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

Jury Duty!!!

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Does the preponderance of evidence prove SH is a liar with respect to Sandhusker's bet?

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Let us put an end to this craziness SH is forcing on all of us. Please vote.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
When he applys the standard of whether someone is a liar to someone else ~SH~ sets the threshold of proof very, very low. When applying it to himself, he sets it very, very high.

That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

I will apply the standard he sets for others to him.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I would like to ask any of the folks who voted for SH to use the information he posted and fill in the blanks: He couldn't seem to do it.

During the time of the border closure;
Tyson Lakeside made $_____________
Tyson Pacoe and Boise lost $____________

Maybe lie is too strong a word, I can see that. That gets tossed around here too liberaly. Maybe full of wind would be a better choice?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Sandhusker said:
I would like to ask any of the folks who voted for SH to use the information he posted and fill in the blanks: He couldn't seem to do it.

During the time of the border closure;
Tyson Lakeside made $_____________
Tyson Pacoe and Boise lost $____________

Maybe lie is too strong a word, I can see that. That gets tossed around here too liberaly. Maybe full of wind would be a better choice?


Gees it's back to During the time the border was closed and Agman supported SH's evidence to the whole time frame just not the calendar year 2004. SH proved he was a man of his word by paying on the 2004 limit BUT if the bet was as it is posted here, be a man and send back his money :wink:
Besides even if SH brought the dollar amounts we all know you would just say the books were cooked to show what Tyson wanted to show. You accept the information and bet money that fits into your little agenda and to he** will the truth. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
I would like to ask any of the folks who voted for SH to use the information he posted and fill in the blanks: He couldn't seem to do it.

During the time of the border closure;
Tyson Lakeside made $_____________
Tyson Pacoe and Boise lost $____________

Maybe lie is too strong a word, I can see that. That gets tossed around here too liberaly. Maybe full of wind would be a better choice?


Gees it's back to During the time the border was closed and Agman supported SH's evidence to the whole time frame just not the calendar year 2004. SH proved he was a man of his word by paying on the 2004 limit BUT if the bet was as it is posted here, be a man and send back his money :wink:
Besides even if SH brought the dollar amounts we all know you would just say the books were cooked to show what Tyson wanted to show. You accept the information and bet money that fits into your little agenda and to he** will the truth. :roll:

Did Agman support SH or did SH say that Agman supported him? Did you see any numbers? I didn't. I didn't see any numbers for 2004, the whole time frame, or ANY time frame. Did you?

SH is the one who proposed the bet, not me. Also, what truth has SH posted? Once again, if "truth" has been presented, why can't he (or you) fill in the blanks?

Your anti-R-CALF bias is severely clouding your judgement, Tam. If you want to argue with me, fine, just pick something where you have a leg to stand on.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
Does the preponderance of evidence prove SH is a liar with respect to Sandhusker's bet?

I haven't seen any evidence that would prove one side or the other: lied, was totally truthful, or was basing their decisions on a hunch!

So, unless you have, you would only vote yes to this question, if you are making a judgement on another's character without seeing any evidence to the contrary!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Murgen said:
Does the preponderance of evidence prove SH is a liar with respect to Sandhusker's bet?

I haven't seen any evidence that would prove one side or the other: lied, was totally truthful, or was basing their decisions on a hunch!

So, unless you have, you would only vote yes to this question, if you are making a judgement on another's character without seeing any evidence to the contrary!

I think you can rule "totally truthful" out very easily! :wink:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Sandhusker said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
I would like to ask any of the folks who voted for SH to use the information he posted and fill in the blanks: He couldn't seem to do it.

During the time of the border closure;
Tyson Lakeside made $_____________
Tyson Pacoe and Boise lost $____________

Maybe lie is too strong a word, I can see that. That gets tossed around here too liberaly. Maybe full of wind would be a better choice?


Gees it's back to During the time the border was closed and Agman supported SH's evidence to the whole time frame just not the calendar year 2004. SH proved he was a man of his word by paying on the 2004 limit BUT if the bet was as it is posted here, be a man and send back his money :wink:
Besides even if SH brought the dollar amounts we all know you would just say the books were cooked to show what Tyson wanted to show. You accept the information and bet money that fits into your little agenda and to he** will the truth. :roll:

Did Agman support SH or did SH say that Agman supported him? Did you see any numbers? I didn't. I didn't see any numbers for 2004, the whole time frame, or ANY time frame. Did you?

SH is the one who proposed the bet, not me. Also, what truth has SH posted? Once again, if "truth" has been presented, why can't he (or you) fill in the blanks?

Your anti-R-CALF bias is severely clouding your judgement, Tam. If you want to argue with me, fine, just pick something where you have a leg to stand on.
:roll: :roll: :roll: Sandhusker you have been asked numerous times to provide proof to back up some of your statements but either divert or claim it is in the archives. Hypocricy at its finest?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Katrina,

This is not about the bet. This is about Sandman calling me a liar with no proof to back that allegation. People like Sandman that are naturally deceptive do not take it as personally when someone calls them a liar because they are probably used to it. Someone like myself that cares deeply about the truth and bases his decisions on facts rather than a compelling need to blame takes it very personally. I admitted to being wrong about calendar year 2004. I have no problems with that. If you remember, nobody proved me wrong, I proved myself wrong. I willingly admitted it and paid up. Sandman, AS ALWAYS, contributed absolutely nothing to proving his position one way or another other than challenging me to prove my position by calling me a liar. Par for his typical deceptive slithering ways.

The bet is not the issue. The issue is about my original statement for the entire period of time when the border was closed that Sandman called a lie and wants me to prove that it isn't a lie. The issue is also about Sandman's hypocrisy for accepting Agman's word when it supported his bias then demanding proof when it didn't. Sandhusker is a complete phony.

Sandman says that if someone from Cody, NE calls someone a liar, they better be able to back it. Sandman didn't back it and he won't back it because he has nothing to support his position either way. That's why he focuses on me proving that I didn't lie.


Sandman: "Did Agman support SH or did SH say that Agman supported him? Did you see any numbers? I didn't. I didn't see any numbers for 2004, the whole time frame, or ANY time frame. Did you?"

Well if you now need numbers for calendar year 2004 as proof, WHY DID YOU ACCEPT THE MONEY FOR THE BET??? You took Agman and I at our word on that and thanked Agman for his honesty but now you demand proof for the entire time period when the border was closed. Why the double standard?

TALK ABOUT BEING A HYPOCRITE!

Agman said his data supported my position that Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants lost more money than Lakeside made while the border was closed. Why didn't you ask for proof of calendar year 2004? Instead, you thanked him for his honesty. I'll tell you why you didn't ask for proof, because you don't need proof when it supports your bias and means you would win the bet. Yet you contradcit your standards by demanding nothing short of a financial statement from these plants for the period of time when the border was closed.

WHY DIDN'T YOU ASK FOR AGMAN'S PROOF FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004???? YOU THANKED HIM FOR HIS HONESTY AND GLOATED IN A VICTORY YOU CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO. WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE BORDER WAS CLOSED?????

Sandman keeps diverting that issue.

At least you have your little packer blaming brethren like Kindergarten, OCM, Hayseed, and Randy Kaiser as your little support group. They can relate because they don't have any intergrity either.


This is very simple, if I lied, WHERE IS THE PROOF SANDMAN????

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that I didn't lie, the burden of proof is on you to prove that I did but you don't back anything.

Sandman won't back his allegation that I lied because he can't yet he takes Agman at his word when it supports his bias. Sandman is a complete phony in every sense of the word.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
Katrina,

People like Sandman that are naturally deceptive do not take it as personally when someone calls them a liar because they are probably used to it. Someone like myself that cares deeply about the truth and bases his decisions on facts rather than a compelling need to blame takes it very personally.



~SH~

OH BOY :roll: :roll: - BS is getting deep........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Would any of you packer blaming lemmings that voted yes LIKE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES I LIED??????

Oh, I forgot, PROOF is not in your thought process, A PACKER BLAMING BIAS IS.

This is just like Kindergarten to support Sandman in demanding proof that someone didn't lie rather than proving that they did lie.

I am more convinced now than ever that Pasco and Boise lost more money than Lakeside made while the border was closed and none of you packer blaming lemmings will be able to prove otherwise. Guarantee it.

This stupid vote simply shows what percentage of the readers are biased towards packer blaming and what percentage are biased towards real facts. That's all it says.


~SH~
 

katrina

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
2
Location
East north east of Soapweed
SH, Bless your heart. It's okay to believe in what you believe in. But you said that you and agman couldn't fine whatever you were looking for. (This is going on for sooooo long.) So you yourself said. Anyway you lost the bet, you paid up now lets all give it a rest. It is an honorable thing to stand up for what you believe in, right or wrong... The point I was making was that in losing the bet, ANY BET, you have to eat humble pie.... So suck it up.......no whining. We all know how passionate you are, lets have a group hug and work together towards something positive... We still love ya....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
katrina said:
SH, Bless your heart. It's okay to believe in what you believe in. But you said that you and agman couldn't fine whatever you were looking for. (This is going on for sooooo long.) So you yourself said. Anyway you lost the bet, you paid up now lets all give it a rest. It is an honorable thing to stand up for what you believe in, right or wrong... The point I was making was that in losing the bet, ANY BET, you have to eat humble pie.... So suck it up.......no whining. We all know how passionate you are, lets have a group hug and work together towards something positive... We still love ya....

But Katrina What was the bet? Sandhusker says it was the calender year 2004 and the next time it is the duration of the border closure. The answer to one bet is not the answer to the other. When the bet was confined to 2004 Agman confirmed SH was wrong and Sandhusker thanked him for his honesty and SH admitted to the lose of the bet as of 2004 and paid. BUT now the bet is not what SH admitted he was wrong on. During the time of the border closure was the original statement and Agman confirmed SH was right to the original, but when this is pointed out to Sandhusker, he asks for proof. What happen to the honesty that Sandhusker thanked Agman for. His honesty didn't come into question when it backed Sandhuskers side? And Katrina did SH lie if the information SH was able to get proves he was right to the original statement? Through all of this did Sandhusker prove SH was a liar? To prove his original Statement that SH is a liar, wouldn't Sandhusker have to bring numbers or statements to prove him wrong? DID he bring anything, other than his OPINION that SH lied, to the board. NO. I'm sorry but if Sandhusker claims SH was lieing I want to see his proof. Numbers, statements from credible sourses something. Lets put Sandhusker on the same level as he puts other PROVE WHAT HE SAYS.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Tam said:
katrina said:
SH, Bless your heart. It's okay to believe in what you believe in. But you said that you and agman couldn't fine whatever you were looking for. (This is going on for sooooo long.) So you yourself said. Anyway you lost the bet, you paid up now lets all give it a rest. It is an honorable thing to stand up for what you believe in, right or wrong... The point I was making was that in losing the bet, ANY BET, you have to eat humble pie.... So suck it up.......no whining. We all know how passionate you are, lets have a group hug and work together towards something positive... We still love ya....

But Katrina What was the bet? Sandhusker says it was the calender year 2004 and the next time it is the duration of the border closure. The answer to one bet is not the answer to the other. When the bet was confined to 2004 Agman confirmed SH was wrong and Sandhusker thanked him for his honesty and SH admitted to the lose of the bet as of 2004 and paid. BUT now the bet is not what SH admitted he was wrong on. During the time of the border closure was the original statement and Agman confirmed SH was right to the original, but when this is pointed out to Sandhusker, he asks for proof. What happen to the honesty that Sandhusker thanked Agman for. His honesty didn't come into question when it backed Sandhuskers side? And Katrina did SH lie if the information SH was able to get proves he was right to the original statement? Through all of this did Sandhusker prove SH was a liar? To prove his original Statement that SH is a liar, wouldn't Sandhusker have to bring numbers or statements to prove him wrong? DID he bring anything, other than his OPINION that SH lied, to the board. NO. I'm sorry but if Sandhusker claims SH was lieing I want to see his proof. Numbers, statements from credible sourses something. Lets put Sandhusker on the same level as he puts other PROVE WHAT HE SAYS.

Tam, the bet doesn't even matter. SH is so full of name calling it is pathetic. He can not prove any of it either. This is argument is similar to the Mike C. perjury charge SH brought up. Just diverticuli.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kindergarten: "Tam, the bet doesn't even matter. SH is so full of name calling it is pathetic. He can not prove any of it either. This is argument is similar to the Mike C. perjury charge SH brought up. Just diverticuli."

The name calling gives you a perfect excuse to divert backing your positions so I hand it to you knowing how desperately you need it.

What matters is Sandparasite backing his allegation that I lied and the double standard of demanding proof for the entire time period while taking Agman at his word on calendar year 2004.

I never brought up a perjury "CHARGE" you damn liar. I said Mike Perjured himself I never said he was "CHARGED WITH" perjury. Lying under oath is perjury by definition. Mike Callicrate lied under oath and Judge Strom acknowledged it in his instructions to the jurors. You packer blamers are so deceptive. You just make it up as you go.

I proved my case. Sandparasite is simply unwilling to accept it UNLESS IT SUPPORTS HIS BIAS.



~SH~
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
I never brought up a perjury "CHARGE" you damn liar. I said Mike Perjured himself I never said he was "CHARGED WITH" perjury. Lying under oath is perjury by definition. Mike Callicrate lied under oath and Judge Strom acknowledged it in his instructions to the jurors. You packer blamers are so deceptive. You just make it up as you go.

I am confused here, you never brought up a perjury charge, but you said Mike perjuered himself. I say you charged up with perjury, I never read where Icon101 said you said he was legally charged with perjury. :? :???:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "Tam, the bet doesn't even matter. SH is so full of name calling it is pathetic. He can not prove any of it either. This is argument is similar to the Mike C. perjury charge SH brought up. Just diverticuli."

The name calling gives you a perfect excuse to divert backing your positions so I hand it to you knowing how desperately you need it.

What matters is Sandparasite backing his allegation that I lied and the double standard of demanding proof for the entire time period while taking Agman at his word on calendar year 2004.

I never brought up a perjury "CHARGE" you damn liar. I said Mike Perjured himself I never said he was "CHARGED WITH" perjury. Lying under oath is perjury by definition. Mike Callicrate lied under oath and Judge Strom acknowledged it in his instructions to the jurors. You packer blamers are so deceptive. You just make it up as you go.

I proved my case. Sandparasite is simply unwilling to accept it UNLESS IT SUPPORTS HIS BIAS.



~SH~

Are you saying Mike C. perjured himself but did not commit perjury? Now you called me a ----- liar (probably not the first time).

Prove it or stop all of this stupid (yes, judgement) little game of "proof" you engage in. Ask someone why they might say what they say but stop this stupid (again) little proof game. We are not in court. Pickett proved his case to the jury and the appellate courts did not provide one scintilla of evidence to the contrary. We do not need to do that here.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike Callicrate lied under oath. Lying under oath is perjury by definition. Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard a portion or all of his testimony because he found it to be untrue. Why he was not brought up on perjury charges is a good question.


Kindergarten: "Pickett proved his case to the jury and the appellate courts did not provide one scintilla of evidence to the contrary. We do not need to do that here."

The Pickett plaintiffs snowballed the jury by defining dropping your price as your needs are met as "market manipulation" but Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw right through it.

It was never Tyson's responsibility to prove their innocense it was the packer blamers responsibility to prove Tyson's guilt. No matter how many times you present this "PRESUMPTION OF GUILT" bullsh*t it will not hold water. How many times do we need to go over this? The plaintiffs never had a case and that's why the jurors verdict was thrown out. There's nothing more to say. NO PROOF - NO CONVICTION!



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top