Listen to you.
You call me a liar to suggest that the Pickett plaintiffs were suing Tyson for marketing arrangements that they had entered into yet you don't have enough confidence in your position to take my bet to the contrary. Then you have the nerve to lecture me on "name calling". What a self righteous hypocrite.
Makes a nice diversion doesn't it Mike?
If you don't like the definition of being a blamer then you need to talk to someone about changing the definition.
If you had any integrity you would either take my bet or admit to the hypocrisy of filing a lawsuit against a packer for a marketing agreement that the plaintiffs willingly participated in rather than denying that it happened.
You call me a liar yet you don't have the self confidence in your position to take my bet and prove it. That says more about you than I ever could.
Mike you obviously don't know anything about me or you would realize that I would not hesitate to say anything to your face that I have said here.
You are a coward to suggest that I lied about the plaintiffs not entering into the arrangements they sued for while being unwilling to take my bet. Remind me if we ever meet to say that to your face.
A better man than what?
If you were a better man, you would admit to the hypocrisy of filing a lawsuit against a packer for a marketing arrangement that you willingly participated in. That is exactly what some of the plaintiffs in Pickett and most of the plaintiff's witnesses did.
I just made another phone call this afternoon. Most of the plaintiffs and virtually all of the witnesses at one time or other entered into a "captive supply arrangement" with a major packer.
If you don't believe it, show some integrity and take the bet.
You have nothing but my admission to misunderstanding how the term "captive supply" was used in a discussion on the plaintiffs entering into "captive supply arrangements" with Tyson.
The issue of hyocrisy is still there but you don't have the integrity to admit it or find out the truth.
~SH~