• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

An answer please, SH

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
For the fourth time;

Would you be in favor of allowing testing if each package of tested beef carried the disclosure that BSE testing means only that and not necessarily BSE free?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Come on, SH, what's the delay? Are you waiting for the return phone call from Tyson to tell you what your position is? :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It is senseless to conduct BSE testing that will reveal nothing in cattle under 24 months of age. If a BSE test cannot detect BSE then there is no need to BSE test so no I would not support something as stupid as BSE testing than adding a disclaimer that the BSE test does not guaranteed the meat to be BSE free. That is something for a deceiver like you to support.

I wouldn't have a problem with a USDA approved BSE test for a private company if that test could accurately detect BSE in cattle under 24 months of age.

Now for the fortieth time, where is your proof that Tyson's Lakeside plant made more money than Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost while the Canadian border was closed?

You claimed I lied, where is your proof?



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You claim to be for free enterprise? What a laugher. Regarding BSE testing; if someone wants it, someone wants to provide it, everybody knows what they are dealing in, and nobody outside of the deal is effected, what is the problem? You are NOT in favor of free enterprise. You're calling for needless government intervention.

I'm a deceiver? Look up the word "deception". How would that apply with a label that I have proposed?

You answer for the 40th time..... YOUR proposal in YOUR bet was that YOU would provide the proof. Am I wrong? You're flip-flopping now because you couldn't follow thru.

The majority of folks who answered the poll think enough proof was provided that you lied. Why do you want to keep bringing this up? If someone made me out to be a fool, I'd hope they would forget. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Being a proponent of the "free enterprise system" does not mean that I condone consumer fraud and deception. "BSE tested" clearly implies "BSE FREE" which is the whole reason behind it. USDA is not going to support consumer deception and fraud and neither do I.

Secondly, It was you who claimed that I lied. The burden of proof was always on you to back that allegation. Instead, in typical Sandhusker diverting fashion, you demand that I provide the proof to back my position. You claimed that I lied, either back that claim or prove that you can't. BTW, I could give a damn what a stupid poll of "opinions" of your packer blaming cohorts says. When you bring proof to the table, you'll have something. Your critique of what I bring to the table is empty. Either back your position with supporting facts or show the world what a parasite you are.

The fool in this case is the person who claims that someone else lies, fails to back that allegation, demands the other person to prove they didn't lie, claims victory when they contributed nothing and thanks Agman for his honesty when Agman stated my original statement, that you called a lie, was true. The fool is obvious.


~SH~
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
The inventor of diversion.

Question the so called defender of free enterprise on a freedom issue and he jumps into the unprovable once again.

Free enterprise :lol: :lol: SH the communist only wants more control for the packers. Industry contolled by government, or government controlled by industry, what's the difference SH?

You are the biggest joke on this site! :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Being a proponent of the "free enterprise system" does not mean that I condone consumer fraud and deception. "BSE tested" clearly implies "BSE FREE" which is the whole reason behind it. USDA is not going to support consumer deception and fraud and neither do I.

Secondly, It was you who claimed that I lied. The burden of proof was always on you to back that allegation. Instead, in typical Sandhusker diverting fashion, you demand that I provide the proof to back my position. You claimed that I lied, either back that claim or prove that you can't. BTW, I could give a damn what a stupid poll of "opinions" of your packer blaming cohorts says. When you bring proof to the table, you'll have something. Your critique of what I bring to the table is empty. Either back your position with supporting facts or show the world what a parasite you are.

The fool in this case is the person who claims that someone else lies, fails to back that allegation, demands the other person to prove they didn't lie, claims victory when they contributed nothing and thanks Agman for his honesty when Agman stated my original statement, that you called a lie, was true. The fool is obvious.


~SH~

How in the world can there be deception when the company has plainly made a public statement BSE tested does not mean BSE free and there would be a label on each package saying the same thing? WHERE IS THE DECEPTION? :?

I provided your proof, SH. I got so tired of re-providing it that I even started a new thread for you so it would be easy to find when you asked for it again. It's called "PROOF FOR SH....AGAIN". It's on page 3 of 48. Scroll down and you will find it.

Randy has you pegged pretty good.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Being a proponent of the "free enterprise system" does not mean that I condone consumer fraud and deception. "BSE tested" clearly implies "BSE FREE" which is the whole reason behind it. USDA is not going to support consumer deception and fraud and neither do I.

Secondly, It was you who claimed that I lied. The burden of proof was always on you to back that allegation. Instead, in typical Sandhusker diverting fashion, you demand that I provide the proof to back my position. You claimed that I lied, either back that claim or prove that you can't. BTW, I could give a damn what a stupid poll of "opinions" of your packer blaming cohorts says. When you bring proof to the table, you'll have something. Your critique of what I bring to the table is empty. Either back your position with supporting facts or show the world what a parasite you are.

The fool in this case is the person who claims that someone else lies, fails to back that allegation, demands the other person to prove they didn't lie, claims victory when they contributed nothing and thanks Agman for his honesty when Agman stated my original statement, that you called a lie, was true. The fool is obvious.


~SH~

How in the world can there be deception when the company has plainly made a public statement BSE tested does not mean BSE free and there would be a label on each package saying the same thing? WHERE IS THE DECEPTION? :?

Randy has you pegged pretty good.

Especially coming from someone who doesn't believe removing the country of origin labels off imported meat, and slapping on a USDA stamp to pass it off as a US product is DECEPTION :wink:

DECEPTION AND FRAUD-- the story behind ol SH_ _........
 

Shorty

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
SH, Sandhusker did provide proof that you lied. How much more proof do you want than he has provided?

Sandhusker
The data needed to make a factual statement is NOT AVAILABLE. You stated something as fact when you DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION needed to make a factual statement, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST!!!! On this I will say that you were lying or are simply blowing smoke. You make the choice. You absolutley positively can NOT be telling the truth.

You were lying when you said you proved that the two plants lost more than Lakeside made. Proof of that is that you can not fill in the blanks.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Oh no, Shorty, now you're going to be a blamer and R-CALF clone, too! :wink: :lol: Welcome to the group - we're a good bunch and our ranks are growing each time SH posts.
 

Itrap4u

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Location
Where the Sun rises in the East and sets in the We
Ok I'm far from an expert on all this stuff, but I will inject a common mans thinking to all this, think of it as a consumers line of thought.
First I'll agree with SH, why spend dollars to test for something that can't prove a thing? Just adds cost to a product with zero safe guards?
There are risk to everything, and I'm all for a test that will give 99% or higher acurracy to confirm eating this meat is either safe or it isn;t but just to say you tested things with NO postive/negative results is a waste of time and will drive up the cost of the product! It would give some people a false sense of saftey. Why test it without a result? Is this to get away from litigation if some would die from BSE postive meat? or why have a false test to begin with? As a consumer I don't care about the test unless it can prove either it has BSE or it doesn't otherwise it is NO different from were where at today when I go to buy a pack of beef! Just adds cost to the product.

The next point on country of origin labeling, depends on the price and quality, if the quality is close to the same, then I'm afraid more people are going to let cost be the bottom line when deciding a purchase, just as they do everything else, thats why Japan and china rule the manufacturing market place, cheaper goods with decent quality compaired to price!!!! Don't look at me, because millions of Americans go to the Wal Marts for the same reason, I think from a producers stand point this one could do more harm than good for you all. The people not directly connected, will let price be the bottom line, exspecially with those kids and just making a living, they price compair on all goods, that is just a fact, many buy the off brand mac and cheese versus KRAFT due to cost and I think many don't plain care if made hear or abroad as long as they can stretch their dollars futher and keep decent quality.

We as Americans do have the cheapest food in the world, and yeh their might be room for the producer to make some more$$$ but be careful as the price goes up on your product, their will be a bigger group that will look elsewere for their meat needs. Pork,poultry etc. Good Day! Let the bickering continue.LOL
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Itrap4u...First I'll agree with SH, why spend dollars to test for something that can't prove a thing? Just adds cost to a product with zero safe guards?

When the customer is asking for it and paying for it, why is it any of your business if they test for it?
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
We as Americans do have the cheapest food in the world, and yeh their might be room for the producer to make some more$$$ but be careful as the price goes up on your product, their will be a bigger group that will look elsewere for their meat needs. Pork,poultry etc. Good Day! Let the bickering continue.LOL

I'll disagree slightly, cause we're told in Canada, we have the cheapest food in the world!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Itrap, I agree with Tommy. Nobody is stumping to make anybody buy tested beef or asking that anybody has to test. It's strictly an optional deal. If the customer wants it and someone is willing to supply it - and it effects nobody else, what is the problem? Who is anybody to stand in the way? Why would the product have to make sense to anybody outside of the deal?

I think you raise some very valid points on COOL. I'm in favor of it because I see a flood of foreign beef coming down the pike sometime soon. Our multi-national packers have shown they want to bring in foreign beef, the foreigners want to send their beef here, and trade restrictions are loosening it seems on an almost daily basis. Take a look at Brazil - they have said they want to feed the world, they're lobbying for "free trade" (as is Pres. Bush), and our packers are already there. Brazils' herd is the biggest in the world.

I think COOL combined with a checkoff that promotes US product only gives us a fighting chance. The packers are getting their way with liberalized trade laws and a USDA stamp policy that covers up where their beef really is from. I don't think producers are out of line asking for some cards for this game.
 

Itrap4u

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Location
Where the Sun rises in the East and sets in the We
Tommy, what and who is the customer asking this? what are the numbers? I wouldn't spend an extra .25-.35 per lb or more for a test that proves to me nothing more than now! Kinda like the organic raised stuff, can't afford it so it doesn't go into my shopping cart and I like many millions loose no sleep from buying the same chicken people have been buying for years.

The majority of consumers look at the bottom line, and if you can find a few to spend more to learn nothing great! I wouldn't want to see the USDA demand that such a senseless test be done to all beef at an added exspense to all consumers, because I would bypass the stuff and keep buying the beef again I and my family has purchased for years!

Joe consumer as a whole will say thanks but no thanks just being honest. You have the California crowd that may spend a little more but the average working Joe could give a rip if it doesn't prove anything. Also as a side note, the rich of the world are tight wads, fads come and go, I can tell you of a guy that built a grocery store in a small but very wealthy community, cheapest home is 295,000!! The people who lived there all thought it was a much needed asset, so he spent the money built the store, and guess what? In 4 months he was out of business!!! Why? The very wealthy, had forgotten they pay tax on grocerys, so to save 10.00-30.00 a week they hopped the state line and continued buying in the state with no food tax!!!! Left this guy high and dry and bankrupt, so I would dig deeper into these that said, they are willing to pay more for a test with no results, as to set it up and have some $$$ invested may come back to bite those who have the setup cost!!!!
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
The poll has been done Itrap, in Japan. In fact they poll em pretty much weekly.

At least your stand is from the heart, and not out of the pages of the USDA stick over their heads handbook.

Our consumers are not asking in Canada and neither are yours. But if we feel that exporting beef to Asian countries like Japan and Korea are important, maybe we should be listening to them rather than telling them.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Itrap, "Tommy, what and who is the customer asking this? what are the numbers? I wouldn't spend an extra .25-.35 per lb or more for a test that proves to me nothing more than now! Kinda like the organic raised stuff, can't afford it so it doesn't go into my shopping cart and I like many millions loose no sleep from buying the same chicken people have been buying for years."

You are correct in comparing BSE tested beef to organic. Some people will pay extra for it, some won't. The market is deciding. Why not the same with BSE tested beef? Why not let the market decide? If people want the the test done and will pay for it, what's the problem? I see a lot of parallels between organic and tested product.

Itrap, "The majority of consumers look at the bottom line, and if you can find a few to spend more to learn nothing great! I wouldn't want to see the USDA demand that such a senseless test be done to all beef at an added exspense to all consumers, because I would bypass the stuff and keep buying the beef again I and my family has purchased for years!"

That's just it, the USDA is not demanding the test be done, and neither are the testing proponents. We just see no reason why tested beef can't be made available to people who want it.

Judging by your name, you might be able to sell me a coyote pelt. If I asked you to sell me one dyed purple and would pay for your extra troubles, who is anybody to say "that doesn't make sense, you two shouldn't be allowed to make that deal". Nobody is saying you or anybody else has to dye all your pelts, I'm just asking for one because that happens to be my preference. You sell a pelt and get paid for your work, I get what I want, and your neighbor isn't effected in any way. Why is there an issue for anybody?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
I am not a BSE tester, but isn't the test a whole lot less than that? No sense in exaggerating out of a marketing opportunity. If it was on the high side of 25 dollars a head wouldn't that only be 4 cents a lb. and at half that it would be 2 cents per lb. on a 650 hanging weight? Bone and trim loss doesn't make it add up a whole lot.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Randy kaiser the ultimate packer blamer: "Question the so called defender of free enterprise on a freedom issue and he jumps into the unprovable once again."

The free enterprise system that I support does not condone fraud as in implying BSE FREE by stating BSE TESTED.


Randy Kaiser: " You are the biggest joke on this site!"

Yeh you keep telling yourself that cheap talker since cheap talk is all you have ever brought to back your packer blaming positions.


Sandman: "How in the world can there be deception when the company has plainly made a public statement BSE tested does not mean BSE free and there would be a label on each package saying the same thing? WHERE IS THE DECEPTION?"

Prove that Creekstone was going to offer a disclaimer stating that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE". Why would they do that when their whole contention was to sell the illusion of BSE safety?

Making it up as you go again huh?


Sandman: " provided your proof, SH. I got so tired of re-providing it that I even started a new thread for you so it would be easy to find when you asked for it again. It's called "PROOF FOR SH....AGAIN". It's on page 3 of 48. Scroll down and you will find it."

You never provided sh*t!

Bring your proof that Tyson's Lakeside plant made more money than Boise and Pasco lost while the Canadian border was closed.

You said I lied now back it up or keep dancing like you have been.


Sandman: "Randy has you pegged pretty good."

Randy says what other packer blamers like you want to hear.

Remember Randy says the packers wanted the border to stay closed. You support R-CULT and R-CULT claims that the packers wanted the border opened. Only one of you can be right yet you join hands to blame packers in unison. Hahaha! What a couple dandies. Both blaming packers for conflicting reasons. HELLO??????


OT: "Especially coming from someone who doesn't believe removing the country of origin labels off imported meat, and slapping on a USDA stamp to pass it off as a US product is DECEPTION"

Perhaps foreign beef should have a disclaimer, "USDA INSPECTED MEANS USDA INSPECTED". Would that help your comprehension level?


Shorty: "Sandhusker did provide proof that you lied. How much more proof do you want than he has provided?"

Hahaha! Sandman provided a CLAIM that I lied, he's never provided proof of anything on this forum. He makes statements, he doesn't provide proof.

Show me where Sandman provided "THE PROOF" that Tyson's Lakeside plant made more money while the border was closed than Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost while the border was closed. Bring that proof Shorty?

Any cheap talker can make a statement and that's just what Sandflea did. Just because it's what you may have wanted to hear doesn't make it the truth.


I trap, good luck talking common sense with those who have none. These are the same guys that think producers will benefit by segregating 5% of our U.S. beef consumption as a novelty item (foreign beef) with an unenforceable law. Real wizards!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Sometimes I wonder why I bother with you, SH - a turd can't be polished. :wink: I guess it is because the more you post, the more others can see what you're made of.

SH, "Prove that Creekstone was going to offer a disclaimer stating that "BSE TESTED" does not mean "BSE FREE". Why would they do that when their whole contention was to sell the illusion of BSE safety?
Making it up as you go again huh?"

Nowhere did I state that Creekstone was going to offer a disclaimer. I simply asked you if you would support testing if they did. I wanted to give an example where only the thickest dolt could see deception...

Creekstone's stake in the game is not to sell illusions - they simply want to meet the special request of a consumer. It's called Free Enterprise without needless government intervention. It's a hard concept for liberals like you to understand.


Quote:
Sandman: " provided your proof, SH. I got so tired of re-providing it that I even started a new thread for you so it would be easy to find when you asked for it again. It's called "PROOF FOR SH....AGAIN". It's on page 3 of 48. Scroll down and you will find it."


SH, "You never provided sh*t! Bring your proof that Tyson's Lakeside plant made more money than Boise and Pasco lost while the Canadian border was closed. You said I lied now back it up or keep dancing like you have been. "

You're putting words in my mouth again, SH. I never said Lakeside made more money. Want to bet another $100 on that?

Quote:
Shorty: "Sandhusker did provide proof that you lied. How much more proof do you want than he has provided?"


Hahaha! Sandman provided a CLAIM that I lied, he's never provided proof of anything on this forum. He makes statements, he doesn't provide proof.

SH, "Any cheap talker can make a statement and that's just what Sandflea did. Just because it's what you may have wanted to hear doesn't make it the truth. "


I made the statement, but you lost the bet....hmmm :???:

Here's a cheap talker, SH; It's a blowhard who makes a statement as fact one that can't possibly be proven because the data doesn't exist. A fool cheap talker would then dig a deeper hole by proposing a bet that he could prove what can't be proven. A doesn't-have-the-sense-to-know-he's-beat cheap talker would then try to divert from is foolishness by trying to shift the burden on proof onto somebody else, even when he himself proposed he would provide proof. A weaseling cheap talker would then put words into his opponent's mouth and challenge things that weren't even said. :p
 

Latest posts

Top