Just for the sake of discussion

[HAY MAKER]

Give it a rest SH,no one is interested in a public debate with you,I even offered to pay for security once and you refused,since then you have worn us out with your twistin facts and dishonest jabbering,and decreased your worth in a debate to the point where there is no interest.............good luck

 

[Mike]

SH wrote:"BSE TESTED BUT NOT GUARANTEED BSE FREE"

Have you heard about the one where the NCBA, AMI, and the USMEF wanted to place a BSE FREE label on each package of meat going to Japan?

Get this.................WITHOUT any testing!!!!!

I thought you had.

 

[Econ101]

I think Sandhusker's organization benefited from your "bias towards the truth". He was nice enough to thank you for it.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "You're the only one stupid enough to believe that statemetnts in articles trump Japan's actions."

If you don't believe direct statements from the customer themselves, you're eyes and ears truly are closed. But, you've got the facts.... :roll: :lol: :lol:


SH, "My original statement that you called a lie was correct."

Nonsense. If so, why do you ignore my offer on double or nothing? You're just full of hot air.

SH, "THEY MADE THAT ADMISSION IN AN INTERVIEW, NOT ON THE DAMN PACKAGE OF BEEF. "

They made a public statement. They're not hiding a dang thing. Yet, you claim deception. The customer is the one making the request, the supplier makes public statements as to the process, and you claim deception. And you want people to hear you debate? :roll: :lol: :lol:


SH, "Sandbag's just smart enough to know exactly what would happen in a public debate. Facts and truth don't matter to blamers, all that matters is that they can blame something and share that with other blamers."

:roll: :shock: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "If you don't believe direct statements from the customer themselves, you're eyes and ears truly are closed. But, you've got the facts...."

Yes I've got the facts. The fact is Japan is importing untested beef from bse countries. That is a fact! Care to refute that fact? Didn't think so!

NEXT!

Sandbag: "Nonsense."

Prove it cheap talker! Prove to everyone here that Tyson's Lakeside plant made more than Tyson's Pasco and Boise plants lost while the Canadian border was closed.

PROVE IT!

You wouldn't accept the proof that I brought to back my position so you can go ahead and prove me wrong.

BRING IT!

See Dick run, run Dick run!

Sandbag: "If so, why do you ignore my offer on double or nothing? You're just full of hot air."

I'll do one better. I'll bet you $500 that you cannot prove that Tyson's Lakeside plant made more money than Tyson's Pasco and Boise plants lost while the Canadian border was closed to prove my statement wrong.

That's more than double.

Watch him run folks.....there he goes......the little chickensh*t ankle biter.....

Sandbag: "They made a public statement. They're not hiding a dang thing. Yet, you claim deception. The customer is the one making the request, the supplier makes public statements as to the process, and you claim deception. And you want people to hear you debate?"

THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE STATEMENT ON THE BEEF PACKAGE SO THE CONSUMER COULD SEE IT YOU MORON!

That tells the consumer nothing! Why would the Japanese consumer be reading Creekstone's comments in some interview?

I can understand why you wouldn't want anyone to SEE you make such ridiculous arguments in public.


~SH~

 

[Murgen]

Murgen, here is your chance!!! Go get the Japanese to buy untested meat for their kid's school lunches. What an opportunity!!!!

Canada is already selling the Japanese consumer untested beef, and they seem to be eating it too. They've been taking shipments weekly for about 6 months now!

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Yes I've got the facts. The fact is Japan is importing untested beef from bse countries. That is a fact! Care to refute that fact? Didn't think so!"

France has BSE. How much beef is Japan taking from France?

SH, "You wouldn't accept the proof that I brought to back my position so you can go ahead and prove me wrong. "

You didn't bring any proof! How can you prove somebody made more money that somebody else and not be able to provide a dollar figure for either of them? Money is measured in dollars, SH!

SH, "I'll do one better. I'll bet you $500 that you cannot prove that Tyson's Lakeside plant made more money than Tyson's Pasco and Boise plants lost while the Canadian border was closed to prove my statement wrong. That's more than double. Watch him run folks.....there he goes......the little chickensh*t ankle biter..... " '

You think I'm going to bet you that after I've stated several times that the information to prove any of the plants made/loss more than the others doesn't exist? :shock: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: SH, unlike you, I can remember what I've said in the past. That's the benefit of not spewing BS.


Sh, "THEY DIDN'T MAKE THE STATEMENT ON THE BEEF PACKAGE SO THE CONSUMER COULD SEE IT YOU MORON!

And that is deception? Boy, those boys in Missouri sure are sneaky! :lol: :lol: Did you forget you said that still didn't matter a few months ago? Is that disclaimer on all the packages of domestic tested beef in Japan? I can tell you've really thought this one thru..... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "France has BSE. How much beef is Japan taking from France?"

Do you know the reason Japan is not importing beef from France?
Do you know whether Japan EVER imported beef from France?

Whether or not Japan is importing beef from France is irrelevant to the fact that Japan is importing untested beef from Canada and has accepted untested beef from the US after both countries had BSE.

YOU CLAIM JAPAN WANTS TESTED BEEF WHILE THEY IMPORT UNTESTED BEEF. What more proof does anyone need of the depths that you will go to ignore the facts and insist on what you want to believe?

Not once have I heard the Japanese trade negotiators mention bse testing in their negotiations with the US. Their whole issue of contention is age verification. THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BSE TESTING HAS NO VALUE, WHY CAN'T YOU????

Sandbag: "You didn't bring any proof! How can you prove somebody made more money that somebody else and not be able to provide a dollar figure for either of them? Money is measured in dollars, SH!"

Why did you thank Agman for his honesty when he said I was wrong about calendar year 2004 but right about my orignal statement?

How could he be right about one aspect and wrong about the other when the data was the same? Hmmm????

The fact that you would take $100 from me, based on Agman's word regarding calendar year 2004, thank him for his honesty, then question his word on whether my original statement was correct BASED ON THAT SAME DATA proves beyond any reasonable doubt just what kind of a low life you really are.

Sandbag: "You think I'm going to bet you that after I've stated several times that the information to prove any of the plants made/loss more than the others doesn't exist?"

If the data is not there to prove me wrong, how can you claim that I lied?

Unlike you, I can remember what was said in the past.

 

[Econ101]

Unlike you, I can remember what was said in the past.

SH, you can't even remember what you said in the past.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Whether or not Japan is importing beef from France is irrelevant to the fact that Japan is importing untested beef from Canada and has accepted untested beef from the US after both countries had BSE."

You said, "The fact is Japan is importing untested beef from bse countries." I just offered a BSE positive country that has just as much revelence to the US/Japan trade issue as Canada does.

SH, "YOU CLAIM JAPAN WANTS TESTED BEEF WHILE THEY IMPORT UNTESTED BEEF."

No I don't. I claim (based upon many statements made by the Japansese themselves) that Japan wants tested beef FROM THE US. I've said that more than once, but you ignore that.


SH, "Not once have I heard the Japanese trade negotiators mention bse testing in their negotiations with the US. Their whole issue of contention is age verification. THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BSE TESTING HAS NO VALUE, WHY CAN'T YOU???? "

You're privy to the Japanese negotiators? Name one.


SH, "Why did you thank Agman for his honesty when he said I was wrong about calendar year 2004 but right about my orignal statement? "

He never said your original statement was right, SH. :roll: If it was right, he would of provided numbers for you to wag in my face.

If the data is not there to prove me wrong, how can you claim that I lied?

If the data does not exist, anybody stating anything as fact a claim that would rely on that data for proof is full of crap. All you have is an opinion. You, SH, are full of crap.





_________________

 

[Anonymous]

Sandsnake: "You said, "The fact is Japan is importing untested beef from bse countries." I just offered a BSE positive country that has just as much revelence to the US/Japan trade issue as Canada does."

I DIDN'T SAY "ALL" BSE COUNTRIES YOU MORON, I SAID THEY ARE IMPORTING UNTESTED BEEF FROM BSE COUNTRIES (COUNTRIES THAT HAVE HAD BSE)! That doesn't mean every country that had bse.

Classic slithering spin job!

Sandsnake: "No I don't. I claim (based upon many statements made by the Japansese themselves) that Japan wants tested beef FROM THE US. I've said that more than once, but you ignore that."

I don't ignore that, I simply put more emphasis in Japan's actions than your words, understandably!

Sandsnake: "He never said your original statement was right, SH."

That is a bold faced lie! Creating another "ILLUSION"!

The same data that proved me wrong on calendar year 2004 proved my original statement to be correct. Any stitch of integrity and honesty you have ever had has vanished.

Sandsnake: "If the data does not exist, anybody stating anything as fact a claim that would rely on that data for proof is full of crap. All you have is an opinion. You, SH, are full of crap."

Why didn't you ask for Agman's data to prove me wrong then you damn hypocrite???

Why would you take Agman at his word to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 and thank him for his honesty and not accept his word to prove me right on my original statement WHEN THE SAME DATA RESULTED IN EACH CONCLUSION you damn hypocrite???

Hmmmm???

I'll tell you why, because you are a pathetic low life that cherry picks what he wants to believe and creates "ILLUSIONS" to avoid the truth.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Why didn't you ask for Agman's data to prove me wrong then you damn hypocrite??? Why would you take Agman at his word to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 and thank him for his honesty and not accept his word to prove me right on my original statement WHEN THE SAME DATA RESULTED IN EACH CONCLUSION you damn hypocrite???
Hmmmm??? I'll tell you why, because you are a pathetic low life that cherry picks what he wants to believe and creates "ILLUSIONS" to avoid the truth. "

Dumbass, IF THE DATA DOESN'T EXIST, AGMAN WON'T HAVE IT EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of calling me names and frothing all over yourself, why not post your "proof" again? Surely you can find your figures. Tell us how much more money was made. Use either US dollars or Canadian, your choice. Prove your original statement, your second, or your seventy-third. I don't care. Prove something, anything.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandsnake: "IF THE DATA DOESN'T EXIST, AGMAN WON'T HAVE IT EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

If the data doesn't exist, how could I have been wrong about calendar year 2004?

How could you have won the bet if the data doesn't exist to prove me wrong?

How could you claim that I lied if the data isn't there to prove it?

Why did you thank Agman for his honesty if the data doesn't exist to back his claim?


You'll divert every one of those questions and make a statement just like you always do you slithering snake.


Your position is that there is no way my original statement could be proven right because the data doesn't exist and Agman couldn't have it either, yet you claim I lost the bet based on Agman's data. You can't have it both ways.

If I'm wrong about my original statement because the data doesn't exist, than I could not have lost the bet based on that same data. Yet you took the money based on Agman's data and the information I provided.

That says more about you as a person than anything I could write about you. In fact, that says it all.


In your last post you stated:

Sandsnake: "He (Agman) never said your original statement was right, SH"

That is a bold faced lie!

Care to challenge me? Another bet perhaps? I didn't think so!

I see you've finally made the transition from being deceptive to being an outright liar like Conman.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Fine, SH, settle this once and for all and prove your original statement then. If you did it before, you surely can do it again.

 

[Anonymous]

Like I said Sandsnake, you'll divert my questions with a statement and that's exactly what you did. True to your slithering ways.

If the data doesn't exist to prove my original statement right, it couldn't exist to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004. You want it both ways.

You always cherry pick what you want to believe like the pathetic "ILLUSIONIST" you are.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Like I said Sandsnake, you'll divert my questions with a statement and that's exactly what you did. True to your slithering ways.


~SH~

So you don't have the proof? I'm not surprised, you didn't have it before.

 

[Anonymous]

If I don't have the proof, how could I have been proven wrong on calendar year 2004?

Answer the question Sandsnake!

I provided the proof, you wouldn't accept it to prove my original statement correct but you'd accept it to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004 so you could win a bet you contributed nothing to.

A true parasite in every sense of the word.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Let me help you out, Scotty.

ME: You don't have the proof. If you did, you would bring it instead of "Agman.....calender year...original statement....etc..." All you do is flip and flop like a bass on ice with not a single number. JUST SHUT UP AND PRESENT THE NUMBERS, SH!

YOU: All right, it's obvious I don't have the numbers. I got carried away, OK? I stated my opinion as fact and you called me on it. I offered the bet because I didn't think you would take it. When you did, I was in a tight spot and had to come up with something. I didn't have any real numbers that would prove my point, and Agman couldn't come up with any, either, so I tried to BS you with slaughter numbers and what not. When you pointed out that everything I had offered as "proof" were only selected inputs and not actual profit figures, my next avenue was to try to divert the focus to you. That's why I spouted off about you not bringing any proof that I was wrong even though I proposed in the bet that I, myself, would provide the proof that I was right. Then, I thought I had a way out when I agreed to calender year 2004 so that's when I started the "my original statement was correct". When you offered double or nothing that I couldn't prove that was correct either, my second bluff was called and my noose got tighter. You got me, man.

ME: I thought that was the case. Heck, we all get carried away here sometimes. Why don't we put this behind us, act like the gentlemen and scholars that we are, and move on. I'll buy the first beer.

YOU: Sounds good. Since you've got $100 of mine, you can buy the second, too..... and I'm drinking Crown.

ME: Fair enough, lets belly up.

Now, isn't that better than digging deeper into denial, ranting like a spoiled first grader, and making an ash out of yourself?

 

[Anonymous]

It's really pretty simple Sandsnake, if the data did not exist to prove my original statement right, it could not exist to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004.

If you will not accept Agman's data to prove my original statement correct, then you cannot accept that same data to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004.

You pick and choose what you want to believe.

When Agman's data proved me wrong, you accepted it. When it proved me right, you wouldn't accept it.

Your hypocrisy on the issue screams but that's just the type of slimeball you are.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

It's really pretty simple Sandsnake, if the data did not exist to prove my original statement right, it could not exist to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004.

If you will not accept Agman's data to prove my original statement correct, then you cannot accept that same data to prove me wrong on calendar year 2004.

You pick and choose what you want to believe.

When Agman's data proved me wrong, you accepted it. When it proved me right, you wouldn't accept it.

Your hypocrisy on the issue screams but that's just the type of slimeball you are.


~SH~

SH, your contribution was put to good use. Maybe someday you can be.