Canfax numbers

[Anonymous]

Conman: "So now you are telling the Supreme Court what they can and can't do?"

Let's see, is that your third or fourth lie today? I've already lost count.

I didn't say the supreme court CAN'T hear the case, I'm saying they WON'T because there is no substance to support them hearing the case.

You packer blamers will lose again, write it down.


I am glad you packer blamers are taking it to the supreme court because you need to hear from them as well as Judge Strom and the 11th circuit that your case is WITHOUT.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "So now you are telling the Supreme Court what they can and can't do?"

Let's see, is that your third or fourth lie today? I've already lost count.

I didn't say the supreme court CAN'T hear the case, I'm saying they WON'T because there is no substance to support them hearing the case.

You packer blamers will lose again, write it down.


I am glad you packer blamers are taking it to the supreme court because you need to hear from them as well as Judge Strom and the 11th circuit that your case is WITHOUT.


~SH~

So now questions are lies?

How about quotes?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Are you still beating your wife?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman,

Are you still beating your wife?


~SH~

She has her dad's touch, she beats me in cribbage all the time. One of these days I am going to beat her though.

 

[Tam]

I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Let us look at some of the facts If Tyson did outright plan the BSE crisis I would love to get their crystal ball or who ever was advising them. :wink:
According to the CFIA investigation of BSE in Canada our problem with native BSE was caused by unknowing feeding feed made from a contaminated UK cow to a calf born in Sask. before the CFIA ban that practice in 1997. Then that calf was sold to a producer in Alberta where it lived until it was condemned and the head was held for testing. The test came back positive in May 2003 . Now for Tyson to have planned the BSE crisis to gain market share as Econ submits they would have had to have known about the contaminated UK cow in Canada and they would have had to have had something to do with the processing of her into the feed the Sask. calf was eating. Did any one from Tyson go to the UK and import cattle to Canada, no Canadian Producers did that all on their own. Did Tyson make the feed that the calf ate NO an Aussie based feed mill was the one named in the law suit with the CFIA. At the time that the actual contamination took place in Canada, Tyson didn't own a slaughter plant in Canada. They never owned a plant here until they bought or mergerd with IBP in mid 2001 6 years after the Canadian feed bans were implemented and 2 years before the cow was found positive so they could not have been the ones that even processed the UK cow now could they? Now according to the article I found on the internet, Tyson made a deal with IBP but because of some misinformation they felt they recieved from IBP they tried to stop the merger which would have stopped them ever owning the Canadian based Lakeside Plant. But because of a COURT ORDER they had to go through with their deal with IBP which then give them access to the Canadian market, again this took place at least 8 years after the the UK cow unknowingly hit the Canadian feed system that according to the CFIA set the whole BSE crisis in motion. So tell us again Econ how did Tyson plan the BSE crisis so they could gain market share in Canada or any where else? When the May 20th cow was comtanimated as a calf How did Tyson know that the science surrounding BSE would come far enough to allow countries known to have minimal amounts of BSE to Export? Someone at Tyson would have had to had very good abilities of looking into the future to see that the science would change and that owning a plant in Canada would be beneificial to their bottom line. If that person exsisted why didn't He or She warn Tyson not to make a deal with a few nameless US producers because those deals would wind them up in court?

one last point Econ if Tyson planned it they should have hired XL Foods psychic

While there is no appreciable monopsony market power exertion by beef packers in fed cattle markets, there is significant monopsony market power exertion in cull cattle markets.

then maybe they would have owned the only cull cattle plant instead of a Fed cattle plant or maybe they would have bought like the XL did. :wink:

 

[Econ101]

I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Let us look at some of the facts If Tyson did outright plan the BSE crisis I would love to get their crystal ball or who ever was advising them. :wink:
According to the CFIA investigation of BSE in Canada our problem with native BSE was caused by unknowing feeding feed made from a contaminated UK cow to a calf born in Sask. before the CFIA ban that practice in 1997. Then that calf was sold to a producer in Alberta where it lived until it was condemned and the head was held for testing. The test came back positive in May 2003 . Now for Tyson to have planned the BSE crisis to gain market share as Econ submits they would have had to have known about the contaminated UK cow in Canada and they would have had to have had something to do with the processing of her into the feed the Sask. calf was eating. Did any one from Tyson go to the UK and import cattle to Canada, no Canadian Producers did that all on their own. Did Tyson make the feed that the calf ate NO an Aussie based feed mill was the one named in the law suit with the CFIA. At the time that the actual contamination took place in Canada, Tyson didn't own a slaughter plant in Canada. They never owned a plant here until they bought or mergerd with IBP in mid 2001 6 years after the Canadian feed bans were implemented and 2 years before the cow was found positive so they could not have been the ones that even processed the UK cow now could they? Now according to the article I found on the internet, Tyson made a deal with IBP but because of some misinformation they felt they recieved from IBP they tried to stop the merger which would have stopped them ever owning the Canadian based Lakeside Plant. But because of a COURT ORDER they had to go through with their deal with IBP which then give them access to the Canadian market, again this took place at least 8 years after the the UK cow unknowingly hit the Canadian feed system that according to the CFIA set the whole BSE crisis in motion. So tell us again Econ how did Tyson plan the BSE crisis so they could gain market share in Canada or any where else? When the May 20th cow was comtanimated as a calf How did Tyson know that the science surrounding BSE would come far enough to allow countries known to have minimal amounts of BSE to Export? Someone at Tyson would have had to had very good abilities of looking into the future to see that the science would change and that owning a plant in Canada would be beneificial to their bottom line. If that person exsisted why didn't He or She warn Tyson not to make a deal with a few nameless US producers because those deals would wind them up in court?

one last point Econ if Tyson planned it they should have hired XL Foods psychic

While there is no appreciable monopsony market power exertion by beef packers in fed cattle markets, there is significant monopsony market power exertion in cull cattle markets.

then maybe they would have owned the only cull cattle plant instead of a Fed cattle plant or maybe they would have bought like the XL did. :wink:

Tam, I appreciate your work on defending Uncle Tyson. You might want to stick to your own allegations regarding the "exhonnerating" report on the packer "salmon run" in Canada. You quoted the report and an economist from Texas A&M and on further inspection, neither of them supported the claims you made about the report and your subsequent conclusions.

I know that you did not write the report, but did you read it? Did you understand it and its limitations? Will you now admit the inadequacy of the report and the diversion of questions being asked by CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH?

 

[Tam]

I would submit to you that much of the BSE problem was used stategically by Tysons to gain market share and beat out producers. How did they plan that in an impromptu manner if it wasn't outright planned?

Let us look at some of the facts If Tyson did outright plan the BSE crisis I would love to get their crystal ball or who ever was advising them. :wink:
According to the CFIA investigation of BSE in Canada our problem with native BSE was caused by unknowing feeding feed made from a contaminated UK cow to a calf born in Sask. before the CFIA ban that practice in 1997. Then that calf was sold to a producer in Alberta where it lived until it was condemned and the head was held for testing. The test came back positive in May 2003 . Now for Tyson to have planned the BSE crisis to gain market share as Econ submits they would have had to have known about the contaminated UK cow in Canada and they would have had to have had something to do with the processing of her into the feed the Sask. calf was eating. Did any one from Tyson go to the UK and import cattle to Canada, no Canadian Producers did that all on their own. Did Tyson make the feed that the calf ate NO an Aussie based feed mill was the one named in the law suit with the CFIA. At the time that the actual contamination took place in Canada, Tyson didn't own a slaughter plant in Canada. They never owned a plant here until they bought or mergerd with IBP in mid 2001 6 years after the Canadian feed bans were implemented and 2 years before the cow was found positive so they could not have been the ones that even processed the UK cow now could they? Now according to the article I found on the internet, Tyson made a deal with IBP but because of some misinformation they felt they recieved from IBP they tried to stop the merger which would have stopped them ever owning the Canadian based Lakeside Plant. But because of a COURT ORDER they had to go through with their deal with IBP which then give them access to the Canadian market, again this took place at least 8 years after the the UK cow unknowingly hit the Canadian feed system that according to the CFIA set the whole BSE crisis in motion. So tell us again Econ how did Tyson plan the BSE crisis so they could gain market share in Canada or any where else? When the May 20th cow was comtanimated as a calf How did Tyson know that the science surrounding BSE would come far enough to allow countries known to have minimal amounts of BSE to Export? Someone at Tyson would have had to had very good abilities of looking into the future to see that the science would change and that owning a plant in Canada would be beneificial to their bottom line. If that person exsisted why didn't He or She warn Tyson not to make a deal with a few nameless US producers because those deals would wind them up in court?

one last point Econ if Tyson planned it they should have hired XL Foods psychic

While there is no appreciable monopsony market power exertion by beef packers in fed cattle markets, there is significant monopsony market power exertion in cull cattle markets.

then maybe they would have owned the only cull cattle plant instead of a Fed cattle plant or maybe they would have bought like the XL did. :wink:

Tam, I appreciate your work on defending Uncle Tyson. You might want to stick to your own allegations regarding the "exhonnerating" report on the packer "salmon run" in Canada. You quoted the report and an economist from Texas A&M and on further inspection, neither of them supported the claims you made about the report and your subsequent conclusions.

I know that you did not write the report, but did you read it? Did you understand it and its limitations? Will you now admit the inadequacy of the report and the diversion of questions being asked by CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH?

Well Econ I don't appeciate your diversion so let's stick to this topic. You submitted that Tyson somehow planned the BSE crisis so they could gain market share. I explained how they had no part in the Canadian industry at the time of BSE being set in motion and they would have had to have had a psychic to know how things would unfold surrounding the BSE science to have known the border would open to UTM beef. So tell us again why you submitted your slanderous little comment and what evidence you have to even think they had something to do with it.
By the way the fact that the Japanese inspected a slaughter plant that Tyson owned is not proof the Tyson officials and USDA officials threatened them with knive so unless you have some proof to that slanderous little comment I think you should live but your own words

What is it Tam? Why do you have a problem being called on all your little
nonsensical statements? Maybe you shouldn't make them.

 

[Econ101]

Let us look at some of the facts If Tyson did outright plan the BSE crisis I would love to get their crystal ball or who ever was advising them. :wink:
According to the CFIA investigation of BSE in Canada our problem with native BSE was caused by unknowing feeding feed made from a contaminated UK cow to a calf born in Sask. before the CFIA ban that practice in 1997. Then that calf was sold to a producer in Alberta where it lived until it was condemned and the head was held for testing. The test came back positive in May 2003 . Now for Tyson to have planned the BSE crisis to gain market share as Econ submits they would have had to have known about the contaminated UK cow in Canada and they would have had to have had something to do with the processing of her into the feed the Sask. calf was eating. Did any one from Tyson go to the UK and import cattle to Canada, no Canadian Producers did that all on their own. Did Tyson make the feed that the calf ate NO an Aussie based feed mill was the one named in the law suit with the CFIA. At the time that the actual contamination took place in Canada, Tyson didn't own a slaughter plant in Canada. They never owned a plant here until they bought or mergerd with IBP in mid 2001 6 years after the Canadian feed bans were implemented and 2 years before the cow was found positive so they could not have been the ones that even processed the UK cow now could they? Now according to the article I found on the internet, Tyson made a deal with IBP but because of some misinformation they felt they recieved from IBP they tried to stop the merger which would have stopped them ever owning the Canadian based Lakeside Plant. But because of a COURT ORDER they had to go through with their deal with IBP which then give them access to the Canadian market, again this took place at least 8 years after the the UK cow unknowingly hit the Canadian feed system that according to the CFIA set the whole BSE crisis in motion. So tell us again Econ how did Tyson plan the BSE crisis so they could gain market share in Canada or any where else? When the May 20th cow was comtanimated as a calf How did Tyson know that the science surrounding BSE would come far enough to allow countries known to have minimal amounts of BSE to Export? Someone at Tyson would have had to had very good abilities of looking into the future to see that the science would change and that owning a plant in Canada would be beneificial to their bottom line. If that person exsisted why didn't He or She warn Tyson not to make a deal with a few nameless US producers because those deals would wind them up in court?

one last point Econ if Tyson planned it they should have hired XL Foods psychic
then maybe they would have owned the only cull cattle plant instead of a Fed cattle plant or maybe they would have bought like the XL did. :wink:

Tam, I appreciate your work on defending Uncle Tyson. You might want to stick to your own allegations regarding the "exhonnerating" report on the packer "salmon run" in Canada. You quoted the report and an economist from Texas A&M and on further inspection, neither of them supported the claims you made about the report and your subsequent conclusions.

I know that you did not write the report, but did you read it? Did you understand it and its limitations? Will you now admit the inadequacy of the report and the diversion of questions being asked by CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH?

Well Econ I don't appeciate your diversion so let's stick to this topic. You submitted that Tyson somehow planned the BSE crisis so they could gain market share. I explained how they had no part in the Canadian industry at the time of BSE being set in motion and they would have had to have had a psychic to know how things would unfold surrounding the BSE science to have known the border would open to UTM beef. So tell us again why you submitted your slanderous little comment and what evidence you have to even think they had something to do with it.
By the way the fact that the Japanese inspected a slaughter plant that Tyson owned is not proof the Tyson officials and USDA officials threatened them with knive so unless you have some proof to that slanderous little comment I think you should live but your own words

What is it Tam? Why do you have a problem being called on all your little
nonsensical statements? Maybe you shouldn't make them.

Tam, I will address this issue later on your own little thread. In the future, you should address all your little diversionary tactics on knives and slander over there. I posted a response to this already but in my efforts to make sure the page did not wrap around, I inadvertantly deleted it. I will be glad to do it again a little later for your benefit. For you, I will go the extra mile, or two, or three.

You brought up some information on a report from the Alberta govt. and Texas A&M profs. that just didn't stand up. I called you on it as others did. I am sorry you are embarrassed by your own failures in this regard.

Do I have to keep bringing them up? Maybe you can stop making them. It would be nice to disagree with you pleasantly but it seems you will not allow that.

 

[Tam]

Tam, I appreciate your work on defending Uncle Tyson. You might want to stick to your own allegations regarding the "exhonnerating" report on the packer "salmon run" in Canada. You quoted the report and an economist from Texas A&M and on further inspection, neither of them supported the claims you made about the report and your subsequent conclusions.

I know that you did not write the report, but did you read it? Did you understand it and its limitations? Will you now admit the inadequacy of the report and the diversion of questions being asked by CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH?

Well Econ I don't appeciate your diversion so let's stick to this topic. You submitted that Tyson somehow planned the BSE crisis so they could gain market share. I explained how they had no part in the Canadian industry at the time of BSE being set in motion and they would have had to have had a psychic to know how things would unfold surrounding the BSE science to have known the border would open to UTM beef. So tell us again why you submitted your slanderous little comment and what evidence you have to even think they had something to do with it.
By the way the fact that the Japanese inspected a slaughter plant that Tyson owned is not proof the Tyson officials and USDA officials threatened them with knive so unless you have some proof to that slanderous little comment I think you should live but your own words

What is it Tam? Why do you have a problem being called on all your little
nonsensical statements? Maybe you shouldn't make them.

Tam, I will address this issue later on your own little thread. In the future, you should address all your little diversionary tactics on knives and slander over there. I posted a response to this already but in my efforts to make sure the page did not wrap around, I inadvertantly deleted it. I will be glad to do it again a little later for your benefit. For you, I will go the extra mile, or two, or three.

You brought up some information on a report from the Alberta govt. and Texas A&M profs. that just didn't stand up. I called you on it as others did. I am sorry you are embarrassed by your own failures in this regard.

Do I have to keep bringing them up? Maybe you can stop making them. It would be nice to disagree with you pleasantly but it seems you will not allow that.

If you go back you will see Econ I asked first for you to prove your nonsensical statements and I would like you to do that before I have to explain anything to you about who I did or did not quote.

 

[Econ101]

And you, Tam, did not read my subsequent post or read it and did not understand it.

Tam, I appreciate your work on defending Uncle Tyson. You might want to stick to your own allegations regarding the "exhonnerating" report on the packer "salmon run" in Canada. You quoted the report and an economist from Texas A&M and on further inspection, neither of them supported the claims you made about the report and your subsequent conclusions.

I know that you did not write the report, but did you read it? Did you understand it and its limitations? Will you now admit the inadequacy of the report and the diversion of questions being asked by CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH?

 

[Tam]

And you, Tam, did not read my subsequent post or read it and did not understand it.

Tam, I appreciate your work on defending Uncle Tyson. You might want to stick to your own allegations regarding the "exhonnerating" report on the packer "salmon run" in Canada. You quoted the report and an economist from Texas A&M and on further inspection, neither of them supported the claims you made about the report and your subsequent conclusions.

I know that you did not write the report, but did you read it? Did you understand it and its limitations? Will you now admit the inadequacy of the report and the diversion of questions being asked by CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH?

Go back Econ Way back you have been using anything you can to divert the topic away from the question I asked including this little snip but I'm not biting I want you to answer my questions about your allegations of Tyson before I even think about your allegation of who I did or did not quote.

 

[Econ101]

And you, Tam, did not read my subsequent post or read it and did not understand it.

Tam, I appreciate your work on defending Uncle Tyson. You might want to stick to your own allegations regarding the "exhonnerating" report on the packer "salmon run" in Canada. You quoted the report and an economist from Texas A&M and on further inspection, neither of them supported the claims you made about the report and your subsequent conclusions.

I know that you did not write the report, but did you read it? Did you understand it and its limitations? Will you now admit the inadequacy of the report and the diversion of questions being asked by CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH?

Go back Econ Way back you have been using anything you can to divert the topic away from the question I asked including this little snip but I'm not biting I want you to answer my questions about your allegations of Tyson before I even think about your allegation of who I did or did not quote.

Tam, What makes you think I have to do ANYTHING you say? If I want to "divert" from answering your questions, I will. I often do not answer questions that are not meant as real questions. I did, however, say I would answer your question on another thread just for you. Did you not understand that?

Hugs and Kisses Tam. I hope BMR is not jealous.

 

[Tam]

And you, Tam, did not read my subsequent post or read it and did not understand it.

Tam, I appreciate your work on defending Uncle Tyson. You might want to stick to your own allegations regarding the "exhonnerating" report on the packer "salmon run" in Canada. You quoted the report and an economist from Texas A&M and on further inspection, neither of them supported the claims you made about the report and your subsequent conclusions.

I know that you did not write the report, but did you read it? Did you understand it and its limitations? Will you now admit the inadequacy of the report and the diversion of questions being asked by CANADIAN PRODUCERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH?

Go back Econ Way back you have been using anything you can to divert the topic away from the question I asked including this little snip but I'm not biting I want you to answer my questions about your allegations of Tyson before I even think about your allegation of who I did or did not quote.

Tam, What makes you think I have to do ANYTHING you say? If I want to "divert" from answering your questions, I will. I often do not answer questions that are not meant as real questions. I did, however, say I would answer your question on another thread just for you. Did you not understand that?

Hugs and Kisses Tam. I hope BMR is not jealous.

Here I thought you wanted to discuss the points and Econ I doubt BMR would get jealous of a JOKE. And that is what you are a bad joke. :wink: See you on the other thread :wink: