Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
ask for the injunction to be refiled? Or was that taken on by the leadership?
Big Muddy rancher said:ask for the injunction to be refiled? Or was that taken on by the leadership?
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.
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?
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?
WOW democracy in action. :roll: :roll: 18000 supposed members and a call to ocm decides it. Such a close decision!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.
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!
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."
~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~
Sandbag: "How is that? Who is this "many"?"
Sandbag: "Need I remind you that your credibilty on this board has already been defined?"
~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~
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?"
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."
~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~
Conman: "I keep telling you to look at the relative value of the substitutes as well as the domestic beef supplies."