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

Negative or positive, what do you perfer?

Is negativity a desired trait?

  • Rather be around positive people

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Rather be around negative people

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
I am grateful you were able to e xpress your opinion, even if it is rather wordy. I guess our opinions differ, to say the least.

I'm glad you were able to express yours. It did cover many different aspects, thus the length. :shock:

From now on, I will stick to only one topic, I guess. That should not create any problems with peopole trying to figure out what I mean.

As far as you believing I am ALWAYS wrong, today I am serene enough to allow people who disagree with me to be wrong in my eyes even if they are right in theirs. It's more fun being serene than hostile. :D

Have a good day, Scott.

PS. I just saw this in another post. I consider it interesting, if not relevant to your critique of my post. You probably find it merely coincidental.

Here's something I found interesting; Henry Bonilla of Texas and Bob Goodlatte of Virginia are leading the charge to replace M-COOL with V-COOL, (which we already have). Guess which two representatives are #s 2 & 3 in the house for receiving total "donantions" from agribusiness, and hae the same ranking for "donations" from PACs?
 
Chief,

I'll take your response as proof of your inability to back your position with supporting facts or contradict my position with opposing facts.

Take the statement route, that's always more comfortable than trying ot defend a "factually defenseless" position.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
Chief,

I'll take your response as proof of your inability to back your position with supporting facts or contradict my position with opposing facts.

Take the statement route, that's always more comfortable than trying ot defend a "factually defenseless" position.


~SH~
Click to expand...

Yeah, Chief, and when someone asks you to back your position with facts, remember it is much easier to simply say, "I'm not going to play your little games" or "I'm not going to back every little thing I say", or "I'm not going to back my position so you think you have something on me." Then, feel free to preach about others being "factually defenseless"! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
I agree with alot of what everyone has said. I would caution those of you who think all positive people are "happy". Many people are good liers about how they really feel.

Sometimes this scares me, when I see someone too positive, all of the time. These can be people who feel they cannot go to anyone for help with their problems. Much illness is caused by what people hold in!

I think it is healthy to let it all out regularly (at least some of it!). Most importantly you need to find people who enjoy the things you enjoy and just hang out a while. It is just as important to have some time to yourself, and do something outside. Nothing like fresh air, sunshine and Mother Nature to show you what is truely important in life.
 
Sand: "Yeah, Chief, and when someone asks you to back your position with facts, remember it is much easier to simply say, "I'm not going to play your little games" or "I'm not going to back every little thing I say", or "I'm not going to back my position so you think you have something on me." Then, feel free to preach about others being "factually defenseless"!"

How ironic, coming from the person who hammers and hammers on the Creekstone issue without ever producing one stitch of evidence that that the Japanese parliament would have even allowed U.S. imports with 100% BSE testing.

When you are as "factually void" as Sandhusker, you question everything that opposes your position and question nothing that supports it. That becomes the MO!

If Sandhusker's opposition refuses to support EVERY position he challenges with supporting facts, he uses that in his feeble attempt to discredit them on everything they say.

Those who cannot debate, discredit. Same-O, Same-O!

"well, ah, gee, ah, if you can't answer that question, makes a person wonder if you can support any of your positions...."

Go Sandhusker!

Name me one cattle or beef industry issue where you have ever proven me wrong with opposing facts. JUST ONE!

The fact that you can't speaks volumes about your ability to back any position you have.



~SH~
 
SH, "Name me one cattle or beef industry issue where you have ever proven me wrong with opposing facts. JUST ONE! The fact that you can't speaks volumes about your ability to back any position you have. "

How about last week when I proved the USDA said nothing about false advertising in denying Creekstone? Is that recent enough?
 
Sandhusker: "How about last week when I proved the USDA said nothing about false advertising in denying Creekstone? Is that recent enough?"

I never claimed that USDA used the term "false advertising" in denying Ceekstone. They may have but I am not aware of it.

USDA denying Creekstone the right to market 100% BSE tested beef from young cattle was based on the fact that testing of cattle less than 30 months of age would not reveal BSE prions.

THAT MAKES IT "FALSE ADVERTISING".

Just because I am unaware of whether USDA used the term "false advertising" does not change the fact that selling BSE tested beef from cattle less than 30 months of age is "false advertising" since it sells the "PERCEPTION" of food safety rather than selling legitimate food safety.

Nice attempt at another deceptive spin job. Too bad that I have your deception figured out.



~SH~
 
SH:"USDA denying Creekstone the right to market 100% BSE tested beef from young cattle was based on the fact that testing of cattle less than 30 months of age would not reveal BSE prions."

Correction; Testing of cattle HAS found prions in cattle less than 30 months of age. Reader posted a reliable source just a few days ago and revealed the true numbers of UTM cattle that had tested positive.

You meant 20 months didn't you?
 
Mike: "You meant 20 months didn't you?"

No, I meant BSE testing would not reveal prions in cattle under 30 months of age IN MOST CASES.

I stand corrected on the rare exceptions to the rule between 24 and 30 months of age.

Testing of cattle between 24 and 30 months of age does not assure food safety just because a rare few would reveal prions at that age.

Regarding those few animals between the ages of 24 and 30 months that tested positive, were those tests confirmed with the very best BSE tests available?

We had more than our share of "false positives", were these?


~SH~
 
SH, "I never claimed that USDA used the term "false advertising" in denying Ceekstone. "

SH on May 27, "FALSE ADVERTISING" and that's why USDA did not allow it!"
 
SH: "I never claimed that USDA used the term "false advertising" in denying Ceekstone. "

Sand (creating an illusion): "SH on May 27, "FALSE ADVERTISING" and that's why USDA did not allow it!"

Once again, I never claimed that USDA used the term "false advertising" in denying Creekstone. Those were my words based on USDA's concerns.

You got nothing again other than your typical deception.



~SH~
 
So let me get this straight SH, just so's I understand correctly:

The USDA denied Creekstone (among other small packers) the right to test under a 1913 "Serum" Act, by claiming "False Advertising" when Fielding said right up front to the Japs and the whole world that he could not guarantee the accuracy of the tests that the USDA had approved? [These tests were questioned when given approval]
Just after Ann Veneman had denied Stanley Prusiner (who had been given the Nobel Prize in science for the "Prion Theory", which has NOT been disproven and is "THE BASIS" for SRM Removal), on 13 occasions, the right to sit down with her and convince her to test ALL cattle slaughtered in the U.S. for a period of ONE YEAR to know the full impact of BSE in the U.S.
NOW, where's the DAMN SCIENCE you so proudly quote?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top