Sandbag: "I accepted the $100 because there was no data. You would of needed data to prove your point, which is what YOU bet YOU could do."
That is a damn lie!
This is what has really turned me sour about this site. With each passing day it gets easier and easier for you and other blamers like you, to lie. Conman can't even post without lying and not once have you ever questioned what he says because he says what you want to believe and he's firmly entrenched in the "blamer's camp" with you. That's what makes you blamers so completely pathetic. You can't think for yourselves, you can't stand up for what's right if it means questioning a fellow blamer, and you can't back any of your views with supporting facts because you refuse to conduct your own reseach to find out the truth. Mind numbed robots.
The fact is, and I can prove that I presented THE DATA that showed Boise and Pasco were running at 33% of capacity while paying their labor force for a 32 hour work week. I presented the TYSON DATA that showed Lakeside losing money for the first quarter of 2005. I presented the average wages for the Boise and Pasco plants. I also brought THE DATA that showed what Lakeside lost in SRM removal costs. I also brought the data that showed that Pasco and Boise's combined slaughter capacity was near equal to Lakeside's slaughter capacity. I also provided the Alberta study that proved that Lakeside did not profit excessively as compared to the losses in Boise and Pasco during this time period.
WHAT DID YOU CONTRIBUTE???? NOT A GAWD DAMN THING!
Now, like the little coward you are, you pretend this data never existed. If you were honest, you would admit that you rejected this data that I provided and you rejected the phone call i made to Tyson. You would also admit that you didn't provide anything to back your views other than your initial challenge. On the other hand, like the hypocrite you are, you accepted Agman's WORD on calendar year 2004 without questioning it and thanked him for his honesty because it would mean you won the bet without contributing anything to it. That's exactly the way it was.
You could stand on your argument that you wanted an individual plant breakdown on expenses and income, although it would be a weak stand against THE DATA I provided, if you hadn't accepted Agman's WORD on calendar year 2004. You never questioned Agman's WORD when it supported your bias because it would mean you won the bet without contributing anything to it. Now you want to question Agman's WORD, based on his research, and THE DATA I provided that proved my original statement correct. That's where you really showed your cards and proved what a parasite you really are.
Any fool knows you can't run a plant at 33% of capacity while paying a labor force for a 32 hour work week and not loose a tremendous amount of money. This was more than enough to prove my point. This was confirmed by a phonecall to a Tyson representative that stated "Boise and Pasco lost WAY MORE than Lakeside made in the remaining quarters of 2005" where Lakeside made money. Lakeside running more shifts and speeding up the chains could not possibly compensate for the lost capacity at the other two plants.
That is the data I provided and I assume it's still archived. If not, I have copies of that thread.
You refused this data because it would mean that you pulled your challenge out of your ash and you didn't have anything to back your position which is perfectly normal for you.
Agman said his own data showed that Boise and Pasco were not sustaining heavy losses until 2005. That is why I willingly admitted I was wrong and paid up. I made the mistake of agreeing to calendar year 2004 "for simplicity sake". You didn't have any knowledge of the issue whether it was calendar year 2004, 2005, or the entire period of time when the border was closed. You didn't know either way. I had forgot about all the Canadian cattle still feeding those northern plants in 2004 until that supply dried up. That was my only mistake.
Everyone knows how much winning this bet meant to you considering how many times your positions were proven wrong in the past. Agman stated that I was right on my original statement so not only did I provide the information that proved me right and confirm this with a phone call to Tyson, Agman's data also backed me up but you rejected that and accepted HIS WORD on 2004. Funny how that is the first time that I can remember that you accepted Agman's data without your usual chickensh*t challenge because it happened to support your bias.
You can dance around it all you want Sandweasel, LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO, but everyone who matters knows that the only way you can win a bet with me is if I prove myself wrong because you've never backed a position you've held with supporting facts on this site yet. You believe what you want to believe and question what you don't. Truth doesn't matter to a blamer like you and you don't conduct any research on your own. R-CULT tells you how to think and you follow the crowd like mice following the R-CULT pied piper. You need to fit in as opposed to being driven by truth and facts like I am.
You got nothing on me and you never will have. Anyone can win a bet with someone who is willing to conduct his own reasearch, willing to prove himself wrong, willing to admit when he's wrong, and willing to pay up without you contributing anything but a chickensh*t challenge.
Bottom line,
you accepted Agman's WORD for calendar year 2004 and you rejected HIS WORD AND THE DATA I PROVIDED AND A PHONE CALL FROM A TYSON REPRESENTATIVE to back my initial statement. No further proof is needed to prove what a parasite you really are. You provided NOTHING in either case. You couldn't be a bigger hypocrite and you have $100 to prove what my integrity is worth. I'm sure glad I don't have to crawl around like you do.
You keep bringing this up because you are still trying to justify it in your feeble mind. You obviously have a conscience problem and it's understandable considering the circumstances.
I have nothing more to say on the matter that wouldn't be a repeat of what I already stated. Cling to your weak "bring the data" lie to prove my original statement when the data has already been provided. You rejected that data on my original statement and accepted Agman's word without question on calendar year 2004. Case closed!
~SH~