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

Did R-CALF membership

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
ask for the injunction to be refiled? Or was that taken on by the leadership?

Are you trying to insinuate that leadership violated membership's directives? If so, you need to try harder.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,053
Reaction score
131
Location
Big Muddy valley
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
ask for the injunction to be refiled? Or was that taken on by the leadership?

Are you trying to insinuate that leadership violated membership's directives? If so, you need to try harder.

I was just curious. Do you know the answer or are you Diverting again?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
ask for the injunction to be refiled? Or was that taken on by the leadership?

Are you trying to insinuate that leadership violated membership's directives? If so, you need to try harder.

I was just curious. Do you know the answer or are you Diverting again?

Leadership does not have to have explicit instructions from membership prior to action. However, if leadership ignored an explicit instruction, you can bet there would be hell to pay. Is that the way it works in the organizations you are a part of?
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
13
Location
South Central Montana
"Leadership does not have to have explicit instructions from membership prior to action. However, if leadership ignored an explicit instruction, you can bet there would be hell to pay. Is that the way it works in the organizations you are a part of?"


You are treading dangerous waters, here, sandhusker. NOTHING is acted upon until approved by membership. Of course, there are situations which need IMMEDIATE ACTION and that is why you have your Executive Committee. HOWEVER, in the 2 cases I've been involved with, the Executive Committee was consulted to spend a little bit more money than voted upon by the BOD because a better deal came up. All that is in the By-Laws.

If R-Calf is managed by the first paragraph above, NO WONDER I am no part of it. My whole gut feeling about your organization is described by the first paragraph. Run by one because all your members are "followers".

Geeeesh!
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
Are you trying to insinuate that leadership violated membership's directives? If so, you need to try harder.

I was just curious. Do you know the answer or are you Diverting again?

Leadership does not have to have explicit instructions from membership prior to action. However, if leadership ignored an explicit instruction, you can bet there would be hell to pay. Is that the way it works in the organizations you are a part of?

This action was consistent with existing directives. Continuing this lawsuit was a question addressed to the board of directors. The decision was to continue.

In fact I'll even take a little credit for it. For reasons that don't matter I was on a personal phone call to a director. He expressed chagrin that there was some thought being given to halting the "Canadian border lawsuit". I gave him my reasons for continuing. He thought my reasons were excellent. Apparently, he passed them on to the board of directors. A different director called me later to thank me for what I had told the other guy. This director said that my arguments were well received by the board and that they likely made a difference in what was decided. So R-CALF continued with the request for refiling.

So--blame me.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
ocm said:
Sandhusker said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
I was just curious. Do you know the answer or are you Diverting again?

Leadership does not have to have explicit instructions from membership prior to action. However, if leadership ignored an explicit instruction, you can bet there would be hell to pay. Is that the way it works in the organizations you are a part of?

This action was consistent with existing directives. Continuing this lawsuit was a question addressed to the board of directors. The decision was to continue.

In fact I'll even take a little credit for it. For reasons that don't matter I was on a personal phone call to a director. He expressed chagrin that there was some thought being given to halting the "Canadian border lawsuit". I gave him my reasons for continuing. He thought my reasons were excellent. Apparently, he passed them on to the board of directors. A different director called me later to thank me for what I had told the other guy. This director said that my arguments were well received by the board and that they likely made a difference in what was decided. So R-CALF continued with the request for refiling.

So--blame me.
WOW democracy in action. :roll: :roll: 18000 supposed members and a call to ocm decides it. Such a close decision!

There should be no surprise as the ACTION LEGAL FUND's mandate right from the beginning has been to close the Canadian border.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Hanta Yo said:
"Leadership does not have to have explicit instructions from membership prior to action. However, if leadership ignored an explicit instruction, you can bet there would be hell to pay. Is that the way it works in the organizations you are a part of?"


You are treading dangerous waters, here, sandhusker. NOTHING is acted upon until approved by membership. Of course, there are situations which need IMMEDIATE ACTION and that is why you have your Executive Committee. HOWEVER, in the 2 cases I've been involved with, the Executive Committee was consulted to spend a little bit more money than voted upon by the BOD because a better deal came up. All that is in the By-Laws.

If R-Calf is managed by the first paragraph above, NO WONDER I am no part of it. My whole gut feeling about your organization is described by the first paragraph. Run by one because all your members are "followers".

Geeeesh!


You keep telling yourself that Hanta & listening to Sam Elliot,Geeeesh! talk about telling em lies and feeding em candy,you Ladies are too easy............good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hanta Yo,

Thank you for being part of the forward thinking, factual based segment of this industry and stepping apart from the blamers.


OCM: "This action was consistent with existing directives. Continuing this lawsuit was a question addressed to the board of directors. The decision was to continue.

In fact I'll even take a little credit for it. For reasons that don't matter I was on a personal phone call to a director. He expressed chagrin that there was some thought being given to halting the "Canadian border lawsuit". I gave him my reasons for continuing. He thought my reasons were excellent. Apparently, he passed them on to the board of directors. A different director called me later to thank me for what I had told the other guy. This director said that my arguments were well received by the board and that they likely made a difference in what was decided. So R-CALF continued with the request for refiling."

Good choice OCM! You'll never win it anyway and the more money R-CALF wastes on their frivilous lawsuits, the more people will see them for the backwards thinking organization they are.

The absolute stupidist political move I have ever seen in my life was R-CALF risking the integrity of 80% of our U.S. beef consumption to stop the importation of 4% - 5% of our U.S. beef consumption by lying about BSE.

It's no surprise that you would be part of influencing such a stupid decision. I'd love to have you explain to a jury how Canadian beef can be "contaminated" and "high risk" due to BSE in their native herd and U.S. beef be the "safest beef in the world due to our firewalls" after we had BSE in our herd. I'd love to hear you compare our efforts of BSE testing to Canada's efforts. You'd get dizzy spinning in your chair trying to explain the difference in precautionary measures and explaining why our export markets should treat the U.S. any different.

AND FOR WHAT???

Canada would simply absorb that same portion of our export market. It's not like you are going to remove Canadian beef from the world market. What we would gain by stopping Canadian imports we would eventually lose in our export markets. That's how smart you guys are.

First, you don't know enough about the impact of imports to make a rational decision and then your not smart enough to understand the consequences of your actions. What a sad state of affairs.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Those who choose to see it as blind followers, others see it as a large group with similar ideals and goals united behind trusted leadership.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Many are starting to see R-CALF/OCM for what it really is. A group of blamers who base their decisions on emotion rather than fact and want the government to step in and save them from their "PERCEIVED" problems.

In other words, a total waste of time and effort.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Many are starting to see R-CALF/OCM for what it really is. A group of blamers who base their decisions on emotion rather than fact and want the government to step in and save them from their "PERCEIVED" problems.

In other words, a total waste of time and effort.


~SH~

How is that? Who is this "many"? Where did you get your information from? Sure this isn't just YOUR OPINION? :roll: Need I remind you that your credibilty on this board has already been defined?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "How is that? Who is this "many"?"

That many is the many producers that I have talked to that have seen R-CALF's positions contrasted with the actual facts and the obvious fact that R-CALF hasn't won a court case yet.

Let me give you a perfect example. I talked to a producer the other day that said that he had a friend that sold his calves on the video auction due to R-CALF's prediction of falling markets when and if the Canadian border opened. When he saw that he could have gotten more money if he had sold his calves when he usually did, he was really pissed off at R-CALF for lying about the affects of Canadian imports on our markets. There's one example of many.


Sandbag: "Need I remind you that your credibilty on this board has already been defined?"

More cheap talk!

The biased opinion of your support group of packer blamers is meaningless in the big scheme considering how some of them even voted more than once according to the IP numbers. Another "ILLUSION" you tried to create when you can't debate me on a factual merit.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "How is that? Who is this "many"?"

That many is the many producers that I have talked to that have seen R-CALF's positions contrasted with the actual facts and the obvious fact that R-CALF hasn't won a court case yet.

Let me give you a perfect example. I talked to a producer the other day that said that he had a friend that sold his calves on the video auction due to R-CALF's prediction of falling markets when and if the Canadian border opened. When he saw that he could have gotten more money if he had sold his calves when he usually did, he was really p****d off at R-CALF for lying about the affects of Canadian imports on our markets. There's one example of many.


Sandbag: "Need I remind you that your credibilty on this board has already been defined?"

More cheap talk!

The biased opinion of your support group of packer blamers is meaningless in the big scheme considering how some of them even voted more than once according to the IP numbers. Another "ILLUSION" you tried to create when you can't debate me on a factual merit.


~SH~

Oh, so there was a conspiracy against you! I don't remember any IP numbers... Want to try it again? Maybe put a nominal wager on it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Oh, so there was a conspiracy against you! I don't remember any IP numbers... Want to try it again? Maybe put a nominal wager on it?"

Fedup posted that the IP numbers had indicated that some had voted more than once but it's irrelevant anyway. A packer blamer opinion poll on me is worthless. What is worth something is when you or your little packer blaming support group can contradict anything I have stated with opposing facts. You accomplished that one time. In how many years of debate? Says a lot about you.




~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
Here is one of SH's facts.


SH... I talked to a producer the other day that said that he had a friend that sold his calves on the video auction due to R-CALF's prediction of falling markets when and if the Canadian border opened. When he saw that he could have gotten more money if he had sold his calves when he usually did, he was really p****d off
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You're a legend in your own mind, SH, and a great source of humor and amusement for the rest of us. This board wouldn't be the same without you.

I love you, man! :heart:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy,

It's true! The guy believed R-CALF's prediction that the Canadian border would result in lower cattle prices so he sold on the video instead of when he normally would. R-CALF's lies cost him money as he sees it. I can't help that you don't like to face the consequences of R-CALF's lies but they are real just the same. Keep nodding your head Tommy as they tell you what you want to believe. Good and faithful servent! LOL!


Sandbag: "You're a legend in your own mind, SH, and a great source of humor and amusement for the rest of us. This board wouldn't be the same without you."

You don't speak for anyone but yourself and a handful of your mindless packer blaming support group that can't think for themselves.

You're right. This board wouldn't be the same without those of us who hold R-CULT accountable for their lies as head nodders like you follow blindly along.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Tommy,

It's true! The guy believed R-CALF's prediction that the Canadian border would result in lower cattle prices so he sold on the video instead of when he normally would. R-CALF's lies cost him money as he sees it. I can't help that you don't like to face the consequences of R-CALF's lies but they are real just the same. Keep nodding your head Tommy as they tell you what you want to believe. Good and faithful servent! LOL!


Sandbag: "You're a legend in your own mind, SH, and a great source of humor and amusement for the rest of us. This board wouldn't be the same without you."

You don't speak for anyone but yourself and a handful of your mindless packer blaming support group that can't think for themselves.

You're right. This board wouldn't be the same without those of us who hold R-CULT accountable for their lies as head nodders like you follow blindly along.


~SH~

I keep telling you to look at the relative value of the substitutes as well as the domestic beef supplies. I know that Agman uses this information although he will not disclose the details.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "I keep telling you to look at the relative value of the substitutes as well as the domestic beef supplies."

I don't listen to anything you tell me because you've proven yourself to be a complete idot and a liar to boot.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top