• 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

agman

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?

Another lie from Econ who did not evern read the testimony. "The reasons (you call theories) were Tyson's reasons. Causality of their buying habits was tested by the granger test."

Another fact "where did I say he did not perform the Grainer test? He also performed the Hausman test for causality-incorrectly I might say. Are these the reason the court said there were serious Daubert issues with his testimony? The judge was there, you were not. The judge is an expert in this type of testimony, the jury is not. The latter Daubert concerns are also a matter of record. Do you recall that comment in the Appellate Ruling or have you conveniently forgotten?

I am sorry to pop your bubble again but it was Taylor who said he had six theories not Tyson as you accuse. It was Taylor who stated under oath at trail under cross-exam and under oath that he did not test those theories for validity-not Tyson. You just cannot go through a day without lying or making a trumped up charge can you Econ?
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
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!

That is why you have trail. If all was resolved at Daubert hearings there would be no need for a trail.

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

That is why you have trials. If all was resolved at Daubert hearings there would be no need for a trail. Yes, I am saying that Judge Strom is smarter per this subject than the jurors and you or I. The juries lack of understanding was evidenced by the derived jury decision which was not corroborated by testimony at trail.

I can understand that as an R-Calf member you can be led to believe anything even though the facts clearly would not support said claim. So I can see how juries can be swayed by the "bleeding heart appeals". What law did Judge Strom violate by dimissing the jury decision? Can you tell us which law or laws he violated? I will have a followup question.
 

agman

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Agman, did Dr Taylor pass the Daubert test?

Yes he did, however, that is a different issue from what was uncovered at and during trial. These are two different events. Are you so legally illiterate as to not understand the difference?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Who cares if Taylor used the Hauseman test? Hauseman was the defendant's bought off witness.

Have you had the trial transcripts (including pre trial) released yet?

Experts may have been a part of the trial but the jury was who was to decide it. They did. The judge overturned it erroneously.

Judge Strom obviously can not run a fair trial if what you say is true---

He passed the sentence of perjury on Callicrate (SH's interpretation) when it could not be proven and the evidence of what Callicrate said was presented by other means.

He let the defendant lawyers claim that Taylor did not test for causality.

He allowed the diversion of "test your theories" (which didn't need to be tested, causality needed to be tested. and it was pre trial) be susbstituted in trial erroneously for testing the reasons. The reasons never needed to be tested.

You are some piece of work, agman.

Get the transcripts released to the public, agman. Quit fighting so one sided and with such arrogance. If you had any reading comprehension skills, I might take you seriously.

When will you ever stop defending a rotten system?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
Agman, did Dr Taylor pass the Daubert test?

Yes he did, however, that is a different issue from what was uncovered at and during trial. These are two different events. Are you so legally illiterate as to not understand the difference?

Great, now let's put Daubert behind us. On to the trial.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Agman, "That is why you have trials. If all was resolved at Daubert hearings there would be no need for a trail. Yes, I am saying that Judge Strom is smarter per this subject than the jurors and you or I. The juries lack of understanding was evidenced by the derived jury decision which was not corroborated by testimony at trail."

I thought Judge Strom's area was law, not economics?

Agman, "I can understand that as an R-Calf member you can be led to believe anything even though the facts clearly would not support said claim. So I can see how juries can be swayed by the "bleeding heart appeals". What law did Judge Strom violate by dimissing the jury decision? Can you tell us which law or laws he violated? I will have a followup question."

You've got a nice habit of pulling a strawman, Agman. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull, eh? You find where I said Strom violated any laws and then we'll go off on your tangent.

If Dr. Taylor didn't follow the rules, do what he was supposed to, etc..., his testimony would of been flawed and probably inadmissable. Thus, the judge would of thrown his testimony out, instructed the jurors part of it was not admissable, whatever. He would of done something BEFORE the jury retired. He did nothing. That leaves with two choices, that Strom allowed flawed testimony to stand in his court, or that you're trying to BS us again.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
This "trial" was a case of predetermination----by a corrupt system.

To think, the brains on the Judiciary committee in the Congress let this happen.

Do you think it has something to do with political donations or just incompetence?
 

Latest posts

Top