You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Help Support Ranchers.net:
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
He is pathetic
Tam I took your name off the quote, because this applies to everyone, myself included.
Why is it that every single one of these threads has to degenerate into name calling and personal attacks? I don't agree with everything that people say on here (Death to R-Calf! :wink: ), but after a healthy debate, if we still don't agree, I let it drop and simply agree to disagree. All personal attacks do is undermine your own position and force reasonable people to ignore you, and ignore the threads. I wonder how many people with valuable insites are unwilling to post them because they are afraid of someone attacking them?
Rod
Tam said:I guess this is why Econ doesn't want anyone to know anything about him . Just look at all the times he has used the so called fluff he thinks he knows about someone to try discredit them. He is pathetic
Tam, when I came to this board, I knew nothing of you. I understood your positions from what you posted. Your identity to me has more to do with your postings than your cattle associations, your real name, your address, or anything else about you. All of that information is really not that important. I still do not carry any weight with that information and it still does not matter in regards to your comments on this board.
Why did I ask for it continuously until you you began to call it fluff?
You think about it.
Tommy
Well-known member
Rod...Why is it that every single one of these threads has to degenerate into name calling and personal attacks? I don't agree with everything that people say on here (Death to R-Calf! ), but after a healthy debate, if we still don't agree, I let it drop and simply agree to disagree. All personal attacks do is undermine your own position and force reasonable people to ignore you, and ignore the threads. I wonder how many people with valuable insites are unwilling to post them because they are afraid of someone attacking them?
Very well said Rod. Thanks!
Very well said Rod. Thanks!
Econ101 said:Tam said:I guess this is why Econ doesn't want anyone to know anything about him . Just look at all the times he has used the so called fluff he thinks he knows about someone to try discredit them. He is pathetic
Tam, when I came to this board, I knew nothing of you. I understood your positions from what you posted. Your identity to me has more to do with your postings than your cattle associations, your real name, your address, or anything else about you. All of that information is really not that important. I still do not carry any weight with that information and it still does not matter in regards to your comments on this board.
Why did I ask for it continuously until you you began to call it fluff?
You think about it.
Quote from ECON
So tell us again who started the term FLUFF Econ. :wink: You may not think it carries much weight but you sure seem to use personal information to discredit don't you.The posts you bring to this forum should stand on their own without any personal fluff. I am sorry you and BMR have decided the fluff is necessary or beneficial. It allows stagnation of thought, something I really don't approve of. I like to listen to a variety of people and not pigeonhole anyone. Everyone has a viewpoint to bring to the table. Your questions seem to frustrate that process. I said I would probably reveal it someday. Up to that day, your questions and Jason's guessing will have to suffice.
The "fluff" in both cases has to do with identity, does it not? How long did you spend trying to think about it and why couldn't you come up with the answer on your own?
Maybe it is just too hard for you to think, Tam.
Maybe it is just too hard for you to think, Tam.
Tommy said:Rod...Why is it that every single one of these threads has to degenerate into name calling and personal attacks? I don't agree with everything that people say on here (Death to R-Calf! ), but after a healthy debate, if we still don't agree, I let it drop and simply agree to disagree. All personal attacks do is undermine your own position and force reasonable people to ignore you, and ignore the threads. I wonder how many people with valuable insites are unwilling to post them because they are afraid of someone attacking them?
Very well said Rod. Thanks!
Rod and Tommy do your feelings on degenerated name calling only go for certain people or the board in General. where were you when Mike said I was nuttier than a fruitcake. or Econ called me the biggest fraud in Canada. Tommy I seem to remember you agreeing with Mike when he told SH he could keep his name calling to himself and here you are backing up Rod statement Again where were you when they were doing the name calling. Both of you are kind of selective to who you correct aren't you.
Gee another personal attack Rod what are you going to do about him.Econ101 said:The "fluff" in both cases has to do with identity, does it not? How long did you spend trying to think about it and why couldn't you come up with the answer on your own?
Maybe it is just too hard for you to think, Tam.
What took me time was going back to find your post that you started the term FLUFF. As if I had just said it was your term you would have denied it.
Tam said:Gee another personal attack Rod what are you going to do about him.Econ101 said:The "fluff" in both cases has to do with identity, does it not? How long did you spend trying to think about it and why couldn't you come up with the answer on your own?
Maybe it is just too hard for you to think, Tam.
What took me time was going back to find your post that you started the term FLUFF. As if I had just said it was your term you would have denied it.
You could have just asked, Tam. I would have admitted to that.
Do you agree to just argue the points? Do you want a codeword like "fluff"? Sometimes I find that works well.
Mike
Well-known member
Tam wrote:
I did not say you were NUTTIER THAN A FRUITCAKE. :lol: :lol:
where were you when Mike said I was nuttier than a fruitcake.
I did not say you were NUTTIER THAN A FRUITCAKE. :lol: :lol:
Mike said:Tam wrote:where were you when Mike said I was nuttier than a fruitcake.
I did not say you were NUTTIER THAN A FRUITCAKE. :lol: :lol:
Sorry Mike it was NUTTY AS A DAMN FRUITCAKEPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
SCRUPLES MIKE This comeing from a guy that supports what a Group of US Beef Producers are doing to Canadian producers in light of BSE. Talk about salt.
Supports who Tam? Tell me!! Show me where I've supported anyone who is intent on harming the Canadian Producer.
I have purposely stayed away from the R-Calf and NCBA rhetoric (except to be critical) and will continue to do so. I'm for COOL, does that hurt the Canadian producer?
My main beef is the USDA.
Show me! I seriously think you have a loose screw or two and need to be censored. If you were my wife I would do just that!
I supported Pickett because Lee Pickett is a close friend of mine and I believe that GIPSA has been inept. That has been proven now.
You're as nutty as a damn fruitcake!
And you owe Randy an apology for airing this crap on this forum!
Quote:
Note to R-CALFers Don't hold your fart in as they climb up your spine into your head and that is why you have so many crappy ideas.
This really shows your class Tam.
Tommy
Well-known member
Tam...Rod and Tommy do your feelings on degenerated name calling only go for certain people or the board in General. where were you when Mike said I was nuttier than a fruitcake. or Econ called me the biggest fraud in Canada. Tommy I seem to remember you agreeing with Mike when he told SH he could keep his name calling to himself and here you are backing up Rod statement Again where were you when they were doing the name calling. Both of you are kind of selective to who you correct aren't you.
Tam, my feelings on name calling go for whoever is doing it. I do not agree with it and I am sorry you took it that I was just talking about you.
I do not ever remember reading a post that Mike said you were "nuttier than a fruitcake".
I have no idea what you meant...Tommy I seem to remember you agreeing with Mike when he told SH he could keep his name calling to himself.
I am not trying to correct anyone, I just prefer that no one call anyone else a name.........period.
Tam, my feelings on name calling go for whoever is doing it. I do not agree with it and I am sorry you took it that I was just talking about you.
I do not ever remember reading a post that Mike said you were "nuttier than a fruitcake".
I have no idea what you meant...Tommy I seem to remember you agreeing with Mike when he told SH he could keep his name calling to himself.
I am not trying to correct anyone, I just prefer that no one call anyone else a name.........period.
You can used the word DIVERT when you post Econ because that is all you do, you don't discuss anything you, make claims Divert and Discredit with SICK ANALOGIES.Econ101 said:Tam said:Gee another personal attack Rod what are you going to do about him.Econ101 said:The "fluff" in both cases has to do with identity, does it not? How long did you spend trying to think about it and why couldn't you come up with the answer on your own?
Maybe it is just too hard for you to think, Tam.
What took me time was going back to find your post that you started the term FLUFF. As if I had just said it was your term you would have denied it.
You could have just asked, Tam. I would have admitted to that.
Do you agree to just argue the points? Do you want a codeword like "fluff"? Sometimes I find that works well.
Tam said:You can used the word DIVERT when you post Econ because that is all you do, you don't discuss anything you, make claims Divert and Discredit with SICK ANALOGIES.Econ101 said:Tam said:Gee another personal attack Rod what are you going to do about him.
What took me time was going back to find your post that you started the term FLUFF. As if I had just said it was your term you would have denied it.
You could have just asked, Tam. I would have admitted to that.
Do you agree to just argue the points? Do you want a codeword like "fluff"? Sometimes I find that works well.
No, Tam, you ask people to "prove" something on a forum where it can not be proven. That is one of the biggest diversions. You do it a lot. I have studied the discussions on the board and have tried to analyze what is going on and why the discussions go off topic. Invariably the points are missed. If you have a real question you want to ask of me that is appropriate to the discussions, I would be glad to answer. If it is one of the little tricks that sh tries, forget it. I would love to stay in substantive discussions and have asked for them time and time again. You just don't like it when people do the same debating tactics you employ. I would be glad to stop all of them.
Just asking didn't do a thing. Would you like to start over?
As far as the "sick analogies", if the shoe fits, wear it.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
In the immortal words of that great American, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
Econ101 said:Tam said:You can used the word DIVERT when you post Econ because that is all you do, you don't discuss anything you, make claims Divert and Discredit with SICK ANALOGIES.Econ101 said:You could have just asked, Tam. I would have admitted to that.
Do you agree to just argue the points? Do you want a codeword like "fluff"? Sometimes I find that works well.
No, Tam, you ask people to "prove" something on a forum where it can not be proven. That is one of the biggest diversions. You do it a lot. I have studied the discussions on the board and have tried to analyze what is going on and why the discussions go off topic. Invariably the points are missed. If you have a real question you want to ask of me that is appropriate to the discussions, I would be glad to answer. If it is one of the little tricks that sh tries, forget it. I would love to stay in substantive discussions and have asked for them time and time again. You just don't like it when people do the same debating tactics you employ. I would be glad to stop all of them.
A. Just asking didn't do a thing. Would you like to start over?
B. As far as the "sick analogies", if the shoe fits, wear it.
It is your choice, Tam.
Mike
Well-known member
Tam wrote:
Tam, I totally accept your apology. No harm done.
I don't understand your concern for name-calling. Some of your other buddies on here call people "Liars" and such all the time. Could it be because we don't always agree with them or you that it's OK for them to do it?
Sorry Mike it was NUTTY AS A DAMN FRUITCAKE
Tam, I totally accept your apology. No harm done.
I don't understand your concern for name-calling. Some of your other buddies on here call people "Liars" and such all the time. Could it be because we don't always agree with them or you that it's OK for them to do it?
Mike said:Tam wrote:Sorry Mike it was NUTTY AS A DAMN FRUITCAKE
Tam, I totally accept your apology. No harm done.
I don't understand your concern for name-calling. Some of your other buddies on here call people "Liars" and such all the time. Could it be because we don't always agree with them or you that it's OK for them to do it?
Exactlly Mike it happens but what made my He's Pathetic comment any different that any other comment. Rod Himself admitted he does it, maybe if he looked at why he does it he wouldn't be posting about it. Sometime it is response to what is being said. All of you that make comments about name calling have yet to get after Econ about his sick Analogy of BMR and Myself have you. Looks to me as if you pick and chosse who can get away with sick discrediting remarks and not have to answer to them.
RobertMac
Well-known member
Tam said:Looks to me as if you pick and chosse who can get away with sick discrediting remarks and not have to answer to them.
I don't think anyone gets away with anything here. A thick hide has to be standard issue...that's why we call it a bull session. As for name calling, what is posted here says more about the poster than at whom it is directed. Now, can we get off this name-calling nonsense argument and get back to our regular nonsense argument...if not Soap might post some more pictures! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jason said:RoperAB said:Jason said:[
Those 2 families are also in different industries and have competition from other parts of the country.
Reply
Jason they only compete with other companies for the most part when they expand outside of the maritimes.
Your trying to tell me no one has any potato interests except McCain?
There are no other oil companies working in the East except Irvings?
Lets see some facts.
They own everything down east. The media, manufacturing plants, shipyards, just about all the retail, all the trucking companies, gas stations, refiners, pulp mills, the list is endless!
Its not just about potatoes and oil. Its everything!
If they blacklist you, well you might as well leave that part of the country because you will never work again.
About 15 years ago in NB they voted union in one of KCs mills. Old KC closed down the mill. Two years later the workers gave in, voted to go back to work for less wages than before the strike, agreed to fire all the union leaders and make the trouble makers as Irving called them sign a contract that they would never stand foot on Irving property again anywhere.
Then old Irving kept the mill closed for another year just to rub there noses in it.
Even American companies cant compete with Irvings or MaCains in the maritimes because they will operate at a lose for years until the new company is broke!
Everybody knows this.
This is the way its been down there for thirty years.
There is no market niches. There are no opportunities for nothing down there except working for them.
Well there might be the odd job here and there but for the most part they own and control everything.
Those Irvings even changed there citizenship to the Caribean so they dont have to pay taxes in Canada.
About the only jobs down there are government jobs that you have to buy. I know all about it. I used to work for the Dept. Of Highways down there until the government changed to Liberal and they fired all of us the day after the election and hired all Liberals.
