RobertMac
Well-known member
RobertMac wrote:
The answer..."Packers made record profits in the domestic, U.S., market in 2003 due to exceptional growth in beef demand, plus 8% that year. Your assumption that those record profits were the sole result of the border being closed is just simply wrong."
The extra..."Sorry bud, but your total ignorance is on display once again. You just don't get it do you? You just keep looking for some justification of your failed position. You are just wrong, have the integrity to admit it. The only thing my data has provided is clear evidence of how silly and phony your position is. The same position that you now say you cannot prove. If you have no proof of your position where does that leave you? STUFFED!!!!!!!!"
And you wonder why people say you rub them the wrong way?
Relax and have a cool one, Agbuddy
agman wrote:
With all due respect to you Robert I will not enter a gun fight with a knife. I have said previously that I will respond in kind. If someone chooses to play this way I will accommodate them although that is certainly not my preference.
I am curious why you are not concerned with someone who by his own admission cannot prove his allegations while I have provided facts to refute what claim he thinks he has. Recall he asked me to produce tha data which I did. Since then he has been dancing around a different view of the data each time. Did you not take notice? What does that say about you RM?
He certainly fits the R-Calf mold. Accusation and blame with no supporting facts. As an R-Calf member yourself I can see why you come to his defense-facts be damned. Are you still wondering why the Ninth circuit buried the Montana ruling-all accusationa and no facts? Does that sound familiar? Who benefits from misinformation and who gets harmed? If you choose to allow baseless allegations to go unchallenged that is your choice. There are good people out there who appreciate factual information and benefit from such. You have to decide which group you are in.
RobertMac wrote:
With all due respect to you, Agman, you missed my point. Tell me how your response to me was a "response in kind" ? I haven't presented a position on this thread one way or the other. You could give 'the answer' without the 'in kind extra'. You, of all people here, are least in need of responding in kind and that kind of response says more about you than the person you are responding to.
agman wrote:
Did my questions bother you; if so, why? They were legitimate questions to your commentary.
Agman, I started another thread because my post had nothing to do with the topic being discussed, but was about your (and SH's) debating tactics. Look at how much of your response that I parsed was about demeaning Randy and how much was the actual answer. If your facts are so powerful, you shouldn't have to point out how ignorant your opposition is. You, of all people with your knowledge, information access, and experience, should be the last in need of responding "in kind".
No, your questions (and comments) don't bother me...like water off a ducks back.
The answer..."Packers made record profits in the domestic, U.S., market in 2003 due to exceptional growth in beef demand, plus 8% that year. Your assumption that those record profits were the sole result of the border being closed is just simply wrong."
The extra..."Sorry bud, but your total ignorance is on display once again. You just don't get it do you? You just keep looking for some justification of your failed position. You are just wrong, have the integrity to admit it. The only thing my data has provided is clear evidence of how silly and phony your position is. The same position that you now say you cannot prove. If you have no proof of your position where does that leave you? STUFFED!!!!!!!!"
And you wonder why people say you rub them the wrong way?
Relax and have a cool one, Agbuddy
agman wrote:
With all due respect to you Robert I will not enter a gun fight with a knife. I have said previously that I will respond in kind. If someone chooses to play this way I will accommodate them although that is certainly not my preference.
I am curious why you are not concerned with someone who by his own admission cannot prove his allegations while I have provided facts to refute what claim he thinks he has. Recall he asked me to produce tha data which I did. Since then he has been dancing around a different view of the data each time. Did you not take notice? What does that say about you RM?
He certainly fits the R-Calf mold. Accusation and blame with no supporting facts. As an R-Calf member yourself I can see why you come to his defense-facts be damned. Are you still wondering why the Ninth circuit buried the Montana ruling-all accusationa and no facts? Does that sound familiar? Who benefits from misinformation and who gets harmed? If you choose to allow baseless allegations to go unchallenged that is your choice. There are good people out there who appreciate factual information and benefit from such. You have to decide which group you are in.
RobertMac wrote:
With all due respect to you, Agman, you missed my point. Tell me how your response to me was a "response in kind" ? I haven't presented a position on this thread one way or the other. You could give 'the answer' without the 'in kind extra'. You, of all people here, are least in need of responding in kind and that kind of response says more about you than the person you are responding to.
agman wrote:
Did my questions bother you; if so, why? They were legitimate questions to your commentary.
Agman, I started another thread because my post had nothing to do with the topic being discussed, but was about your (and SH's) debating tactics. Look at how much of your response that I parsed was about demeaning Randy and how much was the actual answer. If your facts are so powerful, you shouldn't have to point out how ignorant your opposition is. You, of all people with your knowledge, information access, and experience, should be the last in need of responding "in kind".
No, your questions (and comments) don't bother me...like water off a ducks back.
