A
Anonymous
Guest
There was no data but my data was only partial and circumstancial? Bwahahaha!
A liar can never keep his stories straight. The reason you are tired of this is quite obvious.
~SH~
Canadian Retail Prices
- Thread starter Jason
- Start date
There was no data but my data was only partial and circumstancial? Bwahahaha!
A liar can never keep his stories straight. The reason you are tired of this is quite obvious.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Does being the village idoit pay well? Is an ego boost for you? What is the glory in being a moron? I just don't get it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hahaha!
Calm down Sandweasel, it's ok!
Even the best liars can't keep their stories straight why would you expect to be any different?
~SH~
Calm down Sandweasel, it's ok!
Even the best liars can't keep their stories straight why would you expect to be any different?
~SH~
mwj
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Great data, SH. You just as well of brought Ugandan rain fall data, it would of went just as far is proving your point and you could still stick out your chest and correctly tell everybody that you did bring data. Next time, I'll be sure to ask for 'REVELANT DATA".
Grow up, Scotty.
Jason
Well-known member
When dealing in things like packer profits, feeder profits or even producer profits, the best we can do is use our experience and the data available.
Packers don't open their books, nor do feeders or producers. I haven't seen any cow calf producer post more than generic figures as to their profit and loss, nor would I expect them to.
Common sence tells us that if a business experiences a loss of productivity, it is making less money than before.
If it loses enough business it goes broke.
Agman has studied beef trends for many years, many of his predictions are based on past trends. He doesn't need a profit and loss sheet in front of him to read the actions of packers. If they are backing off production, they aren't making money. Circumstantial but accurate. The evidence SH presented in the Lakeside vs NW plants was equally as compelling.
OJ was aquitted on partial and circumstantial data, but we all know he did it. SH paid a bet under a similar situation, he proved his case but lost the bet on a technicality.
Packers don't open their books, nor do feeders or producers. I haven't seen any cow calf producer post more than generic figures as to their profit and loss, nor would I expect them to.
Common sence tells us that if a business experiences a loss of productivity, it is making less money than before.
If it loses enough business it goes broke.
Agman has studied beef trends for many years, many of his predictions are based on past trends. He doesn't need a profit and loss sheet in front of him to read the actions of packers. If they are backing off production, they aren't making money. Circumstantial but accurate. The evidence SH presented in the Lakeside vs NW plants was equally as compelling.
OJ was aquitted on partial and circumstantial data, but we all know he did it. SH paid a bet under a similar situation, he proved his case but lost the bet on a technicality.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Don't hold your breath mwj!
He has no defense. This is the second time he couldn't keep his stories straight on this because he's got a real conscience problem over it.
My original statement that started this entire bet was this (paraphrasing) ......
"Tyson's Pasco and Boise plants lost more money than Tyson's Lakeside AB plant made during the period of time when the Canadian border was closed due to BSE".
Sandbag claimed that was a lie, then said I didn't lie, then said I might have lied. That was the first time he started changing his story.
His response to this statement was "PROVE IT".
I bet him $100 that I was right.
He said, let's use calendar year 2004 for simplicity sake.
I agreed. My mistake.
Our data showed that I was clearly wrong within calendar year 2004 because the Canadian feeder cattle were still supplying those northern plants in 2004 until they dried up in the fall of 2004. Agman said his data showed I was wrong on calendar year 2004 and right about 2005. Sandbag thanked Agman for his honesty because it meant he had won the bet on calendar year 2004 but then he questions Agman's word on being right on my original statement. Agman's data and my data revealed that I was right with my original statement. Sandbag questioned that but accepted Agman's word on calendar year 2004.
He knows he can't get around his hypocrisy and that's why his stories keep changing. Sandweasel has a real conscience problem.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Pretty simple, mwj. If somenody bet you that "A" made more money than "B", wouldn't you expect that their proof would include something like "A made $xxxx.xx and B made $xxxxx.xx"?" Wouldn't you expect an actual bottom-line dollar figure?
SH said be brought data to prove his point. What he brought was data by defintion only - it wasn't data that proved his point. My bad, I should of known I was dealing with Bill Clinton. He brought nothing that actually proved his statement, but he'll jump on anybody else with a childish rant calling them "factually void". Hypocracy at it's finest.
I'm out.
A
Anonymous
Guest
There was no data then the data that I didn't bring was only partial and circumstantial then the data I didn't bring was data by definition only and not data that proved my point. Hahahaha!
What did I tell you? Liars simply cannot keep their stories straight.
This data that was supposedly not good enough to prove my point just happened to be acceptable to Sandbag to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 and acceptable enough for him to thank Agman for his honesty and acceptable enough for him to claim he'd won the bet and acceptable enough for him to accept the $100.
What a complete phony! No wonder he's out.
~SH~
SH, are you going to keep this charade up forever?
I am sure your money was some of the best rcalf ever received. You don't have to keep cry babying about it do you?
Why don't you go help Agman and the packers lobby the new Congress. From what I hear, they need all the help they can get.
Why are you always against producers and for packers?
Do you think you impress them? I would rather think you entertain them with your act.
I am sure your money was some of the best rcalf ever received. You don't have to keep cry babying about it do you?
Why don't you go help Agman and the packers lobby the new Congress. From what I hear, they need all the help they can get.
Why are you always against producers and for packers?
Do you think you impress them? I would rather think you entertain them with your act.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Why are you always lying to producers and lying about packers? Do you honestly believe producers are better served by your lies about packers than the truth?
Your unsupported opinions and lies only serve to hurt producers! Nobody benefits from lies and baseless allegations against packers just because you blamers need someone or something to blame.
~SH~
mwj
Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Econ just exactly what was your roll in the winning of ''the bet'' :roll: Did you provide the economic data for the winner??????????????? Were you the judge of the data provided by both parties????????? Did you handle the cash transaction????????????
:shock: :lol: 
A
Anonymous
Guest
MWJ,
Conman wasn't even disgracing this site with his lies at the time of the bet. He's just a cheerleader for anyone that's debating me because I have exposed his lies so many times. A real independent thinker.........NOT! He probably doesn't even know what the bet was about.
~SH~
Conman wasn't even disgracing this site with his lies at the time of the bet. He's just a cheerleader for anyone that's debating me because I have exposed his lies so many times. A real independent thinker.........NOT! He probably doesn't even know what the bet was about.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Name one lie of his that you've exposed, Scotty.
Really, Ritalin is some kid's best friend. It could be your's too.
A
Anonymous
Guest
That was a lie!
NEXT!
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
That was a question. Strike one.
A
Anonymous
Guest
DIVERSION!
It was a statement in question form.
~SH~
It was a statement in question form.
~SH~