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

Another Question for Agman--and His Deceit

Econ101

Well-known member
Did Taylor test for causality? Did he test with granger causality test?

The test of causality, for those who do not know, is a test to determine if one variable came before another. This has to happen for one thing to cause another thing (actually, often the threat of one thing can cause another thing. Many times there does not have to be a mathematical causality, just a preponderance of evidence that it was the cause or that the threat of it was the cause).

Agman has repeatedly claimed that Taylor never tested for causality when in fact he did. If agman really had the trial transcripts, he would know this to be true. If he does have the transcripts and testimony, and has the ability to understand it, HE IS LYING EVERY TIME HE IMPLIES THIS!!!

Does this make Agman a perjuror? No. It is plain old deception. Agman is using an out of context statement by Taylor, just like SH continually does on my quote, to decieve everyone about the facts.

Agman, did Taylor test for causality with the granger test, yes or no?
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Did Taylor test for causality? Did he test with granger causality test?

The test of causality, for those who do not know, is a test to determine if one variable came before another. This has to happen for one thing to cause another thing (actually, often the threat of one thing can cause another thing. Many times there does not have to be a mathematical causality, just a preponderance of evidence that it was the cause or that the threat of it was the cause).

Agman has repeatedly claimed that Taylor never tested for causality when in fact he did. If agman really had the trial transcripts, he would know this to be true. If he does have the transcripts and testimony, and has the ability to understand it, HE IS LYING EVERY TIME HE IMPLIES THIS!!!

Does this make Agman a perjuror? No. It is plain old deception. Agman is using an out of context statement by Taylor, just like SH continually does on my quote, to decieve everyone about the facts.

Agman, did Taylor test for causality with the granger test, yes or no?

Econ, the liar just cannot get his facts straight. Rather he attempts to divert, which is his normal MO, readers attention from the facts by trying to now define causality. I claimed nothing, rather I am stating DR Taylors own testimony given under oath.

I will challenge anyone of this forum or otherwise to prove that Dr Taylor did not state under oath that he did NOT test his theories regarding manipulation for validity. Not only did he say it once he was asked by Judge Strom to repeat his answer. He obliged the judges request by repeating that he failed to test his theories for validity. Such testing is REQUIRED by law. The key words are"did not test" and "REQUIRED by law".

You can lie and attempt to deceive readers all you want Econ. No one on this forum could be so ignorant as to believe anything you have to say. You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated for anyone with a sliver of open mindedness your propensity to lie with total disregard for harm.

This is another simple yes or no question for Econ. Did Dr Taylor under oath say that he did NOT test his theories for validity-yes or no? What is your answer-end of discussion.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
So the test is required by law, Dr. Taylor admitted that he did not do it, but yet he was allowed to provide his testimony. :shock: Sounds like Judge Strom was abetting.

I'll file that right next to "Mike Callicrate is a perjorer" :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Did Taylor test for causality? Did he test with granger causality test?

The test of causality, for those who do not know, is a test to determine if one variable came before another. This has to happen for one thing to cause another thing (actually, often the threat of one thing can cause another thing. Many times there does not have to be a mathematical causality, just a preponderance of evidence that it was the cause or that the threat of it was the cause).

Agman has repeatedly claimed that Taylor never tested for causality when in fact he did. If agman really had the trial transcripts, he would know this to be true. If he does have the transcripts and testimony, and has the ability to understand it, HE IS LYING EVERY TIME HE IMPLIES THIS!!!

Does this make Agman a perjuror? No. It is plain old deception. Agman is using an out of context statement by Taylor, just like SH continually does on my quote, to decieve everyone about the facts.

Agman, did Taylor test for causality with the granger test, yes or no?

Econ, the liar just cannot get his facts straight. Rather he attempts to divert, which is his normal MO, readers attention from the facts by trying to now define causality. I claimed nothing, rather I am stating DR Taylors own testimony given under oath.

I will challenge anyone of this forum or otherwise to prove that Dr Taylor did not state under oath that he did NOT test his theories regarding manipulation for validity. Not only did he say it once he was asked by Judge Strom to repeat his answer. He obliged the judges request by repeating that he failed to test his theories for validity. Such testing is REQUIRED by law. The key words are"did not test" and "REQUIRED by law".

You can lie and attempt to deceive readers all you want Econ. No one on this forum could be so ignorant as to believe anything you have to say. You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated for anyone with a sliver of open mindedness your propensity to lie with total disregard for harm.

This is another simple yes or no question for Econ. Did Dr Taylor under oath say that he did NOT test his theories for validity-yes or no? What is your answer-end of discussion.

Did I say prices can not go up unless supplies go down?

Agman, Taylor tested with Granger. Do you deny it? The packer lawyers are a real piece of work and so are you.

Our court system has been so compromised that it is scary. Would you rather we reverted back to Texas Justice? Laws protect everyone. Even you. They should not be so easily discarded and abused by the likes of Tyson and you.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
So the test is required by law, Dr. Taylor admitted that he did not do it, but yet he was allowed to provide his testimony. :shock: Sounds like Judge Strom was abetting.

I'll file that right next to "Mike Callicrate is a perjorer" :lol:

Page 9 Filed April 10, 2003, Pickett vs. IBP

"As indicated in his Second Statement under Penalty of Perjury, Dr. Taylor conducted numerous tests which appear to confirm the reliability of his conclusion. He corroborated his opinion by using the the Granger Causality Test. Dr. Taylor used the econometric procedure of cross-validation to examine the validity of the relationship between captive supply and the cash market price. He ran regression models using GIPSA data, AMS data and IBP data. Dr. Taylor also developed and estimated many nonlinear regression models which were consistent with the results from the linear models in his expert report.

As such, the Court will overrule IBP's motion with respect to this issue.

Dr. Taylor testified at the Daubert hearing that he used the Basion technique when reaching his conclusion. Pursuant to the Basion technique, when there is no solid reason to choose one model over another, the researcher should assign each model equal probabilities and take and average. An edited book on causality formalized the Basion procedure. Notably, a review of the average regression result reveals a figure extremely close to Dr. Taylor's estimate."

Signed, Lyle E. Strom, Dated 8 April, 2003
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Is it perjury if you have the trial transcripts and lie about them on Ranchers.net?

Let's see...... there was the deal about the Japanese not asking for testing.... the deal about no protocol....... the big packers not in Canada to provide the local markets an exception ........ Cargill in the Brazilian bean market an extreme example......"low" being a scientific measurement..... I think I'd call it just another chapter in a long line of BS! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sure Sandbag, that would explain why the packer blamers and their dog and pony show lost on appeal at the 11th circuit level and that would explain why the Supreme Court refused to hear their case.

Yup, shor nuff buried the facts again didn't you?

Taylor was asked under oath if he tested his theories, his answer was "no". Did he lie under oath TO THE DETRIMENT OF HIS OWN CASE???

The depth of your stupidity is almost beyond comprehension.

The banker who couldn't spell principle.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sure Sandbag, that would explain why the packer blamers and their dog and pony show lost on appeal at the 11th circuit level and that would explain why the Supreme Court refused to hear their case.

Yup, shor nuff buried the facts again didn't you?

Taylor was asked under oath if he tested his theories, his answer was "no". Did he lie under oath TO THE DETRIMENT OF HIS OWN CASE???

The depth of your stupidity is almost beyond comprehension.

The banker who couldn't spell principle.



~SH~

Tested his theories for what, SH? He tested them for causality. That has been proven on this forum. Peterson even said on more than one occasion that captive supply could be used exactly as Pickett contended.

Even when it is said by the packers themselves and the jury believed them, the judges had the audacity to alter the verdict. Was it a function of national security?

You are promoting a big, big, lie here.
 

agman

Well-known member
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
So the test is required by law, Dr. Taylor admitted that he did not do it, but yet he was allowed to provide his testimony. :shock: Sounds like Judge Strom was abetting.

I'll file that right next to "Mike Callicrate is a perjorer" :lol:

Page 9 Filed April 10, 2003, Pickett vs. IBP

"As indicated in his Second Statement under Penalty of Perjury, Dr. Taylor conducted numerous tests which appear to confirm the reliability of his conclusion. He corroborated his opinion by using the the Granger Causality Test. Dr. Taylor used the econometric procedure of cross-validation to examine the validity of the relationship between captive supply and the cash market price. He ran regression models using GIPSA data, AMS data and IBP data. Dr. Taylor also developed and estimated many nonlinear regression models which were consistent with the results from the linear models in his expert report.

As such, the Court will overrule IBP's motion with respect to this issue.

Dr. Taylor testified at the Daubert hearing that he used the Basion technique when reaching his conclusion. Pursuant to the Basion technique, when there is no solid reason to choose one model over another, the researcher should assign each model equal probabilities and take and average. An edited book on causality formalized the Basion procedure. Notably, a review of the average regression result reveals a figure extremely close to Dr. Taylor's estimate."

Signed, Lyle E. Strom, Dated 8 April, 2003[/quote)

Keep on reading Mike and you will find the comments from Dr Taylor in tha actual trial testmony. Sorry, you are in the wrong chapter!

The Daubert hearing is not the same as trial as much as you may try to convince yourself it is.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Is it perjury if you have the trial transcripts and lie about them on Ranchers.net?

If you think I perjured myself how much money are you pepared to put on the line to back that accusation?

Daubert hearings are not the same as trail. Even an immiation lawyer such as yourself should know that. My comment was from actual trail transcripts as I stated repeatedly. So much for your comprehension.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Mike said:
Sandhusker said:
So the test is required by law, Dr. Taylor admitted that he did not do it, but yet he was allowed to provide his testimony. :shock: Sounds like Judge Strom was abetting.

I'll file that right next to "Mike Callicrate is a perjorer" :lol:

Page 9 Filed April 10, 2003, Pickett vs. IBP

"As indicated in his Second Statement under Penalty of Perjury, Dr. Taylor conducted numerous tests which appear to confirm the reliability of his conclusion. He corroborated his opinion by using the the Granger Causality Test. Dr. Taylor used the econometric procedure of cross-validation to examine the validity of the relationship between captive supply and the cash market price. He ran regression models using GIPSA data, AMS data and IBP data. Dr. Taylor also developed and estimated many nonlinear regression models which were consistent with the results from the linear models in his expert report.

As such, the Court will overrule IBP's motion with respect to this issue.

Dr. Taylor testified at the Daubert hearing that he used the Basion technique when reaching his conclusion. Pursuant to the Basion technique, when there is no solid reason to choose one model over another, the researcher should assign each model equal probabilities and take and average. An edited book on causality formalized the Basion procedure. Notably, a review of the average regression result reveals a figure extremely close to Dr. Taylor's estimate."

Signed, Lyle E. Strom, Dated 8 April, 2003[/quote)

Keep on reading Mike and you will find the comments from Dr Taylor in tha actual trial testmony. Sorry, you are in the wrong chapter!

The Daubert hearing is not the same as trial as much as you may try to convince yourself it is.

So are you saying that Taylor did not test using granger, Agman? Seems like you are championing a legal parlor trick over substance.

Is this what you are championing?

Surely Tyson attorneys were smart enough to know that Taylor tested. Were they promoting a fraud upon the court? Why do you keep bringing up this fraud? Are you happy hand picked Judge Strom wasn't smart enough to know what was happening?

They didn't fool the jury. Just like Clinton's pardon of Archie Schaeffer, Tyson's butt was pulled out of the fire again by a corrupt or incompetent system.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
Sure Sandbag, that would explain why the packer blamers and their dog and pony show lost on appeal at the 11th circuit level and that would explain why the Supreme Court refused to hear their case.

Yup, shor nuff buried the facts again didn't you?

Taylor was asked under oath if he tested his theories, his answer was "no". Did he lie under oath TO THE DETRIMENT OF HIS OWN CASE???

The depth of your stupidity is almost beyond comprehension.

The banker who couldn't spell principle.



~SH~

Tested his theories for what, SH? He tested them for causality. That has been proven on this forum. Peterson even said on more than one occasion that captive supply could be used exactly as Pickett contended.

Even when it is said by the packers themselves and the jury believed them, the judges had the audacity to alter the verdict. Was it a function of national security?


You are promoting a big, big, lie here.

How was it proven on this forum? What was posted by Mike during Daubert hearings have nothing to do with what was exposed at and during trail to which Dr Taylor admitted too under oath. Two separate issues and two totally separate times.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
Daubert hearings are not the same as trail. Even an immiation lawyer such as yourself should know that. My comment was from actual trail transcripts as I stated repeatedly. So much for your comprehension.

Prairie dog hunters "trail"- Judges "trial"--but you and the Super Hero about fit the same mold anyway-- Neither says a word without showing your NCBA arrogance of how you know more than everyone else..... :wink: :lol:
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
So the test is required by law, Dr. Taylor admitted that he did not do it, but yet he was allowed to provide his testimony. :shock: Sounds like Judge Strom was abetting.

I'll file that right next to "Mike Callicrate is a perjorer" :lol:

Has it dawned on you that the admission did not occur until and during trail. That is why my statement per this matter refers to testimony at trail-get it. Is that over your head again? Daubert hearings are pre-trail, not during.
 

agman

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
agman said:
Daubert hearings are not the same as trail. Even an immiation lawyer such as yourself should know that. My comment was from actual trail transcripts as I stated repeatedly. So much for your comprehension.

Prairie dog hunters "trail"- Judges "trial"--but you and the Super Hero about fit the same mold anyway-- Neither says a word without showing your NCBA arrogance of how you know more than everyone else..... :wink: :lol:

Given your propensity for narrow mindedness your comment is par. You are the former judge who cannot distinguish the difference in domestic cow slaughter declining 2.6 million head versus the border closing off approximately 300,000 cows per year. Is that what you call skilled and thorough observation?

You have been on the losing side of every legal case discussed on this forum. Now, does that show your R-Calf arrogance or just your general lack of knowledge and judgement?
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Did Taylor test for causality? Did he test with granger causality test?

The test of causality, for those who do not know, is a test to determine if one variable came before another. This has to happen for one thing to cause another thing (actually, often the threat of one thing can cause another thing. Many times there does not have to be a mathematical causality, just a preponderance of evidence that it was the cause or that the threat of it was the cause).

Agman has repeatedly claimed that Taylor never tested for causality when in fact he did. If agman really had the trial transcripts, he would know this to be true. If he does have the transcripts and testimony, and has the ability to understand it, HE IS LYING EVERY TIME HE IMPLIES THIS!!!

Does this make Agman a perjuror? No. It is plain old deception. Agman is using an out of context statement by Taylor, just like SH continually does on my quote, to decieve everyone about the facts.

I did have the transcripts and I know my statement from the trail is true. Keep on searching, you will find the truth.

Agman, did Taylor test for causality with the granger test, yes or no?


I did have the transcripts and I know my statement from the trail is true. Keep on searching, you will find the truth.

Did Dr Taylor admit under oath during trail that he did not test his six manipulation theories for validity-yes or no? That has been the point of contention and it remains the point of contention. That question is answered in the TRIAL transcripts. Better luck next time.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Did Taylor test for causality? Did he test with granger causality test?

The test of causality, for those who do not know, is a test to determine if one variable came before another. This has to happen for one thing to cause another thing (actually, often the threat of one thing can cause another thing. Many times there does not have to be a mathematical causality, just a preponderance of evidence that it was the cause or that the threat of it was the cause).

Agman has repeatedly claimed that Taylor never tested for causality when in fact he did. If agman really had the trial transcripts, he would know this to be true. If he does have the transcripts and testimony, and has the ability to understand it, HE IS LYING EVERY TIME HE IMPLIES THIS!!!

Does this make Agman a perjuror? No. It is plain old deception. Agman is using an out of context statement by Taylor, just like SH continually does on my quote, to decieve everyone about the facts.

I did have the transcripts and I know my statement from the trail is true. Keep on searching, you will find the truth.

Agman, did Taylor test for causality with the granger test, yes or no?


I did have the transcripts and I know my statement from the trail is true. Keep on searching, you will find the truth.

Did Dr Taylor admit under oath during trail that he did not test his six manipulation theories for validity-yes or no? That has been the point of contention and it remains the point of contention. That question is answered in the TRIAL transcripts. Better luck next time.

He tested for causality. Do you deny it?

The validity of the claim was what the plaintiffs had to convince the jury of. They did. (MRJ are you going to tell me not to end a sentence with a preposition?)

The reasons (you call theories) were Tyson's reasons. Causality of their buying habits was tested by the granger test.

What kind of hoooeeey are you trying to sell, agman?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Did Taylor test for causality? Did he test with granger causality test?

The test of causality, for those who do not know, is a test to determine if one variable came before another. This has to happen for one thing to cause another thing (actually, often the threat of one thing can cause another thing. Many times there does not have to be a mathematical causality, just a preponderance of evidence that it was the cause or that the threat of it was the cause).

Agman has repeatedly claimed that Taylor never tested for causality when in fact he did. If agman really had the trial transcripts, he would know this to be true. If he does have the transcripts and testimony, and has the ability to understand it, HE IS LYING EVERY TIME HE IMPLIES THIS!!!

Does this make Agman a perjuror? No. It is plain old deception. Agman is using an out of context statement by Taylor, just like SH continually does on my quote, to decieve everyone about the facts.

I did have the transcripts and I know my statement from the trail is true. Keep on searching, you will find the truth.

Agman, did Taylor test for causality with the granger test, yes or no?


I did have the transcripts and I know my statement from the trail is true. Keep on searching, you will find the truth.

Did Dr Taylor admit under oath during trail that he did not test his six manipulation theories for validity-yes or no? That has been the point of contention and it remains the point of contention. That question is answered in the TRIAL transcripts. Better luck next time.

He tested for causality. Do you deny it?

The validity of the claim was what the plaintiffs had to convince the jury of. They did. (MRJ are you going to tell me not to end a sentence with a preposition?)

The reasons (you call theories) were Tyson's reasons. Causality of their buying habits was tested by the granger test.

What kind of hoooeeey are you trying to sell, agman?


Econ: "MRJ are you going to tell me not to end a sentence with a preposition?"

No, it is more fun to watch you demonstrate even further your conspiracy theories and foolishness about what Agman, the cattle/beef industry, the Pickett case, the Judicial system........and more. What a hoot you are when trying to convince us the sky is falling!

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
So the test is required by law, Dr. Taylor admitted that he did not do it, but yet he was allowed to provide his testimony. :shock: Sounds like Judge Strom was abetting.

I'll file that right next to "Mike Callicrate is a perjorer" :lol:

Has it dawned on you that the admission did not occur until and during trail. That is why my statement per this matter refers to testimony at trail-get it. Is that over your head again? Daubert hearings are pre-trail, not during.

If his testimony was flawed for whatever reason, why was it allowed to stand? Why didn't Strom inform the jury that Dr. Taylor did not follow the rules, failed a test, whatever. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

You're telling us that Strom is smarter than 12 jurors, but alllows flawed testimony in his court. I don't buy it.
 
Top