Agman Refuted by Tyson president and chief operating officer

[mwj]

So you say the title of this thread is factually corect with nothing to back it up :roll: ''Oh My''

 

[Econ101]

So you say the title of this thread is factually corect with nothing to back it up :roll: ''Oh My''

It does require you to think a little bit mwj.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS "AGMAN REFUTED........"

TAKE AGMAN'S %@!^*@ QUOTE AND PRESENT THE FACTS, NOT STATEMENTS, THAT CONTRADICT HIM TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

Your statements and disertations WITHOUT SUPPORTING FACTS AND QUOTES are absolutely meaningless.

Any chickensh*t can make statements. BACK YOUR POSITION UP WITH SUPPORTING FACTS.

You said Agman was refuted, WHERE? WHAT DID AGMAN STATE THAT WAS INCORRECT AND WHERE IS YOUR PROOF TO THE CONTRARY????

BRING IT OR ONCE AGAIN PROVE THAT YOU ARE ALL HAT AND NO CATTLE!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman,

THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS "AGMAN REFUTED........"

TAKE AGMAN'S %@!^*@ QUOTE AND PRESENT THE FACTS, NOT STATEMENTS, THAT CONTRADICT HIM TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

Your statements and disertations WITHOUT SUPPORTING FACTS AND QUOTES are absolutely meaningless.

Any chickensh*t can make statements. BACK YOUR POSITION UP WITH SUPPORTING FACTS.

You said Agman was refuted, WHERE? WHAT DID AGMAN STATE THAT WAS INCORRECT AND WHERE IS YOUR PROOF TO THE CONTRARY????

BRING IT OR ONCE AGAIN PROVE THAT YOU ARE ALL HAT AND NO CATTLE!



~SH~

SH-- "Your statements and disertations WITHOUT SUPPORTING FACTS AND QUOTES are absolutely meaningless. "


And so are Agman's numbers he posted as well as his assertions on demand being the primary casual agent in the recent run up in beef prices. I just showed where Tyson execs. said it in public. I didn't make up the quote, it came from an article I have nothing to do with.

You are so delusional.

 

[Anonymous]

BRING AGMAN'S EXACT STATEMENT THAT YOU SAY WAS REFUTED BY TYSON'S POSITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING THE STATEMENT YOU @%*&!%&@ PHONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Don't you think everyone can see how you dance around ever having to back any of your claims?????



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

BRING AGMAN'S EXACT STATEMENT THAT YOU SAY WAS REFUTED BY TYSON'S POSITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING THE STATEMENT YOU @%*&!%&@ PHONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Don't you think everyone can see how you dance around ever having to back any of your claims?????



~SH~

Mike, this is another example of one of SH's little hissyfits.

 

[Anonymous]

Readers,

This is another example of how Conman will say and do anything to avoid having to back his "Agman refuted......" statement.

Par for the course!


~SH~

 

[agman]

Show your work, Agman, and I will gladly look to see its validity. I have asked for this little bit of information from you before. I have always said that you can find a little truth in someone else even if they disagree with you. You just like playing the same game as Tyson: Hide your deeds so they can't be questioned or refuted, and then claim innocense on the assumption of not being guilty until proven so. Sounds like you and Tyson have the same strategists.

Econ, how about YOU show YOUR work. I have yet to see you post with anything but accusations. You fire away at Schroeder's work, which has been very widely peer-reviewed and still stands as a seminal work in that area, but you have yet to show a SINGLE NUMBER. Where's your work? Agman puts up real, factual numbers to support his argument, you simply bring out the thesaurus and start calling names.

Then comes out the conspiracy theorist ideas and you throw around a lot of EMOTION and absolutely zero FACT.

It's time that you either start bringing in facts or at least stop the wild accusations and name-calling.

Phil

Phil, I don't disagree with Schroeder's article in question. I do disagree with Agman's definition of causuality of changes in demand. Agman did some calculations but did not disclose where he got his numbers, what they were based on, the assumptions, etc. He just presented them as gospel truth along with all the interpretation of those numbers.

Agman first disputed my claim of supply driven price increases, then did an analysis that largely supported my claims (with his own calculations) but then argued with me on the number he attributed to demand. I simply asked him to show his work so we could look into the interpretation and analysis to see if it was correct. He did not provide that information, and wants to stick with his own interpretation even though the top guy at Tyson says differently publically.


quote]

I have erased your other garbage comments and will address this claim of yours "Agman first disputed my claim of supply driven price increases, then did an analysis that largely supported my claims (with his own calculations) but then argued with me on the number he attributed to demand."

What I disputed was your claim that "prices can only go up if supply goes down". That statement from you is totally false and shows the lengths you will accept to lie, twist and misrepresent information. What I showed for the period in question was the fact that part of the price advance was supply related while the balance was clearly demand related. You then claimed that my conclusion supported your view but ignored totally the portion of the price gains that was strictly demand related. In addition you totally ignored those periods when beef, competing meat supplies and prices all advanced simultaneously.

You are so ignorant of facts the you do not even know the existance of the periods I mentioned. Since you have done no work on your own per this subject you are not in any postion to provide any valid critique of my results.

If you think you can refute my work then post your own data and refute my work. Show all of us what you got there professor!!! You constantly make claims but fail to ever support any of those claims or lies-whichever is most convenient and fits your skewed bias and view of business at the time.

I am still waitng for to show all the readers where Tyson contradicted my position. You remain a total fraud.

 

[agman]

Agman:"Chicken demand increased 5.17% during 2005. When substantially more chicken is consumed at higher prices only Conman would try to convince you that condition does not represent improved demand for that product. But who believes Conman's lies anyway?"

I thought we went through this before, Agman. Increase in consumption and prices at the same time is not necessarily an indicator of a shift in demand upward. You need to go back and read Schroeder's article again, Agman.

You began using some of the operative words in another post, "when all other things are held constant". Unless you show your work, your economic interpretation in these matters is just a bunch of hoooey. You may be able to fool your packer backers, but it is not hard to lead the mindless. If you are promising them a brain at the end of the yellow brick road, I think they will all be disappointed. I know I have been disappointed in their economic acuity. Yours is nothing more than a wizard's elaborate deception.

Where did I use those operative words regarding Tyson's comment? Two separate issues fool; don't you know the difference? Please scroll up to my comments concerning Tyson and copy those words!! Another lie that you cannot backup-par for you.

If you think I am wrong then proceed to prove it hero!!!! All your previous accusations have been unsupported, so is this one. Why would you want me to reference Schroeder's study when you previously claimed the study was faulty? Watch Conman provide an elaborate dissertation that will be totally meaningless as usual.

Accusing someone of being mindless must be your echo on the rebound. You remain the most inept person to ever post on these forums-a total joke everyday-a true mental midget. Better luck arguing with yourself next time as you get squashed everytime you post on these forums Conman.

Not all things in Schroeder's study were incorrect. I find it amusing that a self professed expert like you can not tell what is and what is not correct on a study you claimed to have personal input with both the study and the authors.

Another bold faced lie from Conman, a wanna be Ag Economist. " I find it amusing that a self professed expert like you can not tell what is and what is not correct on a study you claimed to have personal input with both the study and the authors."

Please show readers where I ever said I had anything to do with the study you cite by Schroeder and others. I clearly have stated otherwise. You have trapped yourself in another lie. My input was, as I clearly stated, on the development of a demand index for the beef industry in 1999. Dr Schroeder was present at that meeting as I indicated. Dr Wayne Purcell, also present at that meeting, developed the actual index that is used by the industry today. None of the other authors of the article you cite were present at the meeting nor did I say I knew them. Either you cannot read or you are too stupid and/or dishonest to admit to the truth. I believe you are both.

I do know as I posted, many for the Ag Economists cited in the Taylor article which was posted by Sandman-a completely different issue. They were listed as "esteemed" and hailed by you until informed by me that none of those Ag Economists have conducted or completed a thorough analysis of ALL potential negative and/or positive benefits of marketing agreements. The net benefits of marketing agreemtns were never analyzed by any of them. Some professor and truth seeker you are!! Do you have any students foolish enough to waste their valuable time with a total fraud like you?

If I am to assume as you do regarding every event I will assume you are from a background that totally failed in agriculture and you are obsessed on proving it was someone else's fault-par for you. The truth is secondary to your bias and ignorance leaving you to accuse, blame and smear while never providing an iota of supporting evidence which you demand of others. Thanks for ending my day with a good laugh.

 

[Econ101]

Where did I use those operative words regarding Tyson's comment? Two separate issues fool; don't you know the difference? Please scroll up to my comments concerning Tyson and copy those words!! Another lie that you cannot backup-par for you.

If you think I am wrong then proceed to prove it hero!!!! All your previous accusations have been unsupported, so is this one. Why would you want me to reference Schroeder's study when you previously claimed the study was faulty? Watch Conman provide an elaborate dissertation that will be totally meaningless as usual.

Accusing someone of being mindless must be your echo on the rebound. You remain the most inept person to ever post on these forums-a total joke everyday-a true mental midget. Better luck arguing with yourself next time as you get squashed everytime you post on these forums Conman.

Not all things in Schroeder's study were incorrect. I find it amusing that a self professed expert like you can not tell what is and what is not correct on a study you claimed to have personal input with both the study and the authors.

Another bold faced lie from Conman, a wanna be Ag Economist. " I find it amusing that a self professed expert like you can not tell what is and what is not correct on a study you claimed to have personal input with both the study and the authors."

Please show readers where I ever said I had anything to do with the study you cite by Schroeder and others. I clearly have stated otherwise. You have trapped yourself in another lie. My input was, as I clearly stated, on the development of a demand index for the beef industry in 1999. Dr Schroeder was present at that meeting as I indicated. Dr Wayne Purcell, also present at that meeting, developed the actual index that is used by the industry today. None of the other authors of the article you cite were present at the meeting nor did I say I knew them. Either you cannot read or you are too stupid and/or dishonest to admit to the truth. I believe you are both.

I do know as I posted, many for the Ag Economists cited in the Taylor article which was posted by Sandman-a completely different issue. They were listed as "esteemed" and hailed by you until informed by me that none of those Ag Economists have conducted or completed a thorough analysis of ALL potential negative and/or positive benefits of marketing agreements. The net benefits of marketing agreemtns were never analyzed by any of them. Some professor and truth seeker you are!! Do you have any students foolish enough to waste their valuable time with a total fraud like you?

If I am to assume as you do regarding every event I will assume you are from a background that totally failed in agriculture and you are obsessed on proving it was someone else's fault-par for you. The truth is secondary to your bias and ignorance leaving you to accuse, blame and smear while never providing an iota of supporting evidence which you demand of others. Thanks for ending my day with a good laugh.

Agman, the potential benefits of marketing agreements has never been the issue. I will concede they have many positive aspects. It is the misuse of them in the market manipulation scheme that Pickett pointed proved to a jury that was the problem. I haven't hailed anyone on this board, but I have pointed out where Taylor's work is far superior to anything you have posted. It is not about personalities, it is about data, its interpretation and the misuse of it by people like you.

Actually, I thought the paper on explaining demand by Schroeder was very good. You could learn a few things from it. The big problem I have is with people like you that have decided that a demand index that suits your needs is better than real economics. As I have said before, it has about as much relevance as the concept of parity. If the USDA has dropped the whole parity concept for judging the value farmers/cattlemen bring to the table, why did Schroeder even work on the demand index and why is it used as a base line for the obvious reason of hiding coordination of the meats group for packer manipulation and profit?

You still have some questions on the table regarding your calculated values for supply/demand analysis. Why don't you answer them before you venture into more of your disinformation? I have asked you bunches of times for the basis of your numbers when you calculated your supply/demand analysis. You have refused to answer any of them. Show your work, Agman. Show your work, or don't assume that your numbers are credible (they may be for all I know, but without you showing your work, we will never know). What have you got to hide?

 

[agman]

Not all things in Schroeder's study were incorrect. I find it amusing that a self professed expert like you can not tell what is and what is not correct on a study you claimed to have personal input with both the study and the authors.

Another bold faced lie from Conman, a wanna be Ag Economist. " I find it amusing that a self professed expert like you can not tell what is and what is not correct on a study you claimed to have personal input with both the study and the authors."

Please show readers where I ever said I had anything to do with the study you cite by Schroeder and others. I clearly have stated otherwise. You have trapped yourself in another lie. My input was, as I clearly stated, on the development of a demand index for the beef industry in 1999. Dr Schroeder was present at that meeting as I indicated. Dr Wayne Purcell, also present at that meeting, developed the actual index that is used by the industry today. None of the other authors of the article you cite were present at the meeting nor did I say I knew them. Either you cannot read or you are too stupid and/or dishonest to admit to the truth. I believe you are both.

I do know as I posted, many for the Ag Economists cited in the Taylor article which was posted by Sandman-a completely different issue. They were listed as "esteemed" and hailed by you until informed by me that none of those Ag Economists have conducted or completed a thorough analysis of ALL potential negative and/or positive benefits of marketing agreements. The net benefits of marketing agreemtns were never analyzed by any of them. Some professor and truth seeker you are!! Do you have any students foolish enough to waste their valuable time with a total fraud like you?

If I am to assume as you do regarding every event I will assume you are from a background that totally failed in agriculture and you are obsessed on proving it was someone else's fault-par for you. The truth is secondary to your bias and ignorance leaving you to accuse, blame and smear while never providing an iota of supporting evidence which you demand of others. Thanks for ending my day with a good laugh.

Agman, the potential benefits of marketing agreements has never been the issue. I will concede they have many positive aspects. It is the misuse of them in the market manipulation scheme that Pickett pointed proved to a jury that was the problem. I haven't hailed anyone on this board, but I have pointed out where Taylor's work is far superior to anything you have posted. It is not about personalities, it is about data, its interpretation and the misuse of it by people like you.

Actually, I thought the paper on explaining demand by Schroeder was very good. You could learn a few things from it. The big problem I have is with people like you that have decided that a demand index that suits your needs is better than real economics. As I have said before, it has about as much relevance as the concept of parity. If the USDA has dropped the whole parity concept for judging the value farmers/cattlemen bring to the table, why did Schroeder even work on the demand index and why is it used as a base line for the obvious reason of hiding coordination of the meats group for packer manipulation and profit?

You still have some questions on the table regarding your calculated values for supply/demand analysis. Why don't you answer them before you venture into more of your disinformation? I have asked you bunches of times for the basis of your numbers when you calculated your supply/demand analysis. You have refused to answer any of them. Show your work, Agman. Show your work, or don't assume that your numbers are credible (they may be for all I know, but without you showing your work, we will never know). What have you got to hide?

If you question my own numbrs then do your own work and post your results for comparison.

You never run out of manipulation theories-your comment "why did Schroeder even work on the demand index and why is it used as a base line for the obvious reason of hiding coordination of the meats group for packer manipulation and profit?"

You are a total fool and fraud who knows nothing about this industry. If you think there is or was coordination then provide some valid evidence or go and suck your thumb you pathetic looser. The only "obvious" event is your total ignarance and failure in agriculture. Your latest accusation is no more accurate and truthful then your numerous claims of behind closed door meetings in the Pickett case. Thanks for the laugh today.

 

[Econ101]

So, agman, are you going to show your work or are you going to keep hiding from the questions? You obviously questioned Taylor's numbers but you had all his work, didn't you? You still couldn't come up with anything except the lame excuse that there is a legitimate business reason for marketing agreements. Keep hiding if you think it will help.


By the way, Agman, I was talking about the demand index when you called me a liar.

Your tell is showing.

 

[agman]

So, agman, are you going to show your work or are you going to keep hiding from the questions? You obviously questioned Taylor's numbers but you had all his work, didn't you? You still couldn't come up with anything except the lame excuse that there is a legitimate business reason for marketing agreements. Keep hiding if you think it will help.


By the way, Agman, I was talking about the demand index when you called me a liar.

Your tell is showing.

If you question my numbers then all you have to do is your own research and refute my comments. Why should I do your work?

Regarding Taylor he was the one who got dismantled in the court room. He is the same man who under oath said "he did NOT test his theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices". You blatantly lied when you said on several occasions that he did test his theories. His comments were in the trail transcripts. Are you accusing Taylor of lying under oath?

I did have access to Taylor's work and was very cognizant of several key variables that were never examined by him that would have cast even futher doubt on his claimed but never validated conclusion. He was easy picking for the defense team. That is precisely why they ended their defense following only four days of testimony. That is why he was recalled to the stands and was the last witness they called prior to resting their defense.

Your comment from above "You still couldn't come up with anything except the lame excuse that there is a legitimate business reason for marketing agreements." That is another lie from you. You just can't keep track of all your lies anymore. You are the one who has the comprehension problem you so often accuse others of. I NEVER ONCE referenced that comment per Taylor. I DID per the jury which said Tyson had no legitimate business reason for using marketing agreements in the face of ALL the testimony to the contrary from EVERY plaintiff and defense witnesses. They, like you, evidently just dream things up without any supporting evidence.

Judge Strom did the correct thing by following the law as prescribed and voided the jury verdict. It is unfortunate that you cannot handle the truth. But then again, you have demonstrated a open willingness to skirt the truth to support your goofy opinions and meaningless dissertations.

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

Agman:


Just remember that everyone on this board respects you and your insight. MOst of us don't feel that way about Econ. He is all :hat: and no economy sense.


Keep up the good work Agman!!

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Regarding Taylor he was the one who got dismantled in the court room." " He was easy picking for the defense team."

Yep, they ripped him up, allright. The man's testimony was key to a UNANIMOUS VERDICT, but he "got dismantled" :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.

There's some credibilty for you, M.R.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "The man's testimony was key to a UNANIMOUS VERDICT, but he "got dismantled""

The man's testimony was "THEORIES" which he admitted under oath had not been tested.

This is the same jury who awarded damages that were higher than ibp's total profits for that time period and couldn't explain how those damage figure were derived. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE!

This is the same jury who said that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using "captive supplies" (wrongly defined by this case) WHEN EVEN THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE!

This is the same jury that believed that dropping your price in one area to reflect your purchases in another constitutes market manipulation. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE! It was Judge Strom and the 11th circuit that saw how that decision would define market manipulation in other areas as well.

Your packer blaming side lost Sandbag and they will continue to lose when basing their decisions on emotion rather than fact much like you do.



~SH~

 

[Bill]

Agman, "Regarding Taylor he was the one who got dismantled in the court room." " He was easy picking for the defense team."

Yep, they ripped him up, allright. The man's testimony was key to a UNANIMOUS VERDICT, but he "got dismantled" :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.

There's some credibilty for you, M.R.

Who brings more credibility and industry knowledge to this site Agman or Sandhusker/Econ?

No contest, Agman wins hands down.

Keep spinning, dodging, ducking and diverting Sandhusker/Econ. :roll: :dunce:

Thanks for your input agman. :clap: :nod: :clap:

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "The man's testimony was key to a UNANIMOUS VERDICT, but he "got dismantled""

The man's testimony was "THEORIES" which he admitted under oath had not been tested.

This is the same jury who awarded damages that were higher than ibp's total profits for that time period and couldn't explain how those damage figure were derived. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE!

This is the same jury who said that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using "captive supplies" (wrongly defined by this case) WHEN EVEN THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE!

This is the same jury that believed that dropping your price in one area to reflect your purchases in another constitutes market manipulation. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE! It was Judge Strom and the 11th circuit that saw how that decision would define market manipulation in other areas as well.

Your packer blaming side lost Sandbag and they will continue to lose when basing their decisions on emotion rather than fact much like you do.



~SH~

UNAMIOUS DECISION

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "The man's testimony was key to a UNANIMOUS VERDICT, but he "got dismantled""

The man's testimony was "THEORIES" which he admitted under oath had not been tested.

This is the same jury who awarded damages that were higher than ibp's total profits for that time period and couldn't explain how those damage figure were derived. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE!

This is the same jury who said that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using "captive supplies" (wrongly defined by this case) WHEN EVEN THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING CAPTIVE SUPPLIES. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE!

This is the same jury that believed that dropping your price in one area to reflect your purchases in another constitutes market manipulation. REAL BRILLIANCE THERE! It was Judge Strom and the 11th circuit that saw how that decision would define market manipulation in other areas as well.

Your packer blaming side lost Sandbag and they will continue to lose when basing their decisions on emotion rather than fact much like you do.



~SH~

SH, you don't even know what theories the questions were about. You are about as bad as Jason, making up quotes based on non comprehension.

Dropping prices in the cash market due to needs being met would not have been a problem if they would not have used the cash market as a basis for the formula market. That made all the difference. It wasn't about just the difference in supply/demand, it was about manipulating the cash price for strategic (and illegal) reasons.

 

[Econ101]

So, agman, are you going to show your work or are you going to keep hiding from the questions? You obviously questioned Taylor's numbers but you had all his work, didn't you? You still couldn't come up with anything except the lame excuse that there is a legitimate business reason for marketing agreements. Keep hiding if you think it will help.


By the way, Agman, I was talking about the demand index when you called me a liar.

Your tell is showing.

1. If you question my numbers then all you have to do is your own research and refute my comments. Why should I do your work?

2. Regarding Taylor he was the one who got dismantled in the court room. He is the same man who under oath said "he did NOT test his theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices". You blatantly lied when you said on several occasions that he did test his theories. His comments were in the trail transcripts. Are you accusing Taylor of lying under oath?

3. I did have access to Taylor's work and was very cognizant of several key variables that were never examined by him that would have cast even futher doubt on his claimed but never validated conclusion. He was easy picking for the defense team. That is precisely why they ended their defense following only four days of testimony. That is why he was recalled to the stands and was the last witness they called prior to resting their defense.

4. Your comment from above "You still couldn't come up with anything except the lame excuse that there is a legitimate business reason for marketing agreements." That is another lie from you. You just can't keep track of all your lies anymore. You are the one who has the comprehension problem you so often accuse others of. I NEVER ONCE referenced that comment per Taylor. I DID per the jury which said Tyson had no legitimate business reason for using marketing agreements in the face of ALL the testimony to the contrary from EVERY plaintiff and defense witnesses. They, like you, evidently just dream things up without any supporting evidence.

5. Judge Strom did the correct thing by following the law as prescribed and voided the jury verdict. It is unfortunate that you cannot handle the truth. But then again, you have demonstrated a open willingness to skirt the truth to support your goofy opinions and meaningless dissertations.

1. If you question my numbers then all you have to do is your own research and refute my comments. Why should I do your work?

1. It is pretty hard to give you any credit when you don't show your work, Agman. I have asked you time and time again to show your work, the assumptions and the data used. You have not done so. Do you have something to hide? I brought quotes from the head of Tyson itself, the ERS, and other data to the table. You have even validated my conclusions with your own calculated values. I appreciate that. Why do you keep arguing about it? Do you just like to argue with your self? Put up or shut up.

2. Regarding Taylor he was the one who got dismantled in the court room. He is the same man who under oath said "he did NOT test his theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices". You blatantly lied when you said on several occasions that he did test his theories. His comments were in the trail transcripts. Are you accusing Taylor of lying under oath?

2. Sandhusker posted an example by Taylor on this board of exactly how marketing agreements could lower prices. Did you miss that? I have posted an example. Did you miss that? The trial was about how marketing agreements (and other captive supply) lowered cattle prices. Did you miss that?

I am accusing you of misrepresentation. I have asked that you post your numbers to show your points, you have not. I have asked you to post the exact testimony. You have not. Did you miss that? Are you turning into SH?

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

3. I did have access to Taylor's work and was very cognizant of several key variables that were never examined by him that would have cast even futher doubt on his claimed but never validated conclusion. He was easy picking for the defense team. That is precisely why they ended their defense following only four days of testimony. That is why he was recalled to the stands and was the last witness they called prior to resting their defense.

3. Why couldn't they convince the jury? You are legend in your own mind (obviously the defendant's were too, but then again, they had the London case to twist the PSA).

4. Your comment from above "You still couldn't come up with anything except the lame excuse that there is a legitimate business reason for marketing agreements." That is another lie from you. You just can't keep track of all your lies anymore. You are the one who has the comprehension problem you so often accuse others of. I NEVER ONCE referenced that comment per Taylor. I DID per the jury which said Tyson had no legitimate business reason for using marketing agreements in the face of ALL the testimony to the contrary from EVERY plaintiff and defense witnesses. They, like you, evidently just dream things up without any supporting evidence.

4. So it was a conspiracy of 12 jurors? The question was never whether a legitimate reason for marketing agreements could exist. It was whether or not the way Tyson used them was illegal. The jury answered that question unanimously. It is you who is getting mixed up on the questions, Agman, not I.

5. Judge Strom did the correct thing by following the law as prescribed and voided the jury verdict. It is unfortunate that you cannot handle the truth. But then again, you have demonstrated a open willingness to skirt the truth to support your goofy opinions and meaningless dissertations.

5. Judge Strom has his problems but the most serious problems come from the 11th circuit appellate court. Talk about goofy opinions!! The PSA was meant only to promote competition of the packers :lol: . What a joke. This court doesn't even know the difference between "or" and "and". Why should they be able to interpret anything for the money paying corporations that have bought the hill and obviously the 11th circuit court? The president rants about judges making up the law in their interpretations, this is a prime example of that. Not hard to see the difference between "or" and "and". Too bad the court didn't know enough about economics to get their Robinson-Patman example correct. And they had the audacity to quote Taylor as being "nuts". They were just a bunch of frootloop judges doing what they were told so Tyson could get out of a huge lawsuit and the money from K street would keep coming in. What a mess. This is bigger than Abramoff's deal ever was.