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

ID Quote

A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "That would mean that you could contract BSE from eating infected cattle under 24 months of age. Are you comfortable with that statement?"

No I am not!

Some people believe you can get bse from eating meat from an infected animal. I do not. I said "could" because that is what some people believe. Personally, I believe bse testing of cattle under 24 months of age is not justified in any way.

Do you believe consumers could contract BSE from eating beef from infected cattle under 24 months of age? Yes or no?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "That would mean that you could contract BSE from eating infected cattle under 24 months of age. Are you comfortable with that statement?"

SH, "No I am not! Some people believe you can get bse from eating meat from an infected animal. I do not. I said "could" because that is what some people believe. Personally, I believe bse testing of cattle under 24 months of age is not justified in any way."

SH, "Do you believe consumers could contract BSE from eating beef from infected cattle under 24 months of age? Yes or no?"

So if you believe people can not get BSE from eating an infected animal under 24 months, what is the risk? :lol: You've just contradicted your previous statement that, "BSE TESTED BEEF could be less safe than other beef "in the cattle Creekstone planned to use. :lol: :lol: :lol:

See what happens when you try do defend a BS policy with more BS?

To answer your question, I don't know if you can contract it.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "That would mean that you could contract BSE from eating infected cattle under 24 months of age. Are you comfortable with that statement?"

SH, "No I am not! Some people believe you can get bse from eating meat from an infected animal. I do not. I said "could" because that is what some people believe. Personally, I believe bse testing of cattle under 24 months of age is not justified in any way."

SH, "Do you believe consumers could contract BSE from eating beef from infected cattle under 24 months of age? Yes or no?"

So if you believe people can not get BSE from eating an infected animal under 24 months, what is the risk? :lol: You've just contradicted your previous statement that, "BSE TESTED BEEF could be less safe than other beef "in the cattle Creekstone planned to use. :lol: :lol: :lol:

See what happens when you try do defend a BS policy with more BS?

To answer your question, I don't know if you can contract it.


Whatever ~SH~'s belief, he believes it should be forced on the entire world. How Muslim-like of him. Convert at the point of a sword.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "So if you believe people can not get BSE from eating an infected animal under 24 months, what is the risk?"

I have seen no proof that people can get bse from eating an infected animal under 24 months of age. With that said, there is also no justification to test animals under 24 months of age AT THIS TIME.

In the process of your feeble attempt to pin me down, you're defeating your argument for testing. Haha! What a dufus!


Sandbag: "You've just contradicted your previous statement that, "BSE TESTED BEEF could be less safe than other beef "in the cattle Creekstone planned to use."

I contradicted nothing.

In the context of this discussion, "BSE TESTED BEEF" means bse tested beef that is less than 24 months of age that has been tested with a test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age. That is hardly comparable to a valid test if a valid test exists. I will honor the possibility that a valid test may someday exist and honor the possibility that bse prions may someday be proven to be unsafe in infected animals under 24 months of age.

You won't take my statements out of context Sandbag. Yes, consumers believe that "non tested beef" could be less safe than "tested beef" WITH A TEST THAT THEY BELIEVE IS VALID.

Keep trying, you still got nothing.


Sandbag: "See what happens when you try do defend a BS policy with more BS?"

Talk is cheap Sandbag! You've contradicted nothing I have stated with opposing facts. You never do!

Talk about defending a BS policy. Would that include your blind defense of unenforceable "M"COOL that exempted 75% of the imported beef? Hahaha! Talk about a blind defense.

How ironic that you try to take the focus off your lemmingly ways by accusing others of what it is that you do best.


Sandbag: "To answer your question, I don't know if you can contract it."

If you don't know if you can contract it, then why would you promote bse testing if you don't even know it is necessary? Great job defeating your own arguments. Here, have some more rope!

I'll tell you why you promote bse testing, because you are an R-CULT lemming that simply repeats what the other R-CULT followers are chanting. If it takes a position oppositie of USDA, that will be your position. Common sense does not enter into the picture because you have none.


OCM: "Whatever ~SH~'s belief, he believes it should be forced on the entire world. How Muslim-like of him. Convert at the point of a sword."

Oh look at the little liberal cheerleader, how sweet. Rah, Rah, go Sandbag! It doesn't have to make sense as long as you tell me what I want to believe says the liberal OCM. What a blind follower.

Consider the stupidity of your statement in the context of this argument. Sandbag is the "bse fraudulent testing advocate" and he believes testing should be forced on the industry and you claim I'm "muslim like" for opposing it. Hahaha! We know who wears the liberal turbins here OCM!

Stick to cheerleading because you obviously can't defend your views with intelligent arguments.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "So if you believe people can not get BSE from eating an infected animal under 24 months, what is the risk?"

I have seen no proof that people can get bse from eating an infected animal under 24 months of age. With that said, there is also no justification to test animals under 24 months of age AT THIS TIME.

In the process of your feeble attempt to pin me down, you're defeating your argument for testing. Haha! What a dufus!


Sandbag: "You've just contradicted your previous statement that, "BSE TESTED BEEF could be less safe than other beef "in the cattle Creekstone planned to use."

I contradicted nothing.

In the context of this discussion, "BSE TESTED BEEF" means bse tested beef that is less than 24 months of age that has been tested with a test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age. That is hardly comparable to a valid test if a valid test exists. I will honor the possibility that a valid test may someday exist and honor the possibility that bse prions may someday be proven to be unsafe in infected animals under 24 months of age.

You won't take my statements out of context Sandbag. Yes, consumers believe that "non tested beef" could be less safe than "tested beef" WITH A TEST THAT THEY BELIEVE IS VALID.

Keep trying, you still got nothing.


Sandbag: "See what happens when you try do defend a BS policy with more BS?"

Talk is cheap Sandbag! You've contradicted nothing I have stated with opposing facts. You never do!

Talk about defending a BS policy. Would that include your blind defense of unenforceable "M"COOL that exempted 75% of the imported beef? Hahaha! Talk about a blind defense.

How ironic that you try to take the focus off your lemmingly ways by accusing others of what it is that you do best.


Sandbag: "To answer your question, I don't know if you can contract it."

If you don't know if you can contract it, then why would you promote bse testing if you don't even know it is necessary? Great job defeating your own arguments. Here, have some more rope!

I'll tell you why you promote bse testing, because you are an R-CULT lemming that simply repeats what the other R-CULT followers are chanting. If it takes a position oppositie of USDA, that will be your position. Common sense does not enter into the picture because you have none.


OCM: "Whatever ~SH~'s belief, he believes it should be forced on the entire world. How Muslim-like of him. Convert at the point of a sword."

Oh look at the little liberal cheerleader, how sweet. Rah, Rah, go Sandbag! It doesn't have to make sense as long as you tell me what I want to believe says the liberal OCM. What a blind follower.

Consider the stupidity of your statement in the context of this argument. Sandbag is the "bse fraudulent testing advocate" and he believes testing should be forced on the industry and you claim I'm "muslim like" for opposing it. Hahaha! We know who wears the liberal turbins here OCM!

Stick to cheerleading because you obviously can't defend your views with intelligent arguments.


~SH~

If everything had to be run by a coyote caller in SD to be declared "truth" we are all in a lot of trouble.

Stick to varmit hunting, your quest for being the purveyor of truth has not succeeded, sh.

jdst has this one right.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "Sandbag is the "bse fraudulent testing advocate" and he believes testing should be forced on the industry"

I beleive testing should be an option to those who want it - not forced on anybody. You know that, SH. What do you say about "intent to mislead"?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "If everything had to be run by a coyote caller in SD to be declared "truth" we are all in a lot of trouble.

Stick to varmit hunting, your quest for being the purveyor of truth has not succeeded, sh."

Name one thing I have stated that you have proven me wrong on with opposing facts. Just one.

Watch the diversionary circus chicken dance...............


Conman: "jdst has this one right."

If jdst has this one right, then Sandbag is wrong. Sandbag said hormone free beef is not more safe than regular beef. jdst contradicted that. I suppose you agree with both of them huh? LOL!

Go check your phone line it may be tapped again.


Answer this Sandbag, if Tyson sold "antibiotic free beef" and "hormone free beef" based on a test that would not reveal antibiotics or hormones, should they be allowed to do so? YES OR NO?

Did you think/hope that question would disappear?


Sandbag: "I beleive testing should be an option to those who want it - not forced on anybody. You know that, SH. What do you say about "intent to mislead"?"

Are you saying you oppose those who advocate mandatory bse testing of all beef? Yes or no?

You believe testing should be an option to those who want it even if that test is testing cattle under 24 months of age with a test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age. Let's tell it like it really is Sandbag!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "Are you saying you oppose those who advocate mandatory bse testing of all beef? Yes or no?"

I'm saying that I don't agree with them.

SH, "You believe testing should be an option to those who want it even if that test is testing cattle under 24 months of age with a test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age. Let's tell it like it really is Sandbag!"

That's how it works in a free market society not governed by liberals like you. If somebody wants something, will pay for it, and it does't hurt anybody else, I think somebody else should be allowed to supply it.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "If everything had to be run by a coyote caller in SD to be declared "truth" we are all in a lot of trouble.

Stick to varmit hunting, your quest for being the purveyor of truth has not succeeded, sh."

Name one thing I have stated that you have proven me wrong on with opposing facts. Just one.

Watch the diversionary circus chicken dance...............


Conman: "jdst has this one right."

If jdst has this one right, then Sandbag is wrong. Sandbag said hormone free beef is not more safe than regular beef. jdst contradicted that. I suppose you agree with both of them huh? LOL!

Go check your phone line it may be tapped again.


Answer this Sandbag, if Tyson sold "antibiotic free beef" and "hormone free beef" based on a test that would not reveal antibiotics or hormones, should they be allowed to do so? YES OR NO?

Did you think/hope that question would disappear?


Sandbag: "I beleive testing should be an option to those who want it - not forced on anybody. You know that, SH. What do you say about "intent to mislead"?"

Are you saying you oppose those who advocate mandatory bse testing of all beef? Yes or no?

You believe testing should be an option to those who want it even if that test is testing cattle under 24 months of age with a test that will not reveal bse prions in cattle under 24 months of age. Let's tell it like it really is Sandbag!


~SH~

Okay, name caller baby, I will answer your question. I don't think Tyson foods has the integrity of testing itself and is scared of any independent test on anything they do. Make it truely independent and I doubt Tyson would even take the dare.

I believe the USDA is not an "expert on the science" and has shown everyone the depth of their understanding and willingness to go with the truth. It is time to let the market work. If someone like bse tester can come up with a test to test for bse in any age cattle, they should be given the chance instead of given the run around.

I think you can't handle it when the truth shows how ignorant you are with subsequent events and you are too dumb to let this 24 month thing go just like you were too dumb to let the Japan doesn't want their beef tested go.

In short, SH, you are about as dumb as they come.

By the way, are you decieving those coyotes when you do you rabbit call? Does the state pay you for this deception?
 

Latest posts

Top