More questions about BIG

[Jason]

Back to your bad attitude I see Randy.

I never even heard of BIG until it was brought up here.

I ask questions to find out whats going on, your answers were far different than Cam's in the article I read.

I know of many "plant proposals" that were shady to say the least, without asking questions how would I know if BIG was in that group or not?

I understand now that BIG has never been really a plant proposal group, merely a discussion group. Fine, but if the others in BIG have the attitude you have I don't care to attend a meeting and waste my time.

 

[rkaiser]

good

 

[Tam]

Perhaps he would ...If you did not slander him when you asked the questions

If Randy want's to change any bodies mind about BIG C he needs to respectfully answer the questions. I have asked him questions many times but I still don't know what the answers are as he comes with a chip on his shoulder as if I personally told every producer in Canada to vote against the BIG C plan. I don't have that knid of power Frenchie no body does. But I would just like to hear one respectfully thought out answer come from him that he can back up with something. I'm open to the idea of slaughter capacity expansion in Canada but I just can't, like the majority of producers, support a check off levy on all cattle sold in Canada to pay for the BIG C PLANT If they have another idea let's see it but He can leave the attitude out of it, as it is not showing us anything good about BIG C leadership.

If you have a problem with him so be it.However thats still does not give you or anybody else the right to slander him or the leadership Of BIG C.

[/b]

(where all folks except those who listen like Tam thought they were paying for a voice in a snowstorm),

You have to be the most pathetic waste of space that lives on a cattle ranch in this country.

Too chicken to come out to a BIG C meeting, far too chicken to ask questions at a BIG C meeting, and amazingly knowlegdeable about everything BIG C has done, based on his own negative nitpicking, word choosing translation.

Tam even goes so far as to say that BIG C was trying to squash other plants with her translation?????

Because Jason is too busy picking apart the BIG C plant proposal which we admit now was a pipe dream. A pipe dream partly because fellows like Jason would never spend the time to research the whole story. A pipedream because Jason would rather bend over than open his mouth in public or offer his so called wisdom.
There you go Tam, the attitude again. But attitude like yours and Jason's is a far better way to move on. I did go back and pull out the words that may hurt a dear girl like Tam or a little fag like Jason.

Who is slandering who with these little comments, don't turn a blind eye to what he is doing in his posts. I have asked questions and corrected the information he as a self proclaimed leader of the industry was putting out if that is slandering him then so be it but I HAVE NEVER CALLED HIM A BROWN NOSER OR ANY OTHER NAME THAT DESERVES THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR. Look at what one cattle industry group that cares little for the truth has done to us do we need an Canadian version?

 

[Northern Rancher]

Randy, Randy Randy if you are going to be involved with a group as worthy as BIG C don't you think you should distance yourself from the name calling-people tend to put their money behind the man who is cool as a cucumber not hot as a firecracker-some of you trash talk worse than midget hockey players-by the way if I catch one of my players running his mouth he gets benched till he can act like an adult-just something to ponder.

 

[Mike]

I don't blame Randy one bit for being bent out of shape.

It's no different than if someone posted questionable material about a fellow in the newspaper, when they could have called him on the phone and asked him directly.


But then again, consider the sources of questions.
:???: :?

 

[frenchie]

If Randy want's to change any bodies mind about BIG C he needs to respectfully answer the questions. I have asked him questions many times but I still don't know what the answers are as he comes with a chip on his shoulder as if I personally told every producer in Canada to vote against the BIG C plan. I don't have that knid of power Frenchie no body does. But I would just like to hear one respectfully thought out answer come from him that he can back up with something. I'm open to the idea of slaughter capacity expansion in Canada but I just can't, like the majority of producers, support a check off levy on all cattle sold in Canada to pay for the BIG C PLANT If they have another idea let's see it but He can leave the attitude out of it, as it is not showing us anything good about BIG C leadership.

If you have a problem with him so be it.However thats still does not give you or anybody else the right to slander him or the leadership Of BIG C.

[/b]

(where all folks except those who listen like Tam thought they were paying for a voice in a snowstorm),

You have to be the most pathetic waste of space that lives on a cattle ranch in this country.

Too chicken to come out to a BIG C meeting, far too chicken to ask questions at a BIG C meeting, and amazingly knowlegdeable about everything BIG C has done, based on his own negative nitpicking, word choosing translation.

Tam even goes so far as to say that BIG C was trying to squash other plants with her translation?????

Because Jason is too busy picking apart the BIG C plant proposal which we admit now was a pipe dream. A pipe dream partly because fellows like Jason would never spend the time to research the whole story. A pipedream because Jason would rather bend over than open his mouth in public or offer his so called wisdom.
There you go Tam, the attitude again. But attitude like yours and Jason's is a far better way to move on. I did go back and pull out the words that may hurt a dear girl like Tam or a little fag like Jason.

Who is slandering who with these little comments, don't turn a blind eye to what he is doing in his posts. I have asked questions and corrected the information he as a self proclaimed leader of the industry was putting out if that is slandering him then so be it but I HAVE NEVER CALLED HIM A BROWN NOSER OR ANY OTHER NAME THAT DESERVES THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR. Look at what one cattle industry group that cares little for the truth has done to us do we need an Canadian version?

Tam ..How would you like it , if someone asks you a question, that all but called you a theif on this board think about it.Would you feel like answering the question and yet you want him to answer it.And you wonder why he got mad. :roll:


[quote"Jason"]Question #3 Randy had told us they took $100 from producers that became members and that it wasn't enough money to do much with...not a big deal. The article says more than 600 members signed up. That's $60,000. gathered at 20 meetings. Not bad wages for 1 guy. Who has that money??[/quote [/b]

 

[Tam]

If you have a problem with him so be it.However thats still does not give you or anybody else the right to slander him or the leadership Of BIG C.

[/b]

(where all folks except those who listen like Tam thought they were paying for a voice in a snowstorm),

You have to be the most pathetic waste of space that lives on a cattle ranch in this country.

Too chicken to come out to a BIG C meeting, far too chicken to ask questions at a BIG C meeting, and amazingly knowlegdeable about everything BIG C has done, based on his own negative nitpicking, word choosing translation.

Tam even goes so far as to say that BIG C was trying to squash other plants with her translation?????

Because Jason is too busy picking apart the BIG C plant proposal which we admit now was a pipe dream. A pipe dream partly because fellows like Jason would never spend the time to research the whole story. A pipedream because Jason would rather bend over than open his mouth in public or offer his so called wisdom.
There you go Tam, the attitude again. But attitude like yours and Jason's is a far better way to move on. I did go back and pull out the words that may hurt a dear girl like Tam or a little fag like Jason.

Who is slandering who with these little comments, don't turn a blind eye to what he is doing in his posts. I have asked questions and corrected the information he as a self proclaimed leader of the industry was putting out if that is slandering him then so be it but I HAVE NEVER CALLED HIM A BROWN NOSER OR ANY OTHER NAME THAT DESERVES THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR. Look at what one cattle industry group that cares little for the truth has done to us do we need an Canadian version?

Tam ..How would you like it , if someone asks you a question, that all but called you a theif on this board think about it.Would you feel like answering the question and yet you want him to answer it.And you wonder why he got mad. :roll:


[quote"Jason"]Question #3 Randy had told us they took $100 from producers that became members and that it wasn't enough money to do much with...not a big deal. The article says more than 600 members signed up. That's $60,000. gathered at 20 meetings. Not bad wages for 1 guy. Who has that money??[/quote [/b]

Why are you tieing me to Jasons questions if you are going to defend Randy's namecalling of me and your comment about me slandering him at least use something I posted. :wink:

 

[frenchie]

Why are you tieing me to Jasons questions if you are going to defend Randy's namecalling of me and your comment about me slandering him at least use something I posted. :wink:

Then why do you expect Randy to answer a question from Jason that implys BIG C is crooked Or is that how you and Jason had it planned :wink:

As far as Randys namecalling I don,t defend it.

 

[Jason]

The rest of the question was who has that money? How does that accuse a specific person? The comment that 60 grand is good wages for 1 guy is true. I would like 60 grand. I wanted to know if 1 guy got it. Randy said it was divided between the board (11 members now) and the rest would be given to 4H if any is left. Good enough for me.

 

[rkaiser]

Divided between 11 members?????

As Econo says ----- I hope your operation goes well Jason.

 

[Jason]

Don't you know BIG has 11 directors now? Unless they gave out wrong info.

Information continues to grow Randy. Maybe the new members didn't get part of the 60 grand?

 

[rkaiser]

Gone ----

I apologize once again.

Feel free to use your own form of torment Jason. If anyone other than Jason and Tam want to know when the money from BIG C was spent, we have an office and a secretary who will be more than happy to help. I have posted phone numbers and tried to show a simple budget earlier on this thread.

I can not help folks like Tam and Jason who have personal vendettas against me for not agreeing with them on other issues.

Enjoy your day Jason
Love Randy

 

[Jason]

Gee Randy you have a persecution complex. I have no vendettas against anyone.

I present facts I find sometimes looking for feedback, sometimes to inform others of what I have found.

 

[Anonymous]

Considering Randy and my previous sabor rattling on packer issues, I find myself in unfamiliar territory here.

I think the motive behind Big C and Randy's personal motives should be given the benefit of the doubt UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE.

I support any producer owned packing venture and that includes Mike Callicrate's and Big C. Without knowledge of the specifics of Big C, that doesn't mean I support the exact design, I simply support the effort. If it was successful, it would be a win-win situation because packer blamers like Randy would have come to the realization of how completely misled they were about packer profits and they would have the financial incentive to improve their product.

I think it's more than fair to ask hard questions about this venture and expect honest answers but I don't think it's fair for anyone to insinuate any inproprieties WITHOUT PROOF!

My beliefs are consistant whether it's large corporate packers being blamed for market manipulation or producer owned packing ventures being suspected of inproprieties. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!

We dealt with similar insinuations of inproprieties with NPPB by the very same individuals who were making false allegations about packers at the time. The LMA felt that their sacred commission dollars would be removed from the equation so they run it down every chance they could get which is the root of a lot of my feelings towards that lying bunch.

I know how it feels to work so hard for something you believe in only to have others question your motives.

Again, there is no problem in asking hard questions and expecting answers but Randy's response was certainly not unexpected considering the insinuations of inproprieties. I'm sorry but that just wasn't fair.


Fedup, I see you also have more problems with someone being called a liar than the person spreading the lies. That says a lot about you. Who made you "forum police"?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Considering Randy and my previous sabor rattling on packer issues, I find myself in unfamiliar territory here.

I think the motive behind Big C and Randy's personal motives should be given the benefit of the doubt UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE.

I support any producer owned packing venture and that includes Mike Callicrate's and Big C. Without knowledge of the specifics of Big C, that doesn't mean I support the exact design, I simply support the effort. If it was successful, it would be a win-win situation because packer blamers like Randy would have come to the realization of how completely misled they were about packer profits and they would have the financial incentive to improve their product.

I think it's more than fair to ask hard questions about this venture and expect honest answers but I don't think it's fair for anyone to insinuate any inproprieties WITHOUT PROOF!

My beliefs are consistant whether it's large corporate packers being blamed for market manipulation or producer owned packing ventures being suspected of inproprieties. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!

We dealt with similar insinuations of inproprieties with NPPB by the very same individuals who were making false allegations about packers at the time. The LMA felt that their sacred commission dollars would be removed from the equation so they run it down every chance they could get which is the root of a lot of my feelings towards that lying bunch.

I know how it feels to work so hard for something you believe in only to have others question your motives.

Again, there is no problem in asking hard questions and expecting answers but Randy's response was certainly not unexpected considering the insinuations of inproprieties. I'm sorry but that just wasn't fair.


Fedup, I see you also have more problems with someone being called a liar than the person spreading the lies. That says a lot about you. Who made you "forum police"?


~SH~

SH:My beliefs are consistant whether it's large corporate packers being blamed for market manipulation or producer owned packing ventures being suspected of inproprieties. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!

Econ: Except when it comes to perjury.