your posts... by posting the truth.

As the Good Book says, " you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free.�

Why is it that according to the USDA, 81.5% of farms are 304 acres or less? That farms with 81 acres or less comprise over 50% of all farms? I realize that you are so stupid that you don't understand the simplest form of statistics and why a moron like you is perfectly satisfied to use anything would give you some sort of advantage even though it is transparently stupid, but there you are all by yourself.
Ah... so you WERE lying, or perhaps exhibiting your ignorance, when
you stated that "In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is
only 40 acres."
--
Cheers,

John B.
So you can't add two and two and I'm lying. The words stream from the mouth of a coward safe at a distance via the Internet. I asked you - since MOST farms in California are under 9 acres now, tell about everything you have ever known.

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 12:20:54 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 13:09:55 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, January 22, 2021 at 11:42:55 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:33:30 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 8:32:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:31:43 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2021 12:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:06:20 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:
In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...us-since-2000/
:-) It's like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?
https://www.lodigrowers.com/wp-conte...012-census.jpg

It might help to use slightly later data. From the US Farm Census for
2017[1]:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0001_0001.pdf
Dividing 900,217,576 acres of farmland, by 2,042,220 farms, I get an
average of 441 acres per farm. Yet, you stated in a previous message:
"In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres"
I'm not aware of it so I would like to know where you found or how you
calculated a number that is off by a factor of 10.

More pubs and sources for US Farm Census:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/index.php
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/

[1] Nothing later seems to be available after the election of what's
his name in 2016.

Is there some reason you find it necessary to be consciously aware
that most of the corn and soybean farms in the great plains are
owned by a single company and comprise 100,000 acres or more which
offsets that "average farm size" to make that preposterous number
of 443 acres per farm? Why don't you go over to Half Moon Bay and
tell them that the farmers have 443 acre farms?
Nice commentary. Now, back to my question. Where did you find the 40
acres number or how did you calculate it? Quoting your previous
statement again:
"In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres"
I don't care where you think an easily calculated value of 443 acre
average farm size is right, wrong, slanted, tweaked, misleading, or
absurd. I want to know where you found or contrived the 40 acres
number. In case it's not obvious to you by now, I don't trust your
numbers.

By the way, what is a "standard farm"? Is that where they grow
standards?
I suppose the
question is: why did you posting when you should have known totally
different when Santa Cruz county is filled with 3 acre Christmas
Tree farms?
What do Christmas tree farms have to do with your statement that "the
standard farm is only 40 acres"? Nice try to divert the discussion to
Christmas tree farms.

It appears that I misunderstood what was based upon the Homestead Act.
You could GET 160 acres if you planted 40 acres.
It appears that you also misunderstood the Homestead Acts. There
wasn't just one act. There were eight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#History

You also misunderstood the intent of planting 40 acres. It wasn't
subsistence crops but to encourage homesteaders to plant 40 acres of
trees to help alleviate a shortage of lumber.

Timber Culture Act of 1873:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Culture_Act
160 acres (65 ha) of additional free land could be
obtained if they set aside 40 acres (16 ha) to grow
trees to solve the problem of lack of wood on the
Great Plains. After planting the trees the land
could only be completely obtained if it was occupied
by the same family for at least 5 years.

Note the word "additional". I'm not sure exactly how that worked, but
it seems that 160 additional acres was most likely to go to a family
which was already homesteading their first 160 acres. Doubling the
size of the homestead by planting 40 out of 320 acres with trees
strikes me as a bargain.

There was something called "40 acres and a mule". This had nothing to
do with Homesteading. It was General Sherman's Field Order 15, which
allocated 400,000 acres of confiscated Confederate land to be given to
freed slaves as 40 acres (quarter sections) sections. I could find
anything definitive on the mule.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/12/376781165/the-story-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule

Also, I found no mention of your "standard farm" of 40 acres.
All of the ranches and farms I knew in the family were 40 acre
plots
I'll take your word for it.
and my cousin's land in San Jose was grabbed by the state
government and El Camino Real put in over the Walnut orchard.
After these land grants I believe you had to farm these for a
certain number of years whereupon you gain complete possession
meaning that you could sell is as personal property.
5 years in residence and 2 additional years to bring the family and
move to the homestead. The 2 years was necessary as it could take
homesteaders from Europe a long time to dispose of their assets,
arrange financing, make travel arrangements, and move.
"The homestead was an area of public land in the West (usually
160 acres or 65 ha) granted to any US citizen willing to settle
on and farm the land. The law (and those following it) required
a three-step procedu file an application, improve the land,
and file for the patent (deed). Any citizen who had never taken
up arms against the U.S. government (including freed slaves after
the fourteenth amendment) and was at least 21 years old or the
head of a household, could file an application to claim a federal
land grant. Women were eligible. The occupant had to reside on
the land for five years, and show evidence of having made
improvements. The process had to be complete within seven years."
Nice quotation. Oddly, it doesn't mention 40 acres. I prefer to get
such information from the source. I'm too lazy to search for where
you cut-n-pasted the quote. Could I trouble you to provide the URL?

While I'm at it, you had the URL available when you cut-n-pasted that.
You even wrapped it in quotes. Why did you fail to provide the URL?
Are you trying to make me work harder just to demonstrate that you
screwed up on your original claim of:
"In case you are unaware of it, the standard farm is only 40 acres"
Last time I checked, admitting that you made a mistake is not a
capital crime or likely to cause a fatal loss of reputation.

So you live in a farming area and you think that farms are 443 acres do you?