OK Sandhusker, here's the dadada deal!

[Anonymous]

STRAIGHT UP NOW SANDHUSKER!

I want you to read this very carefully so you understand it completely.

Agman and I have corresponded back and forth regarding the information we both have in relation to the bet that you and I finally agreed to. After we both analyzed all the information we had available to us and seeing Agman stick to his guns, I have to conceed that you win ONLY because I confined myself to calendar year 2004 as opposed to the entire period of time when the border was closed , which goes back to my original statement that you wrongly called a lie.

Remember when you stated, "for simplicity, I propose the time frame to be 2004" ? Well, little did you know that this "simplicity" would become your victory and my defeat. With that kind of luck Sandman, you should really take that $100 to Vegas.

Had I not committed myself to calendar year 2004 but rather the entire period of time when the border was closed, as per the original bet, I would have won the bet and literally "nailed your @ss to the wall". Whether or not you would have accepted ALL THE INFORMATION I was prepared to provide or accepted Agman's data is another matter.

When I was focused on holding you to your words of only having to prove the Tyson side of the equation, rather than Tyson and Cargill, I sealed my doom by confining myself to calendar year 2004 even though my original position was for the entire period of time when the border was closed.

I could easily weasel my way out of this by referring back to the original bet that I placed and defending the original statement that you and Randy challenged me on but when I said, "THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS", and you responded with "FINE, SH, WHATEVER....." calendar year 2004 was a part of those words so I was committed to that time frame in good conscience. Stupid mistake on my part. Agman also believes that I have committed myself to calendar year 2004 and I respect his unwavering honesty.

To take this further, keep in mind that my original bet was:

SH: "The bet is that the financial gains in Canadian packing plants by Excel and/or Tyson, during the period of time when Canadian live cattle imports were banned from the U.S., were offset by the losses in Tyson and/or Excel plants, in the U.S., that previously slaughtered Canadian cattle that no longer had Canadian cattle available to them. PARTICULARLY PLANTS IN THE NW."

Nowhere did I mention the 2004 time line in my original bet that I later foolishly committed myself to.


Your response to my original bet was:

Sandman (to SH): "Let me remind you of your original "questionable" statement; "that doesn't circumvent the fact that their NW U.S. plants were losing money which more than offset the gains in Canada."

Sandman: "NW plants are Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Not "particularly", but "exclusively". If the plant is not in the NW, it is not part of the bet. Don't be trying to muddle this - this is simple. How much money did the Tyson plants located in the NW U.S. lose - how much did the Tyson plants located in Canada make during the same time frame. For simplicity, I propose the time frame to be year2004.

To which I responded:

SH: "Is this the terms of the bet or not"?

As anyone can plainly see, by asking this question in response to your position above, I committed myself to the 2004 calendar year here as well.
I have to admit that its mighty tempting to use my original bet and the original quote in question to shirk the 2004 calendar year committment but I know what I agreed to and I have a conscience. I also owe that to Agman for keeping me honest.


Now you need to understand something before you start gloating, I lost the bet ONLY because I confined myself to calendar year 2004 but I am absolutely right about the losses in Tyson's Boise and Pasco plants being greater than the profits in Tyson's Lakeside plant for the TOTAL period of time when the border was closed. Agman, the Tyson representative, and the information I have all agree on that.

When the Tyson representative I talked to said, "WAY MORE", I know now that it was with the understanding that I was talking about the TOTAL period of time when the border was closed because I did not stipulate the 2004 calendar year that I committed to in the bet. That is where the discrepency came in between the position of the Tyson representative I talked to and Agman's position.

If you read the information I presented, the heavy losses in the Pasco and Boise plants and the reduced slaughter in those plants started occuring in the 4th quarter of Tyson's FY 2004 (July - Sept. 2004) and extended into the 2nd quarter of Tyson's FY 2005 (Jan. - Mar. 2005).

That corresponds with Tyson's $16M and $19M losses if I am remembering those two figures correctly.

I commend Fedup for picking up on the time period in question. Good job Fedup! I wish more people would analyze the data the way you did.

Simultaneously, the profits in the Lakeside plants were reduced to virtually nothing in December of 2004. The Tyson financial reports I quoted from Cattle Buyers Weekly mentioned this.

Stop and think about it. As the Canadian feeder cattle moved through the system, there was less cattle available which resulted in the closed plants and shift reductions. Closing the Canadian border to imports of live cattle did not stop the slaughter of Canadian feeders that were being fed in the NW feedlots, it only stopped the live cattle that were finished in Canada. At the same time, Canada is increasing their slaughter capacity to account for some of the excessive supplies. That's when the losses in Boise and Pasco were greater than the profits at Lakeside. That is fact.

Now, because I have honored the bet in good faith and will send you a check for $100, I would ask you to honor something for me. I don't care if you buy beer for your Husker games or send it to the hurricane victims in New Orleans but I ask you not to give one thin dime to R-CULT. I'd rather you burned it.

Can you give me your word on that since I have honored the 2004 calendar year committment?

Either way, PM me with your address and I'll send you a check.

I would also ask for an apology for calling me a liar because what I said was true and the data supports it. I don't care what you call me but I take being called a liar very personal because I don't lie. If I state something that is untrue, I'll own up to it but I never intentionally mislead anyone and my $100 should be proof of that.

This has been fun and the research I was forced to conduct was worth the $100 investment. I learned a lot in the process and I hope others did as well. That's what this forum should be about. RELIABLE INFORMATION!


Randy, I'll let your conscience be your guide regarding whether or not you owe NCBA a check for $100. You are still wrong on all accounts while Sandhusker caught a break.



~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Chastise me for this,but sh showing integrity, gets me wondering just what the numbers looked like,for him and agman to spend the time to collect this data and not be able to spin it to their side,only tells me what I suspicioned all along.

You could get liquid integrity and pour it in sh by the gallon and not a drop would stick.I aint buying his poor lil ole honest me "BS"you would'nt really take my money would you?

sh I have always said you packer puppets have more angles than a tri square,this takes the cake,pleading honesty and integrity only insults anyone's intelligence that has read your posts for a while.

fedup 2,your post is full of common sense,wish it was that easy,but you see we as cattle producer's have a problem.
Packers have long been taking advantage of the cattle man,and they will not stop until some one makes them, that some one is R CALF.

There has been countless informative articles posted on this site that has proven what the cattle man is up against,packers have deep pockets and strong political clout.They have entrenched themselves in every branch of the cattle industry.

This fight is not about porcupines it's about the cattle man getting treated fairly......................good luck

 

[fedup2]

One of the wonderful things about this country Haymaker, is that we still have the freedom to make our own choices. (in most cases!) If you feel that you are getting a raw deal & have looked at all the facts surrounding this deal, then by all means, you have to fight for what you believe in.

Knowing that not everyone thinks alike in this world, we have the choice of how we communicate or debate what is right or wrong. You lay your cards on the table & see if your hand is good enough. If someone resorts to name calling, insulting families, belittling those with different opinions, etc. then I know that man is out of cards & his hand isn't good enough. He is bluffing! We have all pulled a card from the bottom of the deck & gotten personal when provoked, but there is no need for it when your hand is good enough.

Stick to the facts Haymaker. Play them close to your vest but keep them above the table!

I don't agree with all you write, but I do enjoy reading them. (The kidding is great! The insults are a poor choice!)
Hope you are enjoying the beautiful day and time of the year.

 

[Tommy]

SH...Now, because I have honored the bet in good faith and will send you a check for $100, I would ask you to honor something for me. I don't care if you buy beer for your Husker games or send it to the hurricane victims in New Orleans but I ask you not to give one thin dime to R-CULT. I'd rather you burned it.

Scott, you knew what the bet was. Sandhusker said he was going to send your $100 dollars to R-CALF if you lost and was going to write a $100 dollar check and send it to the NCBA if he lost. You lost, you agreed to the terms, he can do with the check what he wants, it is not any of your business now.

 

[mrj]

Meanwhile, those doing the gloating are going to completely ignore, or even deny that SH was correct in that Tysons' losses in those two USA plants were greater than the profits in the Canadian plants OVER THE REAL TIME SPAN OF THE BORDER CLOSURE.

Isn't it pretty cheesy to claim victory for a premise by including ONLY aA PART OF THE TIME FRAME that gives pseudo validity to your argument, rather than the ACTUAL TIME FRAME OF THE BORDER CLOSURE?

Enjoy your sort-of-a "victory" R-CALF apologists, while you can! Doesn't it look a lot like some other R-CALF "victories"?

MRJ

 

[rancher]

Meanwhile, those doing the gloating are going to completely ignore, or even deny that SH was correct in that Tysons' losses in those two USA plants were greater than the profits in the Canadian plants OVER THE REAL TIME SPAN OF THE BORDER CLOSURE.

Isn't it pretty cheesy to claim victory for a premise by including ONLY aA PART OF THE TIME FRAME that gives pseudo validity to your argument, rather than the ACTUAL TIME FRAME OF THE BORDER CLOSURE?

Enjoy your sort-of-a "victory" R-CALF apologists, while you can! Doesn't it look a lot like some other R-CALF "victories"?

MRJ

:gag: :gag: :gag:

Lets see some numbers for the whole time span, so we can see if that is all bluff. I would like to see numbers that changed SH's mind to accepting, but not with out a spin, for the year time span.

 

[Anonymous]

Didn't take long for the expected gloaters to show up.

Hayseed (supposedly): "Chastise me for this,but sh showing integrity, gets me wondering just what the numbers looked like,for him and agman to spend the time to collect this data and not be able to spin it to their side,only tells me what I suspicioned all along."

I could have easily spun back to the original challenge which would have included the 6 months of 2005 where the big losses in Boise and Pasco occurred and the profits in Lakeside were reduced but I didn't because I agreed to calendar year 2004. My mistake!

What information did you provide to the debate Hayseed? Did you contradict anything I stated or presented? Of course you didn't! You provided a sideline critic evaluation after the fact that's probably not even yours. Real brilliance there! Who wrote your post for you this time Hayseed? I bet it wasn't Wes Ishmael again was it?

Hayseed (supposedly): "You could get liquid integrity and pour it in sh by the gallon and not a drop would stick.I aint buying his poor lil ole honest me "BS"you would'nt really take my money would you?"

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Who really cares what you buy? You didn't contribute anything but an evaluation after the fact. Anyone can offer that much. Leaves no doubt which team you play for.

This whole bet was me proving my point which I did just not within the confines of calendar year 2004. Did anyone present anything that contradicted anything I presented? NO THEY DID NOT!

The debates are always about me proving my point, it's never about anyone bringing anything that proves me wrong. That's been Sandhusker's MO from day one. He questions everything that disagrees with what he wants to believe, challenges everything that he does not agree with, and by doing so creates the illusion of someone else being wrong when he never backs his position with supporting facts or contradicts anything I state with facts to the contrary.

Sandmaker said I lied. DID HE PROVE THAT I LIED?? OF COURSE HE DIDN'T! He challenged me to prove that I was telling the truth just like he always does. You consider that a victory? I lost the bet by agreeing to a time frame that was not even part of the original debate, I never lost the debate!


Answer this Hayseed, show me where anyone brought any proof to the table to prove that the losses in Boise and Pasco were not greater than the gains in Lakeside during the entire period of time that the border was closed?

Did anyone offer any proof to prove me wrong? HELL NO! They waited to critique what I brought to the table to back my position.

I asked for proof in the Pickett case over 30 times and all I ever heard was, "Read Taylors data, it's in the proceedings". Everyone who wants to blame packers agrees with the Pickett verdict by the jury but nobody can tell me what the evidence was that won the case? Where is the individual thought process there?

Pop the champagne corks Haymaker because your hero won the debate and lost the argument. Wow, some victory! The losses in Boise and Pasco, DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CANADIAN BORDER CLOSURE, were greater than the gains in Lakeside for that same time period just as I always said they were. They just weren't in calendar year 2004.

I know how much this means to you to actually claim a victory for once but the means in which you obtained it were based on my mistake of singling out calender year 2004, not by anyone disproving the information I provided. If you consider that a victory, that's pretty sad.

Hayseed (supposedly): "sh I have always said you packer puppets have more angles than a tri square,this takes the cake,pleading honesty and integrity only insults anyone's intelligence that has read your posts for a while."

Hayseed you have never contradicted anything I have presented on this forum ever. Not once. What happens to your side in the courtroom where facts really matter?

Pickett - LOSS
Canadian dumping case - LOSS
Border closure - LOSS
Checkoff constitutionality - LOSS
CAFTA - LOSS
Country of Origin Labeling - Haven't seen it yet
Mandatory Price Reporting - Nobody would know if it was gone tomorrow

Wow, that's some impressive track record! You're really playing with a winning team there aren't you Hayseed?

Hayseed (supposedly): "There has been countless informative articles posted on this site that has proven what the cattle man is up against,packers have deep pockets and strong political clout."

What's been presented is countless packer victim mentality articles with absolutely nothing to support them but opinions and theories. Opinions and theories are not informative, the facts that support those opinions and theories are.

Do you realize that Randy and Sandhusker can't even agree on whether the packers wanted the border opened or whether they wanted it to stay closed. Both are blaming the packers so they join forces even when their arguments on packer motives are conflicting. What does that tell you? Only one of them can be right but as long as their both arguing against packers they won't challenge eachother. That's what happens when you form opinions based on theories rather than facts.


HOIST A COLD ONE HAYSEED, you finally have something to gloat about but just remember, nobody proved my original challenge incorrect.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Rancher: "Lets see some numbers for the whole time span, so we can see if that is all bluff. I would like to see numbers that changed SH's mind to accepting, but not with out a spin, for the year time span."

Go get those numbers rancher. At this point, I don't give a damn what you believe. You'll believe what you want to believe, not what the facts will support. Present the numbers that prove that Lakeside made more than the Boise and Pasco plants lost during the period of time when the border was closed.

If you want to challenge my position, bring the data that proves your case. I'm done playing this little game of having to defend everything I say. I learned my lesson, YOU PROVE ME WRONG!

The losses in the Pasco and Boise plants were greater than the gains in the Lakeside plant during the period of time when the border was closed.

If you think I'm wrong, PROVE IT!



~SH~

 

[rancher]

Rancher: "Lets see some numbers for the whole time span, so we can see if that is all bluff. I would like to see numbers that changed SH's mind to accepting, but not with out a spin, for the year time span."

Go get those numbers rancher. At this point, I don't give a damn what you believe. You'll believe what you want to believe, not what the facts will support. Present the numbers that prove that Lakeside made more than the Boise and Pasco plants lost during the period of time when the border was closed.

If you want to challenge my position, bring the data that proves your case. I'm done playing this little game of having to defend everything I say. I learned my lesson, YOU PROVE ME WRONG!

The losses in the Pasco and Boise plants were greater than the gains in the Lakeside plant during the period of time when the border was closed.

If you think I'm wrong, PROVE IT!



~SH~

Does this mean that you won't come out and play anymore? Maybe we could play a different game and change the rules at the end so you will want to keep playing. We never from the start seen any numbers, I myself would like to see them. How else are you going to learn?

 

[Sandhusker]

I won't gloat or make many comments on your post - mainly because it was so long I read a few paragraphs and saw the book coming up.

I'll pm you my address. Make the check out to R-CALF. I will give you the choice on whether or not you want a membership from your money. You will get a good magazine and full voting rights. If you don't want the membership, I'll just send it as a simple donation.

Luv ya bunches!

 

[Sandhusker]

Meanwhile, those doing the gloating are going to completely ignore, or even deny that SH was correct in that Tysons' losses in those two USA plants were greater than the profits in the Canadian plants OVER THE REAL TIME SPAN OF THE BORDER CLOSURE.

Isn't it pretty cheesy to claim victory for a premise by including ONLY aA PART OF THE TIME FRAME that gives pseudo validity to your argument, rather than the ACTUAL TIME FRAME OF THE BORDER CLOSURE?

Enjoy your sort-of-a "victory" R-CALF apologists, while you can! Doesn't it look a lot like some other R-CALF "victories"?

MRJ

MRJ, I guess this "R-CALF apologist" needs to point out that the original comment that got SH in trouble was a reply to Kaiser's comment that included Tyson AND Cargill. I knew he was joshing because Cargill's numbers are private and not available to the public - he wouldn't know if they made money or not. I let him off on the Cargill issue as that was a fish in a barrel.

I'm not surprised a NCBA member forgot how it all started, since NCBA forgot their original stance on COOL and their 11 point directive. :wink:
Right back at ya!

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I won't gloat ......"

followed by:

Sandman: "Luv ya bunches!"

Sandman: "I won't gloat or make many comments on your post - mainly because it was so long I read a few paragraphs and saw the book coming up."

I'll let these arrogant statements in reaction to my concession to my own defeat define who you are!

Sandman: "Make the check out to R-CALF. I will give you the choice on whether or not you want a membership from your money. You will get a good magazine and full voting rights. If you don't want the membership, I'll just send it as a simple donation."

Make no mistake Sandman, I will never, EVER write a check out to R-CULT let alone ever become a member.

I'll send you cash and if you want to give it to that lying, deceptive outfit so they can lie to consumers and producers about the affects of BSE and what they "BELIEVE" impacts cattle markets, that's your business but I will never write a check out to R-CULT. REST ASSURED OF THAT!

What's your name so I know who to send the cash to?

I'm not sending a $100 in cash to an address without a name.


You must be so proud of how I defeated myself because you sure as hell didn't prove me wrong on anything.

Sandhusker: "MRJ, I guess this "R-CALF apologist" needs to point out that the original comment that got SH in trouble was a reply to Kaiser's comment that included Tyson AND Cargill."

The following statement never got me in trouble, what got me in trouble was my own stupidity of locking myself into calender year 2004. You never brought anything to the table to prove me wrong on this issue.

SH (previous): "That doesn't circumvent the fact that their NW U.S. plants were losing money which more than offset the gains in Canada"

You said I lied with that statement, NOW BACK IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT I LIED ABOUT THAT STATEMENT????

You made the allegation, NOW PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch the diversion dance folks.............


I suppose that can be found with Taylor's proof right?


What's your name so I know where to send the cash to?

????? ???????
Box 67
Cody, NE 69211


No name, no cash!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

You know, SH, I was almost feeling sorrry for you until your last pleasant post. I no longer have those feelings.

SH, "That's been Sandhusker's MO from day one. He questions everything that disagrees with what he wants to believe, challenges everything that he does not agree with, and by doing so creates the illusion of someone else being wrong when he never backs his position with supporting facts or contradicts anything I state with facts to the contrary."

The above paragraph describes yourself quite well.

SH, "Make no mistake Sandman, I will never, EVER write a check out to R-CULT let alone ever become a member."

Fine with me, just make it out to R-CALF.

BTW, classy move putting out my mailing address.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "You know, SH, I was almost feeling sorrry for you until your last pleasant post. I no longer have those feelings."

Shucks, I guess it's just my unlucky day huh?

Don't feel sorry for me, I shot my own foot off by committing to the 2004 calendar year. I should have been thinking instead of reacting. I'm only upset at myself, not you. It's not like you had anything to do with my losing the bet. You didn't contribute a damn thing to the entire debate but I guess I should have expected that.

Sandman: "Fine with me, just make it out to R-CALF."

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

There won't be any check, it's cash or nothing!

I can't send cash without a name to go with your address.

I need to know who is getting this cash.

Did you actually think I was going to send cash to an address without a name?

Name please!

Sandman: "BTW, classy move putting out my mailing address."

Thank you! Now all I need is your name.

Sandman: "The above paragraph describes yourself quite well."

I thought you said you didn't read my post?

What else have you lied to us about? Besides how Creekstone procures cattle?



Here is the question a second time for you to ignore:

Where is your proof that I lied about the losses in the NW plants exceeding the profits in the Lakeside plant while the border was closed?

You said I lied, now where is your proof to back that allegation?

That should be worth $100.

Rancher: "We never from the start seen any numbers, I myself would like to see them. How else are you going to learn?"

Same way everyone else learns by doing your own research.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

I didn't realize you were in a position to negotiate. Address it to "Occupant". It'll get to me just fine. I get several of those each week.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I didn't realize you were in a position to negotiate."

Learn something every day don't you?

"Occupant" my @ss!

I'm not going to say it again, I'm not sending you $100 in cash unless I have a name to send it to. One of life's little inconveniences huh?

If I am going to pay $100 to someone on a bet where they never presented anything to back their position, I am going to know who is getting the money. That's not negotiable. What's the big secret? Anyone can find out who you are. There can't be that many bankers in Cody, NE with your mailing address that think they know a lot more about the cattle/beef industry than they actually do.

No name, no cash!



Now, for a third time, where is your proof that I lied about the Boise and Pasco plants losing more money than Lakeside gained while the Canadian border was closed?

You made the allegation now where is the proof?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

You've got all the information you need to settle the bet. When we were first setting up this stupid deal, I said I would have you make the check out to R-CALF and you never objected. Why are you objecting now?

Your charachter is showing.

 

[Anonymous]

You stated the terms of the bet now I'll state the terms of the settlement.

This is my last post on this topic.



~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

I've stated the terms of the settlement.

NO NAME, NO CASH

Take it or leave it.

You knew what you were doing when you called me a liar and you knew how I'd react.

I know what I'm doing now.



~SH~

I hope sh dont pay it,be worth $100 to prove to every one what he is made of................good luck

 

[Sandhusker]

You stated the terms of the bet now I'll state the terms of the settlement.

This is my last post on this topic.



~SH~

The terms of the settlement were part of the bet and you know it.

Your charachter is showing.